StevieLorna wrote responding to my quote:Whether or not wearing a cock ring make you sexually promiscuous or more likely, wishing to be sexually promiscuous its how others see you, and thats the problem.Maybe that's true of most people, and I'll grant that it could be taken as grounds for suspicion in some circumstances. But as I mentioned before, any sort of pubic adornment is a grey area. I've seen more than a few ladies with a "landing strip" shave, with a bit of hair remaining above the vulva but shaved clean elsewhere. I can't imagine that it's for comfort. It clearly signals to me that the woman wants to call attention to her pubic cleft. But am I to assume that the woman is trolling for sexual contact? Or maybe she's seen it on other women and just likes the look?Some men shave their pubic area, and say that it's for comfort. Others do it to make their junk look bigger. But in the latter case, are they signaling that they're ready for sex, or do they just like the look of having a longer penis? When women shave their pubic area, is it for comfort or because they want people to take their shaven pubes as a sign that they're out for promiscuity?If we draw the line at cock rings, fine, we draw the line there. But there are many other potential lines to be drawn, and many other reasons for supposing that people are signaling more than just a love of self and a love of nudity. My real concern is that, once we start drawing these lines, we are tempted to draw others, about pubic hair, tattoos, or even haircuts. (Is that far-fetched? I remember a time when long hair was definitely a symbol of the counter-culture, to the point where I was once spit on simply because I had long hair then.)I'm talking, of course, about how we regard ourselves. How others regard us, including the people who share beaches with us or with public magistrates who dictate the bounds of propriety, is something else again. We have to be sensitive to those feelings, too, particularly when our right to use those beaches is at stake. I don't think there's any disagreement there.
This is exactly it. These people want genital piercings and cock rings to be the scapegoat for the nudist community. When in reality the decline of public nudist spaces is due to people behaving poorly in public, overt sexual acts in public, etc. And those two things are not one in the same. Obviously they think genital piercings and jewelry equates to sexual deviants and they want to believe that that is what's causing the decline in nudist populations and public nude venues. A man having a Prince Albert ring, or a woman having her clitoris pierced doesn't equate to swinging and sexual promiscuity anymore than a person shaving bare to make their genitals more visible. Or as you said, one shaving a certain design into their genitals, obviously they went out of their way to shave in a landing strip, or a triangle patch of pubes...does that mean they are looking for sex? Of course not. And its absolutely ignorant for people to think that.
The scapegoat argument is a total false flag. I could use another phrase but I will keep it civil. Facts are facts. The nudist community is the one being scapegoated. Mainstream society sees the guys on public beaches wearing a "simple cock ring" and they move to a precursor to sex. It doesnt matter what the nudist community thinks at that point get your facts straight and stop all the deceptive projection. Why is it you all never speak to the real issue. No one can tell you what to do or wear in the privacy of your own home. But a beach is not a private space and in every civilized society their a norms for what is appropriate in a public spaces.
We are losing so many of the spaces for simple nudity while all the individual people who want to put their individual "comfort" and personal desires above all the people who just want to being clothes free at the beach with friends and family. There was a simple thread on Reddit and it didnt take long for several examples to be pointed where c/o places were ruined for everyone because of this craziness. But I suspect the c ringers dont really care.
. But I suspect the c ringers dont really care.
The simple fact is the guy whos wearing old washing machine parts on his cock and balls will never concede is sexual.
Everyone else thinks it is.
So when all the nudist spaces are gone, itll be because of all these people in hats or with haircuts that ruined it.
Woodsman, the excuses after excuses is embarrassing, Im sorry.
.So when all the nudist spaces are gone, itll be because of all these people in hats or with haircuts that ruined it.Woodsman, the excuses after excuses is embarrassing, Im sorry.
If I'm making the same point over and over, it's because I don't think I'm properly getting my message across. I apologize for that.
And I do maintain that when we lose all those nudist spaces, it's because of people who are acting badly with sexual misconduct or making unwanted advances to other people, not people who wear jewelry that mainstream nudists frown on.
If you truly sense that the mere wearing of genital jewelry is enough to get a beach closed down by public authorities, then by all means discourage it... not because it's a betrayal of nudist beliefs or sentiments of personal freedom, but because the Powers That Be at that particular beach have dictated it. "When in Rome..." Same for resorts, who have a lot more power to boot somebody who's out of line with their philosophy.
