Is the distinction between nudism and sex over emphasized?

[TreyS]

It seems to me that nudism is one of the few activities for which one would feel a need to argue that the activity is distinct from sex. Even though there are some people who don't seem to realize that nudism and sex are distinct, I wonder if the distinction still isn't a bit over emphasized.

[fre2bnude]

I often think that it is over emphasized, but, you can understand why. So many people, mostly non nudists, equate sex and nudity. Nudists are sexual people, but there's a time and a place for it, that's what so many textiles can't understand - public nudity does not equate with sex.

[nacktman]

Yes it is.
fre2bnude has it right as to why, which unfortunately leads to more nudity equals sex in the minds of some who think if they so stridently deny it, it must be true.
It is a tough row to hoe, but the message that nudism and sex are not equated is getting through - mighty damn slow but it is getting through.
I have found that letting them think as they will actually works better for those that have the gumption to find out, discover the truth and the ones without the gumption to find out for themselves wouldn't believe the truth in any case.
Of course this applies mostly to the USA as it is the most repressed nation and the prevailing attitude among the repressed is the ol' nudity equals sex hogwash.
There are a few bright spots piercing the darkness.

[Naturist4Ever]

a) most of the (western) world is under rather puritain influences where people rarely see those of the opposite gender naked unless it is in the context of sex; probably 50% or more of things naked are in one or other way tied into something sexual

b) it must be said that - certainly outside established naturist resorts - nudism/naturism (think beaches etc) do atract a certain amount of people (99% men) who are there for sexual reasons - either for gawking or worse, clothed and unclothed.

b) unfortunately, especially it seems in the UK and the US a lot of people seem to "happily" mingle nudist lifestyles with more liberated/everything goes/swinging lifestyles.

It is very clear that in countries like Germany (and even more so east-germany) where simple nudity/naturism is something one almost grows up with, the association of nudity/nudism/naturism with sex is far more remote. I also refer to the Dresden video-clip posted here by simonsebs (check recent posts) that just shows how different attitudes can be. Not to mention it was aired on regular TV.

I personally don't think it is overemphasised.

[Bobby Hill]

.....................NO

[FishyDave]

It seems to me that nudism is one of the few activities for which one would feel a need to argue that the activity is distinct from sex. Even though there are some people who don't seem to realize that nudism and sex are distinct, I wonder if the distinction still isn't a bit over emphasized.
Fair point, and maybe it is, though naturism does have a rather unusual problem in this respect. You don't see the game of golf being used as a pretext for a gang-bang back at the 19th hole: If you did, then a lot of the people who only went to the golf course to hit a ball with a stick would be very upset indeed. No doubt they'd be doing their best to defend their position as 'genuine' golfers. I suppose it would add a whole new meaning to 'improving your swing.'

And that's our problem: We break one social taboo (the one about public nudity) and end up being used as a vehicle for breaking other taboos. I've always said that the only thing you should assume about a naturist is that they'll be comfortable being naked around other people in certain situations where a non-naturist wouldn't. Beyond that, they can be as tolerant or intolerant as everyone else. But people will insist on assuming that if we don't have a problem with public nudity then we don't have a problem with public sex.

So having to over-emphasise the non-sexuality of naturism is one of naturism's few necessary evils. It's our only defence in keeping the whole thing wholesome and family-friendly. Unfortunately, for much of the time, even that isn't enough.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people who engage in casual sex, but I do get hacked off about being judged as one of them when I'm not. I don't think what they do is morally reprehensible, but I can see why others (especially those with strong religious views) might judge them that way, and I have no wish to be judged for participating in the lifestyle when I don't. I should have no shame about admitting to what I do, but I know that as soon as you mention "the 'n' word" people will more often than not make incorrect assumptions. No wonder so many of us are still in the closet :(

[Baron Lake]

It's certainly true that in Western society nudity is primarily associated with sex (it sells man, it sells). Do you suppose much of the "true nudist" community objects to the association because it makes it (nudity) more difficult to defend or because they object to sex as much as "normal" people object to simple nudity? Wonder what Stu thinks.

b.l.

