Interesting article about difference between being sex positive and exhibitionist

It is a common practice for some to call those of us who promote non sexual social nudity prudes or sex negative. Frankly as someone who has active sex life that has never made sense. Recently came across the article by a nudist who attempts to unpack the difference between being sex positive and exhibitionist. Enjoyhttps://aconnz.substack.com/p/sex-positive-vs-exhibitionist

I read the article and agree with its premise. It brings up two things that I've written about here:

1. Are nudists exhibitionists? Are nudists voyeurs? Some are, undoubtedly. They get enjoyment from seeing other naked people, or having people see them naked. Maybe these things stimulate them sexually. As long as it doesn't lead to creeping other people out, I don't see the harm. I don't presume to get into other people's heads and make presumptions about what they bring to the table. I myself like seeing other naked people when I can, because they affirm that that they have the same attitude toward nudity as I do. I don't get an erotic thrill out of it, and I'm pretty damn sure that I don't elicit erotic thrills in others. But I'm glad to see them, just the same.

2. Which brings me to the other thing: consensual activity. It's the "When in Rome..." thing. I recognize that there may be venues in which sexual stimulation is encouraged, and there are venues where it is discouraged. To bring the mind-set of one venue into the other venue is a Bad Thing. There are people who want to have a safe place without the distractions of sexuality, such as a place where children are allowed to interact with people freely. There are other people who want a nude venue where sexual stimulation, from flirting to coitus, is a given thing. As long as everybody is on the same page, there is no problem. And the venues... resorts, social clubs, and such... usually make it clear what kind of behavior is expected, and if you're attending, you are obliged to follow the rules.

And those "rules" often don't make sense. Look at any gala or talk show on television, and you can see that there are wildly disparate standards of attire. Men wouldn't go out in shorts or sporting bare torsos. Women, on the other hand, can show bare shoulders, lots of leg, and cleavage down to their navels if they want (although, to be fair, women who aren't in the theater usually wear pants suits and such). Are the provocatively-dressed women exhibitionists? Or are they simply taking the societal license to dress the way they like to see themselves?

But the rules are there, whether written or unwritten. (And the rules at some public beaches don't make much sense, either. Woman aren't allowed to be topless, but they can wear bikinis that cover practically nothing. Men, on the other hand, can wear board shorts or standard swimming trunks, but a thong would be considered too risque.) Whatever the occasion, we are obliged to conform to whatever standards happen to be in force there.

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply

Good article. Thanks for posting

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply

This is a great article to understand the role of puritanism in naturism/nudism, particularly in the US, the UK where it started, and their impacted colonies.

The author declares himself sex-positive with the condition that it does not mean a sexuality display to all and sundry (whomever that it) is required. Then he makes a comparison that we are all biological beings required to evacuate our digestive systems regularly, but don't share this behavior in public. He concludes that by labelling himself as a non-sexual naturist, he is taking a preemptive strike should anyone consider his nudity to be related to sexual behaviors. This double negative, that sex is bad, so being non-sexual is good, is the basis for how he defines himself.

Why all the focus on being sexual vs. non-sexual? Is it really because of what OTHERS just MIGHT think? Or is it a projected conviction of one's internal dynamics? Like saving the natives to save yourself? What if the real risk is that people consider nudists public pissers and shitters just because they can, without understanding that true naturists aren't like that all? Should we call ourselves non-pissing, no-shit naturists, just to set the record straight, while insisting that in reality we're actually all for biological evacuation without display and privately pro-shit? Could it be that those who so strongly claim to be non-pervy are just as pervy in their sex-obsessed pervy kind of way?

In America, sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it's a fact. ~ Marlene Dietrich

• Flag
• Edit
• Delete
• Quote
• Reply