| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lookatme
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 09/12/2011 : 5:14:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by HomeNudist
Sorry lookatme, it ain't gonna happen.
Would you openly have sex on a clothed beach? In the courtyard of your local Shopping Mall? How about the center field bleachers during a baseball game? (gives a whole new meaning to "seventh inning stretch")
That is the reason. Having open sex on a nude beach gives the prudes another reason to force the closing of what nude beaches remain.
Hi.
No, i didn't mean having open sex (although i wouldn't mind doing so, i will admit, the same i think such a thing should be acceptable) not even did i mean openly looking for sex. I just meant not pretending that nudity isn't naturally a turn-on and not being bashed if i get turned on by a woman's nude body. I think i'm clear enough.
P.S: But wait, are we supposed to give a darn about what the prudes think?
|
|
Country: Uruguay
| Posts: 23 |
 |
|
|
HomeNudist
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 6:58:07 PM
|
Read up on San Onofre beach and get back to us.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 182 |
|
|
|
lookatme
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 12:28:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by HomeNudist
Read up on San Onofre beach and get back to us.
HomeNudist:
Are you sure you're not being the prude here? Don't feel offended, i think what i'm arguing about is reasonable enough to be understood.
If we are really so open-minded, we shouldn't be afraid of accepting that naturally, the naked body is arousing. I could feel aroused by a naked lady even if i'm not even actively looking for sex with her. Hope this time around you understand.
|
|
Country: Uruguay
| Posts: 23 |
|
|
|
Admin
Forum Admin
|
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 4:21:31 PM
|
lookatme, your questions have been brought to my attention. I will try to address your concerns as simply as possible.
You may have a misconception that nudism means total acceptance of anything you choose to do with your naked body in the presence of others. This is not accurate. There is only one thing that nudists tolerate that wouldn't be tolerated in another setting, and that is "mere nudity". The activity of "mere nudity" is supported by our Supreme Court as a protected freedom. Once an element of seeking sexual gratification from the nudity becomes evident, we lose all protection of this freedom. As referenced by the previous poster, we are losing one of our most cherished nude beaches because of the perverts that refuse to grasp this fact, and let their activities cause the closing of a popular beach.
This is why in this forum we are careful to separate nude people that behave well, from those that don't.
No one is suggesting that you must censor your private thoughts, as long as you do not make anyone uncomfortable with your fixation on their nudity. Sooner or later you'll get used to it, and understand that we are not here for sexual gratification at all. The essence of nudism is that you have the ability to separate someone's mere nudity from your need for sexual gratification.
If you are craving a more sexual interaction with those you meet in the nude, you need to go to a sex club and leave the nudists alone.
We hope you get it worked out.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1888 |
|
|
|
lookatme
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 9:44:57 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
lookatme, your questions have been brought to my attention. I will try to address your concerns as simply as possible.
You may have a misconception that nudism means total acceptance of anything you choose to do with your naked body in the presence of others. This is not accurate. There is only one thing that nudists tolerate that wouldn't be tolerated in another setting, and that is "mere nudity". The activity of "mere nudity" is supported by our Supreme Court as a protected freedom. Once an element of seeking sexual gratification from the nudity becomes evident, we lose all protection of this freedom. As referenced by the previous poster, we are losing one of our most cherished nude beaches because of the perverts that refuse to grasp this fact, and let their activities cause the closing of a popular beach.
This is why in this forum we are careful to separate nude people that behave well, from those that don't.
No one is suggesting that you must censor your private thoughts, as long as you do not make anyone uncomfortable with your fixation on their nudity. Sooner or later you'll get used to it, and understand that we are not here for sexual gratification at all. The essence of nudism is that you have the ability to separate someone's mere nudity from your need for sexual gratification.
If you are craving a more sexual interaction with those you meet in the nude, you need to go to a sex club and leave the nudists alone.
We hope you get it worked out.
Hi Admin
I did NEVER mean to offend any of you (sorry if it happened). I understood, but i think you didn't understand me.
I clearly said in my last post "even if i'm not actively looking for sex" That's what i don't think you understood. I'm NOT seeking for a place where i can freely have sex, i'm just seeking a place where i can be both nude and not expected to hide my thoughts, where other people are expected to be ok with them, while not necessarily me looking for sex.
You say "as long as you do not make anyone uncomfortable" That's what i'm looking for...
A place where everyone is comfortable with what i explain.
Then, you tell me that nudism essence is separating nudity from sexual gratification.
That's pretty... interesting. I think it's pretty impossible. We've gotta face it, it's just natural for nudity to trigger arousal.