[Naturist Mark]

For the majority of the public, and especially for public officials, the distinction is not clear enough.

[Greys]

It's only over emphasized in that it shouldnt need to be emphasized at all.

[obiwan11]

I agree that it is overemphasized and it "should" not need to be, in the same way that people "should" not be closed-minded: the word "should" is an expression of a more ideal world, whereas we live in a world that is less than ideal in that respect.

Saying that being nude is not about sex, in this society, is perhaps similar to a woman in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia saying, "showing my hair is not about sex" or "showing my face is not about sex" ... we are arguing for a cultural shift away from a mindset that certain arbitrary parts of the human body are unfit to be seen by others.

(PS less than 3 weeks to spring!!!)

[Stu2630]

While I agree with much that has been said on this topic, please try to remember what the key difference is between a nudist and a non-nudist. That difference is that nudists expose parts of the body which are considered primary sexual organs (i.e. genitals) or which have strong sexual connotations (e.g. female breasts and buttocks), whereas these are the very body parts which textiles keep concealed at all cost.

I know nudism is non-sexual, but you can see why many textiles may think nudism has a sexual dimension.

Stu

[Sanslines]

While I agree with much that has been said on this topic, please try to remember what the key difference is between a nudist and a non-nudist. That difference is that nudists expose parts of the body which are considered primary sexual organs (i.e. genitals) or which have strong sexual connotations (e.g. female breasts and buttocks), whereas these are the very body parts which textiles keep concealed at all cost.

I know nudism is non-sexual, but you can see why many textiles may think nudism has a sexual dimension.

Stu

Can you see how too many textiles are not smart enough to figure out how they are being manipulated by sex? Pick up any magazine and you will plainly see how sex is so perverted and distorted and treated as if it has some special aura around it. This is all done in the name of advertising and advertisers treat sex as a sacred means of duping and fooling people into believing in fantasies. The reason that advertisers would hate nudists is because real nudists know the difference between sex and nudity and know the truth behind plain and simple nudity. Advertisers could never tolerate this truth as it would ruin a very powerful and effective means of selling their products.

[Triton]

It's only over emphasized in that it shouldnt need to be emphasized at all.

Nice!!!!!!!!

[Bob S.]

Trey:"Even though there are some people who don't seem to realize that nudism and sex are distinct, I wonder if the distinction still isn't a bit over emphasized."

The distinction is there due to the law that likes to not distinguish the two. When you can go on the sex-offender's list for skinny-dipping or laying out getting an all-over tan, then there is something wrong. We need to highlight the differences between nudist nudity and sexualized nudity and push that distinction into the law's eyes.

Stu:"That difference is that nudists expose parts of the body which are considered primary sexual organs (i.e. genitals) or which have strong sexual connotations (e.g. female breasts and buttocks), whereas these are the very body parts which textiles keep concealed at all cost."

Stu, only the most extreme among textiles would keep their bodies concealed at all costs. Even those who say they would keep their clothes on in an emergency (eg. harmful chemicals spilled on them) would probably strip out of them in an actual emergency. Dying or seriously harming yourself rather than removing your clothes is the symptom of a serious mental issue.

Bob S.

[TreyS]

I am fine with emphasizing the distinction between nudism and sex when necessary. To use the example of playing golf, for me the connection with nudism isn't so much that no one would argue that golf isn't sexual it is that no one would make the argument that golf is sexual even if someone reported experiencing sexual feelings while playing golf. It is my assumption that nudism is no more sexual for most nudists than is golf for most golfers. This is not quite the impression I get from many of the things I have read by nudists about nudism. Instead I get the impression that nudism isn't even remotely sexual. For people who equate nudism and sex I sometimes wonder if they are doing this because they think sex is bad. Thus their real point may be that sex is bad. I think an appropriate response to such critics should address the issue of the proper place of sexuality in human life before addressing the issue of nudism.

