Exactly on point the .modern definition of naturism which is now being eschewed or supplanted has at it core the notion of respect. Respect for nature, respect for self respect for others.
With the libertine crowd respect only goes in one direction towards them and it isn't earned it is just given because in some unusual logic as long as we are both naked there should be respect. You can see it in their tendency to throw around vitriol when someone doesn't agree with them. My point has been and continues to be if you want to wear those body adornments good for you you do you but don't try to validate it by saying it is a part of nudism because you are naked. With that logic if I am standing in a garage I could be considered a car.Yes we all deserve a modicum of respect, but is it respectful to turn up at a family resort or beach with disassembled Newtons Cradle attached to your cock, with the excuse, its just jewellery. who is this person giving a modicum of respect to?If you want people to respect you, then read the room and act respectfully.
I think there's a world of difference between a simple cock ring and a cowbell or Newton's Cradle adorning a man's genitals. In the latter case, a word to the offender would be in order.
Yes, it can be a slippery slope. But as in any "slippery slope" argument, it's hard for me to adopt the logic that "since we can agree that there is somewhere on that slope that exceeds reason, we must avoid even the slightest foray down that slope."
Let's say that I would probably not look twice at a simple cock ring, any more than I would look twice at a person with nipple jewelry consisting of a piercing or a pearl on a clip, like this:
But I agree that anything more than that would draw comments.
And I agree that in a private resort where there is some sort of authority figure, that figure is entitled to set the rules, and we participants have an obligation to respect those rules. Their house, their rules.
Woodsman thank you for the thoughtful response. I can agree with you about the rise of individualism as a general social trend. Individualism and its postmodern companion anti-institutional ism are definitely social trends that have been unfolding for over 25 years. See Putnam's 2001 book Bowling Alone.homeclothesfree wrote:Your posts have given us a lot to think about. But I'm not sure I agree with you that the rise of "individualism" over the "common goal" is the reason for the decline in nudism unless you factor in what seems to be the general trend in society.
I also agree with you with regard to the to the big tent. It is something I have written about before. See here. However my question is this. What is the fabric of your big tent? The concept of a big tent anticipates some fabric (common understanding, shared values or principles) under which we gather and invite people to connect.
As I understand your point you are suggesting that the tent is one with the flimsiest of fabric the lowest common denominator, that being the state of dress of the individuals. History see the previously referred to Hoffman book and the current situation suggests that this approach has been and is an unmitigated disaster, for nudism as nonsexual way of life that includes social nudity. History shows whenever this approach was tried it hasnt worked out for the nudist community.
What happens when making the accommodation of the most fringe of the those you want under your big tent has the effect of forcing others out from under the tent. One current example of this is the exclusion of families and children from nudism because of the sexual overtones that inevitably emerge when we "make room" in the tent for those who want to express their individuality by wear sexual adornment.
This is the very ammunition that is used to shut down public nude beach options and gets laws passed against things like the World Naked Bike Ride. So while I respect the diversity of views I reject the idea that a big tent without any underlying principles beyond nakedness is a good thing for nudism or its future. Neither history or the current state of affairs bear that out.
So my stated opinion again is this. Everyone is free to do what they want with their bodies . You can wear whatever body adornments you want, to express yourself of make yourself feel good. But I ask that it isnt called nudism simply because you do it while you are naked. Nudism is based on principles and shared values beyond just being naked I also reject the suggestion that the vast majority of people who dont subscribe to that view are somehow wrong and are gatekeepers prudes or exclusive because we dont adopt this point of view when it doesnt serve our interest experience or ability to enjoy the pleasure of a simple non sexual communally oriented principled way of life called nudism.How does that relate to this discussion? It's a matter of deciding whether you want to go for the "big tent" concept, where we decide to encompass a wide variety of aspects of nudism relying on a common love of a lack of clothing, or instead go for the "small tent" concept, where we define nudism according to our own traditions and mores, and exclude those who don't subscribe to them.Are we ready to make an accommodation for those who like the feel of cock rings on their penises, or clamps on their nipples? If it means that by including them we increase our numbers and our impact on society, then my feeling is to admit them to the club, while holding true to our common love for social nudity. I won't be wearing those things myself, just as I won't be getting a tattoo or a piercing. But I will respect their need for such things to enhance their own self-image. And I'll share a drink with them at the pool..