Greetings.
|
Edited by - lookatme on 09/13/2011 10:58:58 PM |
|
Country: Uruguay
| Posts: 23 |
|
|
|
Psycho K
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 01:09:36 AM
|
Natural as it may be, legally and perhaps philosophically as far as "true nudism" goes, whatever arousal felt is expected to be kept private. For example, this includes erect males. Others can't prove that you're erect because you found something arousing, but since the possibility exists, it could make people uncomfortable. I suppose a male in this situation is just expected to be "idle" in some way until that subsides. You'd have to ask more experienced people exactly what that means. Legally, it's clear why aroused men paying no mind to this state looks bad in the eyes of the most scrutinous textiles looking for any reason to restrict our freedom at the few places we have it.
|
Edited by - Psycho K on 09/16/2011 05:16:31 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 34 |
|
|
|
lookatme
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 01:35:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Psycho K
Natural as it may be, legally and perhaps philosophically as far as "true nudism" goes, whatever arousal felt is expected to be kept private. For example, this includes erect males. Others can't prove that you're erect because you found something arousing, but since the possibility exists, it could make people uncomfortable. I suppose a male in this situation is just expected to be "idle" in some way until that subsides. You'd have to ask more experienced people exactly what that means. Legally, it's clear why aroused men paying no mind to this state looks bad in the yes of the most scrutinous textiles looking for any reason to restrict our freedom at the few places we have it.
"Whatever arousal felt is expected to be kept private"? That's what i don't agree on with most of the people who have (kindly enough) replied to me. It shouldn't be expected to be kept private. At least that's what i'm looking for, a place where i can share my nudity with other who do the same freely, and should i feel aroused, not be expected to keep that private. Even if i'm not actively looking for sex, like i previously said.
|
|
Country: Uruguay
| Posts: 23 |
|
|
|
Psycho K
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 02:39:33 AM
|
You don't have to quote my post if you're posting right after me. I share your view; however, what you're seeking is not discussed here as far as I know. Even if it was, it would not be called "nudism" here.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 34 |
|
|
|
intheflesh
New Member
|
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 6:52:24 PM
|
wow i never expected nudism to be so judgmental. my wife and i are looking forward to taking a first nudism resort vacation and the last thing i thought i would here is how uptight everyone is. my wife and i love the world of no clothing for all the reasons that have been posted here in the past. I fully understand you want to keep the Morales of what nudism fully is. and that is what we are looking for. on the other hand if i want to kiss and hug my wife to me that is as natural as being nude.(and yes i love my wife deeply and if i get a little excited that is also natural so if you believe in all natural please you cant pick and choose what is natural. i hope to here some feedback because we are going to spend alot of money for us and would like to make sure what the standard is thank you in advance
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 8 |
|
|
|
HomeNudist
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 7:57:38 PM
|
Simple answer, How would you behave in a similar clothed environment?
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 182 |
|
|
|
lookatme
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 5:31:17 PM
|
Well, i must say i'm deeply disappointed about nudism. I also find it odd (and pretty hypocritical...) that people are ACTUALLY EXPECTED to be fully immune to arousal around other nude people (that obviously includes opposite sex.
I wonder what is it called what i'm looking for, but i know the difference is not as "black/white" as not nudism but a sex club. Something more "in-between"
|
|
Country: Uruguay
| Posts: 23 |
|
|
|
FlCpl4NewdFun
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 8:23:41 PM
|
I'm not sure what you are asking. One can be aroused without an erection, and one can have an erection without being aroused. Neither of which has anything to do with nudism.
I think you will have to search far and wide for a non-swinging club that is indifferent about men walking around with erections (without regard to whether or not one is looking for sex). It's not hypocritical or odd at all. I think textiles would be just as offended if you were obviously erect in your jeans in the checkout line at the market (despite your claims to not want to jump the cashier). Why should nudists be expected to be any different.
So just lighten up a bit, save your boner for more private moments, and all will be well, thoroughly enjoyable, and judgement free during any visit to a nudist venue of your liking.
Cheers!
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 219 |
|
|
|
lookatme
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 10:39:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FlCpl4NewdFun
I'm not sure what you are asking. One can be aroused without an erection, and one can have an erection without being aroused. Neither of which has anything to do with nudism.
I think you will have to search far and wide for a non-swinging club that is indifferent about men walking around with erections (without regard to whether or not one is looking for sex). It's not hypocritical or odd at all. I think textiles would be just as offended if you were obviously erect in your jeans in the checkout line at the market (despite your claims to not want to jump the cashier). Why should nudists be expected to be any different.
So just lighten up a bit, save your boner for more private moments, and all will be well, thoroughly enjoyable, and judgement free during any visit to a nudist venue of your liking.
Cheers!