[fre2bnude]

While I agree with much that has been said on this topic, please try to remember what the key difference is between a nudist and a non-nudist. That difference is that nudists expose parts of the body which are considered primary sexual organs (i.e. genitals) or which have strong sexual connotations (e.g. female breasts and buttocks), whereas these are the very body parts which textiles keep concealed at all cost.

I know nudism is non-sexual, but you can see why many textiles may think nudism has a sexual dimension.
Stu

It's true that nudists expose all the parts of the body used for sexual activity but just seeing these parts doesn't have to mean anything sexual. The more they are seen the less significance is given to them, people who see them all the time accept them as normal it's only because textiles are not used to normally seeing them that they get so uptight about it.
A lot of times clothes are worn to enhance the persons sexuality, often by offering glimpses of sexual parts by wearing skimpy or tight fitting clothes. I think that an attractive woman in a bikini or tight swimsuit is more sexual looking than a nude. With a nudist all this tittilation is taken away and for a normal (nude) person the sexual aspect is removed. If a person wants to see sexuality on display they will find it whether clothed or not. They only have to go to night clubs and such places to see any number of young women on sexual display with most of their body out to be seen, and they are really on display, nudists are not.

[nimrod]

I often use my hands during intercourse should I ware gloves so I will not offend anyone? It is all just body parts, it is us as a human race that will label some as taboo or sexual, and for some reason reproductive organs have been defined as purely sexual.

I have said this before, but I will say it again, there was a time that a woman showing some wrist or ankle was considered sexual. That has passed and sounds even funny to most of us now, there will come a time that simple nudity will be accepted more widely, it may take time but if we continue to educate it will happen.

Those that I talk to that do not know the difference between nudity and sex, I will ask them if they have sex everytime they strip down to take a shower. The answer is always no.

[Stu2630]

BobS

Stu, only the most extreme among textiles would keep their bodies concealed at all costs.

Aside from nudists, we all have our personal comfort zone so far as our own nudity is concerned. If you comment is aimed at my particularly acute discomfort at the idea of others seeing me naked, then it probably is a bit extreme. I can't honestly say how I would react in an emergency - confronted by a real risk of being gravely injured unless I got naked - but the chances of that happening are vanishingly small and i can think of a thousand more pressing health issues (like losing a few pounds!). Yes, there is more of a risk in terms of being unwilling to be seen by doctors, but I have managed all my adult life and that's never been a necessity so far. I have a friend who is a psychiatrist and who uses hypnotherapy and I have been assured that I could be "cured" of my anxiety in a single session. I have to say that I have no particular reason or desire to undergo that therapy at this time.

free2benude

There is nothing you have said that I disagree with. It can not be denied that we textiles use clothing as a way to be sexually provocative - not that that's a bad thing. And yes, nudists are to some extent misunderstood. In spite of that, I do strongly believe that most reasonably well informed and educated textiles are aware that nudism is not some lurid sexual activity. Here in the UK, it's usually more associated with people who are either particularly health conscious, or else involved in some fringe spiritual movement or being a hippy.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

Are you a reformed hippy?

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Are you a reformed hippy?

Certainly not! I have never reformed in my life. ;)

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Obviously, Stu!

One great thing about being human IS the changes we make about and within ourselves. As we live, we should be changing, re-molding, modifying, reassessing, regrouping, and expanding not only our knowledge base but opening our minds. This is how we evolve as the people we are.

From your forum posts we know you don't change anything on nudity and nudism. Sad, you have not "reformed" anything.

[Stu2630]

MoonShadow

From your forum posts we know you don't change anything on nudity and nudism. Sad, you have not "reformed" anything.

Of course we are in a continual state of change and self-improvement, but "reformed" implies a state of serious error requiring major correction. I have learned things since coming here and sometimes even modified my views - but to say I had "reformed" would be going a bit too far.

If you look at the last exchanges between Sanslines and me, you'll see that we actually managed to reach complete agreement. :) That goes to show that with considered debate and a willingness to see things from the other's point of view and compromise, even people who start from poles apart can achieve a meeting of minds.