homeclothesfree wrote:I also agree with you with regard to the to the big tent. It is something I have written about before. See here. However my question is this. What is the fabric of your big tent? The concept of a big tent anticipates some fabric (common understanding, shared values or principles) under which we gather and invite people to connect.As I understand your point you are suggesting that the tent is one with the flimsiest of fabric the lowest common denominator, that being the state of dress of the individuals. History see the previously referred to Hoffman book and the current situation suggests that this approach has been and is an unmitigated disaster, for nudism as nonsexual way of life that includes social nudity. History shows whenever this approach was tried it hasnt worked out for the nudist community.
I haven't read the Hoffman book, but I'll look for it. As for why these approaches failed, I've seen it more as a result of external pressures from outside society than behavior within the community. But analyses of each particular occurrence would help.What happens when making the accommodation of the most fringe of the those you want under your big tent has the effect of forcing others out from under the tent. One current example of this is the exclusion of families and children from nudism because of the sexual overtones that inevitably emerge when we "make room" in the tent for those who want to express their individuality by wear sexual adornment.This is the very ammunition that is used to shut down public nude beach options and gets laws passed against things like the World Naked Bike Ride. So while I respect the diversity of views I reject the idea that a big tent without any underlying principles beyond nakedness is a good thing for nudism or its future. Neither history or the current state of affairs bear that out.
It's that societal pressure that's militating for the exclusion of children and the banning of the Naked Bike Rides, not pressures from within our community. This is what I meant by "societal" influence. I don't think I'd care a bit if my fellow cyclist has a cock ring on.If an onlooker gets offended not because he was nude but because he was wearing a cock ring, then you might have a point, but I haven't heard of any such person. The people that were objecting were objecting because we were nude.
It seems like you're saying that if we want to preserve our concept of nudism, we have to conform to those societal influences: no kids at the resort or the nudist beaches, no display of nudism on bike rides or parades or other events where nudity has been accepted. I'm not sure if I want to live in a world like that, nor would I endorse such a policy. Gay Pride parades in San Francisco show men with a lot more adornment than cock rings, believe me, but they are tolerated as long as they don't aggressively harass onlookers.
I'd rather live in a place where simple public nudity is accepted. But if we want to bring that about it's up to us to educate society that it's a good policy for them, too. They need to learn that we have rights, too, and that children aren't corrupted by the sight of nude people, and that we are as against those children being molested as the rest of society is. Our best path is to put gentle pressure on society to change their minds about nudity, just as gentle pressure has changed their minds on gay rights, a woman's right not to be harassed, or the wearing of a bikini at the beach instead of a modest one-piece. Public opinion had to change before laws could be repealed or amended to reflect that change.
But that tolerance has to come from ourselves as well. It's when we realize that a man with a cock ring has as much to gain or lose as a man without one, and the two unite to put pressure on society as a whole through national organizations and public outreach to protect their common interest, that our voices can finally be heard.
But that tolerance has to come from ourselves as well. It's when we realize that a man with a cock ring has as much to gain or lose as a man without one, and the two unite to put pressure on society as a whole through national organizations and public outreach to protect their common interest, that our voices can finally be heard.
Once again I thing you are missing the point.
No one cares what someone chooses to stick to their dick. Either a cock ring or a toaster. Thats their choice, I tolerate it every time I go to a nudist resort. Personally I dont think its appropriate but Id never tell someone to stop wearing it.
What bothers me and others, is the lies that go with it.
Woodsman instead of responding to all your points many of which I disagree, I will focus on the last one. I think it is reflective of some other points you made. My question to you is this. You speak of the need for tolerance, but tolerance to what end? Actually I dont care for the word tolerance in this context I prefer acceptance. But I will use it ,since that is what you used and avoid getting into the semantics of the language.