Why should nudists be expected to be any different? Because they are nude. Nude body naturally triggers arousal. FACE IT.
And this, is why i would find it odd to be expected to "save my boner for more private moments"
Don't be so prude, if you're running around naked, the opposite sex has all the right to freely be aroused as long as they are able to refrain what they actually DO.
|
|
Country: Uruguay
| Posts: 23 |
|
|
|
Psycho K
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 05:42:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FlCpl4NewdFun
One can be aroused without an erection, and one can have an erection without being aroused.
I think textiles would be just as offended if you were obviously erect in your jeans in the checkout line at the market (despite your claims to not want to jump the cashier). Why should nudists be expected to be any different.
I don't know how to react to the textile example. When I'm erect wearing clothes, I honestly feel that my uneasiness primarily results from having clothes on. If I happen to be walking around doing whatever I planned to do and this happens, aside from some quick adjustment to mitigate physical discomfort, I don't stop what I'm doing with the hopes that it's going to swiftly go away. Do men really do that? If they do, I'm not one of them and I've yet to detect any social awkwardness because of this. Maybe that makes me unusual, but a lot of textiles would call us nudists unusual too, so I'm not sure what to make of that.
If there really is a prevalent social stigma that exists for erect men (clothed or not) doing anything other than waiting for it to go away, that feels problematic. I live in the U.S., so I can imagine such uneasiness existing, but isn't this a result of whatever Puritan traditions that founded this country? You know, the same ones probably contribute to why nudism is so misunderstood? American media's profitable link between nudity and eroticism makes a mess of things too, but I don't see this misunderstanding as irresolvable.
It's understandable that nudists would want to keep many of the values that exist in the textile world that has a big influence in their lives. Feeling a significant social distinction because you're naked or around naked people is probably undesirable. If we're valuing consistency in this regard, then behaviorally, if you don't make efforts to hide your erection when clothed, wouldn't it be strange to be told that you're obligated to if naked? The easiest "counterargument" is that the erection is more noticeable because of nudity thus it is now worthwhile to hide. If that is so, it feels implied that there is something inherently objectionable about a erect penis being visible to others. To the (American) textiles that are convinced being naked is only appropriate having sex (and bathing), this could confirm their opinion and work against us. If you're talking about us, clearly, we understand nudity to be more than this, so why does it remains objectionable? I think this is what lookatme is asking. Furthermore, he mentions the potential for inequality since women do not have indicators of arousal that are as readily apparent or as random as the male's erection.
quote:
Originally posted by lookatme
Why should nudists be expected to be any different? Because they are nude. Nude body naturally triggers arousal. FACE IT.
I disagree. It probably does not cause a significant increase in the chance of arousal "naturally." An attractive person, clothed or not, has potential to arouse people. If you're right, people (e.g., some tribes) that wear little to no clothing, should be aroused much more often. I doubt this is so. For those of us that grew up wearing significantly more clothing as a social norm (and did not grow up in a nudist household), nudity is novel and possibly not something textiles see in-person until they have sex. If you consider this along with something like the aforementioned American media factor (don't know if it's similar in Uruguay), it's hard to imagine people not getting aroused by nudity. Still, this doesn't have the kind of power to make an unattractive clothed person become attractive because he or she is now naked.
Let me try to summarize this as a question (more fitting for this topic) that could resolve many points. Is a naked man that does not hide his erection and essentially ignores it unacceptable in the nudist community because we nudists personally have a problem with it, or because of how textiles will negatively judge us for it? If the former, why and if such a man interacted with you in a nudist area that did not have an explicit rule against this, would you take action against him?
It is clear now that this is unacceptable behavior for most nudist areas at this time, so this question seeks why this is.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 34 |
|
|
|
Bob Knows
Forum Member
|
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 10:59:50 AM
|
quote:
Let me try to summarize this as a question (more fitting for this topic) that could resolve many points. Is a naked man that does not hide his erection and essentially ignores it unacceptable in the nudist community because we nudists personally have a problem with it, or because of how textiles will negatively judge us for it? If the former, why and if such a man interacted with you in a nudist area that did not have an explicit rule against this, would you take action against him?
I hesitate to leap into a discussion that is fraught with so many prejudices, however I feel moved to inject my opinion.
I have never met a man who could consciously control the state of his penis. It hangs down, sticks out, or shrinks up on its own schedule whether convenient or not.
It seems to me that criticizing men for whatever state their penis may be is blatant misandry, bigotry against men. It is equal to forcing women to cover breasts when they have hard nipples. Such prejudice against men takes many forms in the nudist community and all of it is unacceptable in my opinion.
Blessings
Bob Knows
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 295 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Post your question here.