And if you look at my contributions to this particular thread, I don't think you'll find much that even you would disagree with.

Stu

[Sanslines]

If you look at the last exchanges between Sanslines and me, you'll see that we actually managed to reach complete agreement. :) That goes to show that with considered debate and a willingness to see things from the other's point of view and compromise, even people who start from poles apart can achieve a meeting of minds.

And if you look at my contributions to this particular thread, I don't think you'll find much that even you would disagree with.

Stu

Stu,

We reached complete agreement? I must have missed that part. As far as I know, I am still trying to 'educate' you (oops I meant inform you) about how society at large dictates to and abuses nudists. I still do not think that you are completely aware of the degree and extent of this abuse. Once you understand this abuse, you might then start to realize why nudists become so militant at times. It is because (in some cases) discriminitory laws do not allow acknowledgement of nudists, let alone any form of compromise.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

We reached complete agreement?I must have missed that part.

You must have. It was on another thread and the last thing I posted in response to you was that I agreed with everything you said. We had a meeting of minds old fruit! :)

As far as I know, I am still trying to 'educate' you (oops I meant inform you) about how society at large dictates to and abuses nudists. I still do not think that you are completely aware of the degree and extent of this abuse.

I think I am pretty much aware of how society is unfair to nudists. If you think there are some gaps in my understanding then feel free to enlighten me.

Once you understand this abuse, you might then start to realize why nudists become so militant at times. It is because (in some cases) discriminitory laws do not allow acknowledgement of nudists, let alone any form of compromise.

I do understand - really I do. I don't think most nudists are militant - in fact, sometimes I don't think they are militant enough! I think nudists should address this by fighting for more and better places to enjoy their nudism while disassociating yourselves from the activities of the irresponsible "public nudity activists" who will settle for nothing less than a right to be naked anywhere they like.

Stu

[TreyS]

To bring things a bit more back to the topic of this thread, what role do people's ideas about sexuality play in debates about nudism?

[nacktman]

To bring things a bit more back to the topic of this thread, what role do people's ideas about sexuality play in debates about nudism?
Do you really want to open that can of worms, Trey?

[TreyS]

Yes, both with respect to those of us in favor of nudism and those who oppose it.

[fre2bnude]

Well, I love sexual activity it's a great pastime and we can't do without it can we! But, there's a time and a place for all things and out in public is not one of them whether nude or otherwise.
It is overemphasized in that you are expected to keep away from touching, kissing or whatever, other nude people. I can remember walking along a beach in Portugal which was full of people, male, female, youngsters, families and there was one young couple, very brown, very nude who were rubbing sun oil on each other. They were both laughing in their own little world surrounded by people, him on his back with a superb erection being massaged by her (not sexually). It looked good, nobody seemed to be bothered, they weren't egaged in sex but were being very sexual. I don't have a problem with that and nor did anyone else, I don't have a problem with an erection in that situation. But, if they had been actually copulating it would be totally wrong and that's where the emphasis has to be.

[EricNY]

erection being massaged by her (not sexually). It looked good, nobody seemed to be bothered, they weren't egaged in sex but were being very sexual. I don't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with an erection in that situation. But, if they had been actually copulating it would be totally wrong and that's where the emphasis has to be.


Are you kidding? What is NOT sexual about massaging an erection? It is things like that that cause the problem we have today where people associate sex with nudity.....

I can't believe that you do not see that connection. Just because they were not having intercourse they were still having sexual contact.....and that is the damn problem, and why it is difficult for people to experience naturism without people getting the wrong idea

[fre2bnude]

I said - she was NOT massaging him sexually. They were rubbing oil on each other, at the time she was rubbing oil on his chest and shoulders. She did not touch his erection that I saw anyway. Most of the people there were Portugese, that seems to make a huge difference to this attitude.