When you say we should be tolerant, what is it that you hope to achieve? If the individuals are engaging in behavior that is not conducive to the intentions and goals of the nudist movement, what is the point of toleration? Is it just to say somehow nudists are tolerant and avoid being called prudes or gatekeeper? Is there any benefit gained from the tolerance?
The reason I ask is because every time this idea of tolerance is floated as a way to expand nudism it has failed spectacularly. In the golden age of nudism in America several attempts at tolerance were made. During this time several noted American psychologists and sociologists promoted the value and benefits of nudism. However, when nudists strayed away from those principles to try to attract not others from mainstream society but from alternative lifestyles not aligned with nudist principles here is what happened.
Nudists tried to practice tolerance to engage film producers and magazine publishers in that era to expand the movement. Those people took the hard fought legal gains of nudists and launched adult film and magazine publishing empires while nudist films and magazines ended up on the dust heap.
Nudists practiced tolerance to engage participants in the free love movement of the sixties only to be branded with the stigma of sexual perversion that destroyed many family nudist venues and started the decline of family nudism overall. Family nudism was at the heart of the golden age of nudism as needed to continue to grow social acceptance of nudism.
More recently there are those among the nudist content creator class who stated we should tolerate those who do $*x work and adult orient content creation online. Now searching the term nudist online returns more p#rn than anything even vaguely connected to nudism.
So I am not interested intolerance. If I cant find any common points of acceptance like acknowledging a person's can be a nudist and practice non sexual social nudity regardless of their race ethnicity, sexual orientation or body shape and size, I dont see the point of toleration. Interestingly enough the areas of acceptance were not pursued by nudists until very recently when out of necessity they became tolerated.
Why would I invite mosquitoes (metaphorically speaking) into the big tent and tolerate them if their presence prevents everyone else in the tent from enjoying the activities in a way we desire. If their presence actually serves to deter others from getting under the tent I dont see the point. I think it is better that nudists hold to principles and values of nudism beyond nakedness and support the libertines right to pitch their own tent with their own intention principles and values. There they can be more than tolerated but accepted by peers and those of like mind. Simply put getting in bed with the libertine crowd has never actually led to the growth of nudism just the growth of those alternative lifestyles and the diminishment of nudism. One researcher put it this way.
For the rakes', on the other hand, nudity is a sign of sexual readiness. Whats more, they are not sexually closed', but are rather open' ready to touch and be touched, ready for bodily contact and intimacy. This interpretation of nudity is in stark contrast to the one shared by naturists. - Aleksandra Herman Naturist Utopia and Libertine Rebellion
As to the cause being societal restrictions I leave you with this quote from from Shakespeare that is the theme for several articles I have written on the subject. "The faults lies not in the stars but in ourselves" Shame on genuine nudists to believe that we dont have enough substance or capacity to attract people to the way of life without devolving to the lowest common denominator of nakedness to tolerate people who dont really tolerate up. In my opinion we were better than that and I use the past tense intentionally.But that tolerance has to come from ourselves as well.
Good points, all of them. (And BTW, I found the Hoffman book and am reading it now.)
The trouble with any movement is that there are splinter groups that take the movement into places where the originators did not want to go. For example, the non-violent movement against racism begat the Black Panthers and the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, which morphed into what one commentator said should be the "Non-Student Violent Coordinating Committee."
Similarly, some people protesting the mistreatment of animal ended up throwing blood onto people wearing leather or fur. Gun rights advocates took to wearing arms openly, even to churches. Abortion protesters took to harassing women who went to Planned Parenthood, shaming them by publishing pictures. And the present crisis in Gaza has resulted in college takeovers and threatening Jews, which is totally counterproductive for those people who, like myself, are pointing out that being against Isreali government policy is not the same thing as being anti-Semite.
