Many people are very ashamed of their body, their sex and are traumatized by the sight of the human body, so they can never get naked.
Although I wouldn't go so far as calling it traumatized, my wife is very uncomfortable seeing anyone nude other than me.
Therefore, she would never consider going to a clothing optional location, let alone a nudity required one.
Though it has become a lively exchange, getting lost in the back and forth in this thread is the underlying reality that clothing promotes hiding part of oneself, both physically and mentally. That hiding in turn may incite some who see the 'clothers' to be drawn toward thoughts of what is under that cloth, leading those who may be more susceptible to their base emotions toward desire and even lust. Additionally, in a totally nude environment (aware of weather, sun and bug concerns which should always supersede naked needs), those who are tempted to hide their more intimate areas are pushed to address their own personal body view, and that is at its core what social nudism hopes to enjoin. When everyone is naked in a safe public setting, that lack of a hiding place quite often helps everyone involved to begin to let go of their sometimes mal-adjusted, often unrealistic view of their outward selves, and dragging their inward selves (whether kicking and screaming or calmly) toward a much healthier existence.
So by permitting some to stay clothed when everyone else is not, it gives the mind of the clothed person a place in which to continue to hide themselves away from the world, even while bearing witness to the freedom and beautiful interaction between everyone else who is nude -- this in stark contrast to the unfortunate, internal, unhealthy fears they have convinced themselves of by not confronting the unknown, and their very wrong assumption that the mere sight of their unclothed body will bring forth rejection and revulsion from anyone who sees them. These understandable misgivings are no surprise coming from the world of textiles, and are at root, the absolute opposite of what is honestly one of the strongest arguments for social nudism.
Well, nude beaches should have all people full nude or at least bottom nude.
In Florida (Halouver beach), for example, there are clothes beach, clothing optional beach and nude beach. But at the nude beach, you ll find people wearing swim trunks or speedos. It should be completely nude or nude from the wait down. Otherwise, go to the clothing optional beach next to it.
Well, nude beaches should have all people full nude or at least bottom nude.In Florida (Halouver beach), for example, there are clothes beach, clothing optional beach and nude beach. But at the nude beach, you ll find people wearing swim trunks or speedos. It should be completely nude or nude from the wait down. Otherwise, go to the clothing optional beach next to it.
Never heard that Haulover had a nudity required section. Where is it?
That has not been my experience the women I have shared naturist experience with. All including my current partner prefer the opposite that being the option to choose. Isnt that what the freedom we want is all about the freedom to choose whether we wear clothes or not. Thats why clothing optional seems more safe because they can choose what is right for them.
Well...in all fairness, perhaps it is because most of the resorts I've visited, and nudists I've known personally, were at "nudity-compulsory" venues/settings. It stands to reason that "regulars" at C/O venues are there because that is their preference.
As I previously stated, my wife was very much "pro-C/O" at first; as we initially only attended C/O venues for her personal comfort (she was only willing to be nude to swim/soak or tan; and found "walking around naked" to be too "candid."
Had it not been for an "accidental" excursion to a "nude-obligatory" resort, she probably would have remained "pro-C/O" indefinitely. But when she saw that the "norm" there was for everyone to remain naked, she found it "easier" to blend in, than stand out as the only one covered. It was a "different" form of freedom she found there. It may not be "universally shared"; but our women-friends at the resort do share the same experience of finding freedom in just leaving all their clothes in the car; and being amongst people who did the same.
To answer the question: no, not every nudist is looking for the same type of "freedom." Nudist values are not a monolith. My wife - and our friends - have no interest in C/O venues or events; in great part because they've embraced "not having to make a choice."
But...nude beach nudism is not for everybody. "Nude-obligatory" resorts are not for everybody. C/O resorts are not for everybody. Non-landed nudism is not for everybody. There is no "fits all' type of nudism.
Most of the places the wife and I have been are CO, she likes having the option and her choice is usually based on wether or not most of the other women are nude and that there are other older/bigger women as well. I dont mind CO so long as people dont mind that I choose to be nude.
Most of the places the wife and I have been are CO, she likes having the option and her choice is usually based on wether or not most of the other women are nude and that there are other older/bigger women as well.
I don't know if it's the same situation; but a couple of weeks ago I had a discussion online with a gentleman on that topic. He was bemoaning the fact that his wife used to stay nude at their resort; but due to a "proliferation of sarong-clad women" at his resort over time, his wife no longer feels comfortable "walking around naked." So she also now spends a lot of time "sarong-clad" herself. It's the thing about "not wanting to be the only woman walking around naked."
Stephane Deschenes's essay: "The Sarong: Destroyer of Naturist Worlds!" is often quoted. And I also quote:
"When I discussed the topic in more depth, some admitted that they felt uncomfortable being nude while so many other women were covered up. We now see the reintroduction of clothing as a tool of embarrassment. That is consistent with the textile world, where the sarong is commonly worn for modesty to cover up a bathing suit."
and
"Marc-Alain Descamps, the French social psychologist who wrote many treatises on naturism, said that the reciprocal visual bestowal of complete nudity defuses the exhibitionist/voyeur relationship.1, In other words, a nude person in front of dressed people may feel somewhat exhibitionistic and perceive them as voyeuristic. That creates an imbalance that results in emotional discomfort."
But...I think that's a question women need to ask for themselves. If they're inclined to preferring nudity - but find it too "uncomfortable" due to a large presence of covered people - perhaps it is time to consider switching resorts or venues. But if they would choose to wear a sarong regardless of what everyone else is doing; then the C/O resort will work just fine.
The argument now seems to be: Is it appropriate to be clothed in a naked environment if it makes the naked people uncomfortable to be around you?
If that's the case, I would think that it's on them to convey the fact that it's fine with them if you're naked, and to relieve that discomfort you may have. If they can do that, I'm OK with them being clothed around me. That's true whether I'm the only naked person and they're all clothed, or most of us are naked and they're not.
I know that many of us are looking for places where total nudity is the norm, and that having folks with clothes on waters that down. If they can find venues like that, fine, and I would enjoy being at those places. But I'll take what I can get, and if the only venues around are C/O, that's also fine with me.
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!