[nacktman]

I said - she was NOT massaging him sexually. They were rubbing oil on each other, at the time she was rubbing oil on his chest and shoulders. She did not touch his erection that I saw anyway. Most of the people there were Portugese, that seems to make a huge difference to this attitude.

Sorry, but your telling of your story did come across as she was massaging his erection ... which even with the more relaxed attitudes toward sex and/or nudity found in parts of Europe would have been a serious breech of decorum on a public beach.

[Bob S.]

fre2bnude:"They were both laughing in their own little world surrounded by people, him on his back with a superb erection being massaged by her (not sexually)."


Oh that darned phrasing. I am guessing this is what you meant:

They were both laughing in their own little world surrounded by people, she was massaging him (not sexually) while he, on his back, was sporting a superb erection.

By the way, interesting adjective in 'superb'.

Bob S.

[fre2bnude]

Sorry if I worded it badly, but what they were doing appeared totally innocent and not engaging in sex. I have to admit that when I first saw them my jaw dropped, but nobody around seemed to be paying any attention or at all bothered, it appeared acceptable to everybody.

[Murad4ever]

what is the difference between nudists and animals?

Animals don't have the brain to wear clothes, but nudists choose to be naked.

[PascoDoug]

what is the difference between nudists and animals?

Try again:

What is the difference between *humans* and animals? Not much! Humans ARE animals.


Animals don't have the brain to wear clothes, but nudists choose to be naked.

Or to put it more accurately, it is the textiles who choose to *wear* clothes.

Nudists use their brains to NOT wear clothes when clothes are not necessary.

;)

[DoctorSurferDude]

To my knowledge Europeans don't view nudism as deviant behavior. It is not a "taboo" thing over there. So ramifications need to be weighed. From Fre2bNude's story.....it can be implied that if you are in the right place, at the right time, overt sexuality (minus the sex) will be politely ignored. But.....that is Europe.

In the USA.....there are different standards. Here the benefit of the doubt is given to those who wish to shut nude beaches down. Shutting down a nude beach is seen as "cleaning up", getting rid of the trash. And what is the #1 reason nude beaches in the USA are shut down? Overt sexuality. So while the erection/massage might be excused in Portugal, it is a reportable "lewd and lascivious act" here in the USA, and one that if it is not discouraged can get a beach shut down VERY quickly. Then who wins?

Europeans may have the luxury of relaxing their distinctions in a society that for the most part is very accepting of nudism/naturism. But in the USA there needs to be a very clear distinction drawn between simple nudity and sexuality. It's hard enough to convince the general public that nudism is valid and appropriate for families when their first impression is that it's a fringe pursuit for perverts and voyeurs. To reenforce their stereotypes by participating in relaxed public sexuality on a nude beach or to turn a blind eye to it's occurrence would undo us and pretty soon there would be no nude beaches anymore. How superb would that be?

[justnude]

As usual, Dr. Surfer Dude has it correct and well said!

[Pete Knight]

Sadly, here in the UK we are somewhere between the US viewpoint that DoctorSurferDude illustrates and the European model that you think exists, there are actually problems in Europe too, now everyone thinks Spain is the most accepting country when it comes to nudism, but as recent reports indicate there are some places in Spain still willing to bring in bylaws to prevent beach nudity.

Whilst there are no laws against nudity in the UK, just as in Spain, we still struggle with outdated attitudes, the police cannot prosecute for 'Indecent Exposure' because no such law exists, however they do prosecute under section 5 of the 'Public Order Act' in that they claim a persons nudity is likely to cause a breach of the peace, they claim a riot might ensue as a result.

A white paper passing through Parliament at the moment will give local councils more control over the creation of bylaws, this will result in a situation like the town in Vermont where nudity bans will be trotted out at will, this is very bad news indeed as each bylaw will have to challenged individually, and there are likely to be hundreds of them.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Pete

Whilst there are no laws against nudity in the UK, just as in Spain, we still struggle with outdated attitudes, the police cannot prosecute for 'Indecent Exposure' because no such law exists, however they do prosecute under section 5 of the 'Public Order Act' in that they claim a persons nudity is likely to cause a breach of the peace, they claim a riot might ensue as a result.