I agree that those in the mainstream of a movement have a hard time with those who take it too far and invoke societal backlash. Somebody, on this forum or another, asked me once why, if I'm so dedicated to nudism, I don't get arrested for being nude in public as a protest. That approach hasn't worked very well... It's not the same as a Black person sitting down at a lunchroom counter in South Carolina in the sixties. (Gypsy Taub's non-productive activism on legal nudity is a case in point.)
But my point, which I hope you'll concede, is that we don't do our movement any good if we exclude people with tattoos or cock rings or other adornments, even though they clearly don't embrace the "naturist" ideal of a perfect, unadorned body (except for tans). Those aren't mosquitos in the big tent. If the jewelry is blatantly sexual or the tattoos are pornographic or symbolic of hate groups, that's another matter. We definitely do want to disassociate with them, and bring out the DEET.
If you look at the membership of AANR or TNS or British Naturism, I doubt if you'll find many of these purists around anymore. Their political clout is next to zero.
Instead, we should seek common ground... people who simply want to be nude and socialize in a non-sexual environment where they can be comfortable without clothing. The more people who subscribe to this common ground, the more political clout we'll have, and the better we'll be able to persuade society that we won't bring them to harm if they let us do our thing.
But my point, which I hope you'll concede, is that we don't do our movement any good if we exclude people with tattoos or cock rings or other adornments, even though they clearly don't embrace the "naturist" ideal of a perfect, unadorned body (except for tans). Those aren't mosquitos in the big tent. If the jewelry is blatantly sexual or the tattoos are pornographic or symbolic of hate groups, that's another matter. We definitely do want to disassociate with them, and bring out the DEET..
Im sorry, I have to concede this because Im not doing the naturist movement any good if I dont?
But the man or woman wearing sexual adornments on their genitals are conceding what exactly?
I dont think they are considering others or conceding that their lifestyle choice is in any way good for the naturist movment. I think nothing other that their own gratification is the goal.
Once again, Ill never tell someone that they cant wear what the hell they like, but no one weve met honestly believes that a simple cock ring or more is just jewellery.
If you look at the membership of AANR or TNS or British Naturism, I doubt if you'll find many of these purists around anymore. Their political clout is next to zero.
Is this comment based on any research or more of an assumption?
I cannot speak to the health of TNS or any other nudist organization with authority. AANR membership is down from a few years ago, that I have heard, and that drop blamed on numerous reasons including their having recently (in the last few years) changed the policy about a couple membership and a single membership costing the same. It didn't make a lot of nudists happy when AANR essentially doubled the cost of yearly membership with that stroke of a pen. I would have voted against that change if it had been brought to a vote. But do note that there are still tens of thousands of members involved, and their message of positive, wholesome, social nudism is still being brought to bear when nudists are threatened with injustice, both inside and outside of our ranks. We have not gone gentle into that good night, just yet.
I thought to ask the same question but havent had time to compose a response to the rest of Woodsman's comment. I and curious to hear his response as I dont believe it to be factual representative of a majority view point. While I agree with you that their "clout" is diminished it is far from zero as reported by the the AANR PAC they have staved of a couple of laws across the country that would have been even more troublesome for nudism that the place we find ourselves right now.
On a separate note to get a discounted membership buy through a club or resort rather than directly. I havent paid the full price ever because my membership is through my resort/club.If you look at the membership of AANR or TNS or British Naturism, I doubt if you'll find many of these purists around anymore. Their political clout is next to zero.Is this comment based on any research or more of an assumption?I cannot speak to the health of TNS or any other nudist organization with authority. AANR membership is down from a few years ago, that I have heard, and that drop blamed on numerous reasons including their having recently (in the last few years) changed the policy about a couple membership and a single membership costing the same. It didn't make a lot of nudists happy when AANR essentially doubled the cost of yearly membership with that stroke of a pen. I would have voted against that change if it had been brought to a vote. But do note that there are still tens of thousands of members involved, and their message of positive, wholesome, social nudism is still being brought to bear when nudists are threatened with injustice, both inside and outside of our ranks. We have not gone gentle into that good night, just yet.
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!