Maybe it's time for a frank talk with the authorities, to ask them what they consider out of line. I know of one nudist beach around here (I forget the name of it offhand, but it's on the coast where Fort Ord used to be). The rangers there are happy to talk with visitors, and they appreciate that those visitors take the time to ask them about policy rather than just going ahead and doing what they want.
Mate, its nothing to do with the authority.
Its a personal choice and its a personal obligation.
If your objective is prioritising your shiny cock over everything else.
Sigh.
It was fun while it lasted.
This is a straight out false dichotomy a perfect example of whataboutism that continues to deflect from the reality. Genuine nudist beliefs are exclusive of the idea that sexual activity is a private thing and cock rings despite all the protestations are designed as a precursor to sexual activity so because, one person or one happens to go along with the idea that c rings are non sexual doesnt make it so. On earth one that just isnt reality. People in the majority of people in the nudist community and on mainstream society see it for what it is. The consequence of trying project an alternative set of facts on earth two doesnt change. This is a case of the minority who arent being harmed claiming victimhood I the face of the actual beliefs of the majority are being harmed..If you truly sense that the mere wearing of genital jewelry is enough to get a beach closed down by public authorities, then by all means discourage it... not because it's a betrayal of nudist beliefs or sentiments of personal freedom, but because the Powers That Be at that particular beach have dictated it. "When in Rome..." Same for resorts, who have a lot more power to boot somebody who's out of line with their philosophy..
StevieLorna wrote:Mate, its nothing to do with the authority.Its a personal choice and its a personal obligation.
I do agree with that, as far as personal sentiments go.
But what I'm fearing is that it has everything to do with the authority. When people say that beaches will be closed down because of X activity, it won't be because fellow beachgoers have a problem with X. It will be because the authorities have a problem with X.
"X" could be anything from simple nudity to overt sex. It won't matter.
Ok, Woodsman. How would you deal with X.
How would you convince X that what X is doing is not in keeping with promotion of nudism as a non sexual, family friendly activity where all are welcome who adhere to this philosophy.
Tell us all how you would speak to X and convince them that how the others see them is what is making it harder to keep these spaces safe for the future?
Thanks for pointing out the clear obfuscation. Why muddy the waters by introducing "x". We arent talking about X or some unknown. The OP asked about a specific situation, that we know has specific consequences. I am so perplexed as to why the individualist libertarian viewpoint being expressed cant take this argument head on. Why cant we just address the issue at hand and its clear consequences.Ok, How would you convince X that what X is doing is not in keeping with promotion of nudism as a non sexual, family friendly activity where all are welcome who adhere to this philosophy.Tell us all how you would speak to X and convince them that how the others see them is what is making it harder to keep these spaces safe for the future?
StevieLorna wrote:Ok, Woodsman. How would you deal with X.How would you convince X that what X is doing is not in keeping with promotion of nudism as a non sexual, family friendly activity where all are welcome who adhere to this philosophy.Tell us all how you would speak to X and convince them that how the others see them is what is making it harder to keep these spaces safe for the future?
I'm glad you asked that.
It would depend on the X.
If it's as simple as a cock ring, I probably wouldn't say anything about it. I certainly wouldn't compliment him on it. But I would ask him about why he was on the beach, and what he was looking for. If I thought he might be a candidate for the true nudist lifestyle, I might remark on that ring later on in the conversation, letting him know that the ring might be construed as sending out the wrong signals. If he said that those were precisely the signals he was putting out, then I'd tell him "Good luck with that. Nobody's interested in that here. If you think that this nude beach (or resort, or whatever) is a place where sex happens, you have been misinformed."
If he was engaging in any kind of sexuality -- with or without a cock ring -- from flaunting an erection or hitting up women to anything more extreme, I'd say, "Hey, dude, you're out of line here. This is a public beach, but we're being nude here only because we're telling the authorities that we're a family-oriented activity. Do you want to get us closed down for everybody? Please don't do what you're doing and ruin it all for the rest of us!"
If he complied with the request, no harm, no foul. If he persisted with the activity, I'd call the authorities and let them know what this person was doing, and that if they wanted to prosecute him, I would be totally OK with that.
That would make it clear to the authorities that we are as concerned with the public image of non-sexual nudism as they are, and that we're on their side.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!