The law isn't quite as you describe it. Allow me to elucidate:

1. There is a law against "indecent exposure" - it is under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It would only be used against a nudist if it could be shown that he intentionally exposed his genitals, and intended that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

2. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 does not mention a "breach of the peace". The relevant part which is used against inappropriate nudists is this:



5.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour,....within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.


Courts have concluded that inappropriate nudity can be "insulting" (an old definition of "insulting" is used which states that it includes "assaulting the sensibilities") and it can also be classed as "disorderly" in that being naked inappropriately is not an orderly way to conduct oneself. That part isn't an issue. The bone of contention - and the bit the police and CPS sometimes struggle with - is proving the likelihood that someone would be caused "harassment, alarm or distress" by the nakedness. That's why I would advise obtaining statements of complaint from outraged bystanders, especially those with children, to prove section 5 or, in the absence of those, to show either that people phoned the police to complain; police saw that people were "visibly angry, upset or disturbed by the sight, or else that the police officers themselves were offended by it. If they get that evidence in the prosecution file, they'll generally get a conviction. If they don't - they won't.



Stu

[Mrs. Natura]

I often think that it is over emphasized, but, you can understand why. So many people, mostly non nudists, equate sex and nudity. Nudists are sexual people, but there's a time and a place for it, that's what so many textiles can't understand - public nudity does not equate with sex.


YES, I totally agree with you! The masses seem so prone to following stereo-typical images portrayed/seen in the media... so I don't see it changing anytime soon. Geesh 'SOCIETY' has much to learn!? :rolleyes:

[Centauri4]

Is someone engaged in perception the perceptor or the perceptee?? :)

It is funny how we can endlessly discuss a subject that, in the end, will almost certainly end in a logical "draw".

Seriously, if we hope to convince MORE people nudity does not equal sex, can't we argue that many people have been caught with their "pants down" but still on? In other words, many of the overtly sexual activities people have been "caught" in the act of did NOT include either person being nude! Honestly, it seems similar to the "classic" argument of rape not being a crime motivated by sex as much as it is about violence and one person forcing their will on another.

It is obvious many of the laws in our country were formed so one group or another could establish some "standard" that constitutes the "peace" only so others may be charged with "breaching" it.

As a subjective matter: If there is a festival in the countryside and some people are nude but the peace is not directly effected and everyone is about their business, then no offense has been committed. However, if only one person is disturbed by the nudity and complains, then their perception redefines the scenario in the eyes of local law enforcement. This type of situation seems in line with what I have read of the Cahill ruling for the Forest Service (e.g. a person other than a Forest Service employee must voice an objection for the situation to become unacceptable).

I have just recently been watching some episodes of 'Party Heat' or something showing fully clothed or bikini-clad Spring Breakers whose behavior I might consider lewd and a breach of the peace! {smirk}

So, isn't it the same with sexually-based behavior? If people could simply mind their own business and also did not mind explaining to children at least old enough to under stand [this], "What those two people are doing is their own business and none of our concern. Let's keep going." then a person's behavior while nude WOULD become none of anyone else's business (whether it was sexually-based or not).

I am trying to portray both sides of the argument I suppose, so please do not take issue with me as if this were SPECIFICALLY my personal belief.

~

[MrNaturist]

Nudisty by itself is not, repeat is not sexual. I t is the person's imagination, their thoughts that make it sexual! Learn common sence and control of imaginantion and there will be no sexual connotation!

[Stu2630]

So, isn't it the same with sexually-based behavior? If people could simply mind their own business and also did not mind explaining to children at least old enough to under stand [this], "What those two people are doing is their own business and none of our concern. Let's keep going." then a person's behavior while nude WOULD become none of anyone else's business (whether it was sexually-based or not).

