wildwilly wrote:Is this comment based on any research or more of an assumption?
It's based on my personal knowledge of people who are in these associations, coupled with what they have published about their members in N magazine and the the monthly AANR e-zine they post every month.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.
From what I can tell, TNS membership is about the same, and I've heard that membership in British Naturists is up. Go figure. But I'd like to know what some of those other "numerous reasons" are besides the elimination of couples memberships.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.
Good for them! And I support them wholeheartedly.
stevielorna wrote: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?
What are you conceding when you go naked on the beach?
For me, it's not a matter of anybody conceding anything, but just being who they are and accepting others for who they are. I'm not saying that you have to approve of their jewellery or their tattoos or their hairstyle. I'm just saying that we have to see what we have in common, and use that to form the coalitions that make a difference politically.I don't think they are considering others or conceding that their lifestyle choice is in any way good for the naturist movement. I think nothing other that their own gratification is the goal.
Well, when I'm naked, I'm doing that for nothing more than my own gratification. I'm not there to please anybody else. So I see myself in the same boat with them, in a way.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.
Maybe not. Curiously, I've read that in the nineteenth century in England, doctors recommended "spiked penile rings" to restrain uncontrolled sexual urges. That's just the opposite of a "sexual adornment" (unless, of course, they're masochists). So maybe that guy on the beach is wearing one for fear that he might get aroused and embarrass himself.
homeclothesfree wrote: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.
I agree that the clout of the "true naturist" is far from zero, but it's only that because they have allied themselves with the "not-so-true naturists" who support AANR and TNS in these organizations' efforts to preserve our legal rights. That's my point, in a nutshell. The issue is not what sort of jewellery we sport, but where our money and efforts go to support the people who carry our banner.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.
I used to get a small discount when I paid my membership to TNS through my local club. Now that I'm an officer of that club, I get a free membership there, and pay my membership dues directly to TNS. But I encourage everybody to support their local club and at least one of the national associations, in whatever country they're in.
One more thing: I want to thank all the people who have recently submitted their opinions on this thread. We have legitimate differences in opinion, but we haven't degenerated into name-calling, which makes it a rarity on this site or, in fact, on many of the other internet sites I've experienced. I only wish I could meet you in person, and have a drink with you.
I, too, noted the variances in the many responses; it was good to see different points of view presented with degrees of opinions yet no one devolved to name calling or degrading another response. These types of discussions are far too rare, across the board, and really help everyone to get a better grip on the points presented. Thank you all for your contributions.
Woodsman wrote
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
Woodsman also wrote.
For me, it's not a matter of anybody conceding anything.
I wrote this bit.
My point is, I dont exclude anyone, but I concede its far more challenging for the promotion of the nudist lifestyle as a safe, non sexualised practice if some people are sticking ironmongery to their genitals.
But hay ho. Its their choice as a nudist to wear what they want, to hell what people think and its everyone elses problem to be welcoming and inclusive.
StevieLorna wrote:My point is, I dont exclude anyone, but I concede its far more challenging for the promotion of the nudist lifestyle as a safe, non sexualised practice if some people are sticking ironmongery to their genitals.
That is an excellent point. We do have to be concerned with the "public face" of our philosophy. Which is why we have to alert people with such ironmongery that they should take it off or dial it back when we're around people whom we're trying to convince that we're not perverts. I don't see that as a real problem at nudist beaches, though, especially if there are enough normal nudists to obscure the weirdos. Resorts have their own rules.
Your concerns are probably more valid for the UK, though, where nudism is generally allowed and tolerated in places that the US and other countries would consider inappropriate for nudity. So your contact with the general public is probably greater than it is here, and you are more "on parade" than we are. The only events here are World Naked Bike Rides and the Gay Pride parades.... and the latter are not seen as indicative of nudism in general, just a small subculture.
I was at a naakstranden in Holland [nudist park next to a lake] i was queing up at the kiosk, [a little info here, around the kiosk are there are toilets and kids swings,further to the right is a gay section and to the left of the kiosk its everyone else,there nothing official its just accepted the Dutch are liberal people.
So iam waiting to buy a coffee at the kiosk when a guy appears from the gay section he has a cock ring on and hes almost fully erect , A young Dutch woman went mad at him i dont fully understand Dutch buit i get the gist and her body language. She was really putting him in his place ie this is a family area .
Ive never worn a cockring myself i know others do thats fine iam not for or against but to wear one when semi erect or erect is not the best idea when amongst the general naturist population be descreet.
Thanks for sharing your experience. It reinforces the concept that simply being naked doesnt mean anything goes and families have a much right to enjoy social nudist spaces. Shows that even in countries normally relaxed about social nudity there are boundaries around sexual behavior.I was at a naakstranden in Holland [nudist park next to a lake] i was queing up at the kiosk,
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!