That overlooks the fact that many of us, including those of us who do not automatically equate nudity with sex, want to live in a nudity-free environment and don't want our children to be exposed to nudity. That's why the present arrangement of there being places where people can be nude and places where they can't. As the vast majority of people are textiles, the default state in public should be what is acceptable to textiles - i.e. clothed.

Stu

[pault413]

I do not equate nudity with sex. However most of the textile people do. And I have to live and work in the textile world.

[Centauri4]

That overlooks the fact that many of us, including those of us who do not automatically equate nudity with sex, want to live in a nudity-free environment and don't want our children to be exposed to nudity. That's why the present arrangement of there being places where people can be nude and places where they can't. As the vast majority of people are textiles, the default state in public should be what is acceptable to textiles - i.e. clothed.

Stu

Perhaps we are well ahead of our time in wanting greater equality between the nudes and non-nudes, but I can imagine it being much like the 1960's and the struggles for racial equality. Obviously there is a difference because people cannot change what race they are and people can change whether they choose to go nude or not, but if there are benefits to be derived from openness and understanding shouldn't they be explored?

When some people decided in favor of racial integration in the previous generation, these small pockets of people around the United States wanted dark-skinned people and light-skinned people to cohabitate or live together in peace. Most of the country did not agree and would not tolerate such behavior, and yet the few persisted and held to their values. We will never know what the country would be like if racial segregation had persisted in an amicable manner, if somehow "White Schools" and "Black Schools" were never integrated, or other public facilities remained separate and unequal.

I think the story now in our times MAY be evolving similarly while obviously NOT being the same. So I am not trying to make a "solid" comparison between the struggles of racial equality and social-dress equality, but rather a vague one for people to interpret as they each see fit. At the present time it is up to each person how they want this issue to be addressed within their own family, within the National Parks and National Forests, on vacations at oceanfronts around the country and elsewhere, and all of this is fine because we seem to be getting along well.

It would be a different thing if the Federal Government suddenly banned all forms of nude recreation at all locations because this would create an even more repressive environment than we presently live within. I do not think that is likely, and I do think we will continue to "give and take", "push and pull" and negotiate a happy medium where all parties learn and grow together.

Hiding nudity and concealing all understanding of how people "might" or "could" get along whether clothed or unclothed has done nothing to help the children of our present and recent generations. Teen pregnancies run at all time highs, sexually transmitted diseases are a great risk to many, and overwhelming curiosity about sex is driving some people to make poor choices (sneeking around to be "together", slipping drugs into strangers drinks and obsessing over images of sexual-nudity). We try and educate the children when their bodies begin developing and hope they understand the changes, but physio-chemistry is a hugely powerful thing that does (in my opinion) effect decision making capabilities. Something should be done to "break" this all-consuming curiosity about sex but I do not think giving a drug to promote restraint is possible or would be the proper way to address the issue; it is a "natural" human process that must be managed through MORE education (better education) and more diverse ways for men to understand women and women to understand men. If the etiquette and social codes of nudism were commonly understood I think we would have less exploitative and abusive behavior than we do now. Certainly we would not eliminate it completely, that is not possible, but if more children could be raised to appreciate the "whole human experience" and learn greater respect for nudity and the changes adolescence brings to both body and mind, then I think there would definitely be a benefit.

~

[bernardc]

The main problem i have found,is the availability of porn.People whatch porn,and its usually in a naked situation,where the emphasis is on the genitals,and the focus is only upon the genitals while some of the parties involved in scenes are semi naked,giving a type of an erotic touch to it.(Though the scenes are erotic)
People then associate the nudity of porn,with the nudity practiced by nudists.That in my opinnion,gives nudism/natyrism a bad name.On some naturist sites,its portrayed as sexual acts.
Pornography is the main focus on the p-factor,and V-factor.(penis and vagina)Its main focus is that of sex.
Nudism is the appreciation and respecting of the esthetic value of the human bodt,i.e. the human body as a whole viewed as something very beautifull,but in the ABCENSE OF LUST AND SEXUAL ACTS.
Porn gives nudism a bad stigma.Nudism is not sex,porn is sex.