Genital piercings in Naturally Magazine

[BackpackerBrian]

[BackpackerBrian]

[NudePete]

I think N should show what people would actually see on a nude beach. This includes piercings (however barbaric I think they happen to be). It doesn't deserve to be made too big a deal over.

[NudeAl]

I agree, it should reflect the cultural norms of the larger society. So what might not go over well in say the heartland might be accepted on the west coast. I myself have seen many people with genital peircings some of sourse have more than others.

[David77]

I very much dislike genital piercing, which to me is genital mutilation. I think revealing this unfortunate practice in naturist magazines would give a very bad impression to many persons, and would give suggestible persons an unfortunate idea to "mutilate" themselves.

I can tolerate casually seeing nipple piercing, eventhough, to me, it seems like a desecration and some mutilation of one's glorious, wonderful, even sacred body.

Seeing some miniture "barbells" sticking through these piercings, to me, is very unaesthetic (ugly), also.

I never liked seeing piercing in pictures of primitive tribes, and never in my wildest imagination, did I think that our culture would take up this primitive mutilation.

I hope primitive scarification does not become popular too.

I think that the very worst practice is displaying a metal piece in a piercing in the penis. Gross! Disrespectful of the body!

Sometimes I wonder if someone is trying to punish themselves (like flagulation) by abusing their body (penis). Maybe the Prince Albert penis wearers may not be the new acetic, self defacing persons, (like wearing sack cloth and ashes, or flagulating one's self) but may be gross "showoffs" and those bucking society.

Surely let the natural body radiate nude, in all it's glory, without all the defacing hardware or permanent ink on the body.

If one of our art models has hardware sticking out of his/her body (including through the female "genital hood") I feel like walking out and returning some other day when a completely natural looking model is there.

I would hope that most of us revere the body and would not want it altered unnecessarily.



<center><hr width= "60%"></center>


If a person wants to actually adorn the body, here are some "non-invasive" suggestions from what I have observed at resorts.


<LI>A male can put a (non-binding) gold band around his penis. (Guys, sorry, your old, unused wedding band will probably not fit on your penis. I suppose that you could take it to the jewelers and get the wedding band enlarged - and hope that the jeweler does not ask you to try it on).


<LI>A female can put removable gold bands (gold rings) around her nipples.


<LI>She can wear two or three jewels hanging on a short chain from her navel, if she knows of a non-invasive method to keep it attached to her navel.


<LI>She can wear a delicate ankle chain bracelet.


<LI>She can wear the somewhat popular larger gold link waist band.


<LI>Of course, anyone can wear a nice neckless,

<LI>and a fancy waterproof watch.

<LI>A narrow watchband could second as a woman's charm bracelet if some dangling (naturist) "charms" were affixed to it.

<LI>A non-permanent coloring can be used, if you must have temporary color.

<center>This all said, l will certainly accept and honor anyone regardless of piercings, tatoos, etc.</center>

P.S. Maybe the Apostle Paul had a reverent respect for the body when he is quoted in First Corinthians 3:16 & 17, as saying;

"Know ye that that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

I myself, do not believe, as Paul did, that God destroys anyone, but, as Paul apparently did, I believe in the holiness, sancity of the human body, and hope that the body is exempt, safe from piercing, etc.

[DoctorSurferDude]

It's personally something I would never want done. That particular peircing might be just a fad....in my limited knowledge I don't know of any ancient or tribal culture that peirces their penis or clitoris....OUCH!!

So here's an irony in the argument...

- We should be encouraged to accept them as they are.
- They should be encouraged to accept themselves as they are (or WERE in this case).

Who is the less accepting, I'm not sure? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

David77 is a fellow I sometimes disagree with, but not on this issue.

Those of us who think that the human body cannot be improved upon in its nude splendor are not inclined to puncture it.

The resort I go to forbids genital piercings and I am glad they take a stand against this.
I guess that is a second issue beyond the question of disrespect of the body: the exhibitionistic nature of the jewelry draws undue attention to the genitals much the same way a bikini draws attention to the crotch of the wearer. With unadorned nudity, by constrast the body parts are integrated seamlessly into the whole.

[Sammyboy]

I don't like genital or nipple piercings to look at, and would certainly never consider one myself, but I wouldn't want to stop others from doing what they wish to with their own bodies. I don't have any problem with ear or nose piercings, and don't want to treat other parts differently.

Certainly tattoos I often like, and might even consider having one myself. I would hate to see nudism become a bastion of illiberality.

IMHO piercings and tattoos are like graffiti--sometimes interesting or even attractive, but mostly it detracts from the natural beauty of what it covers--especially when people do it to extremes. I see people who are covered nearly from head to toe and wonder why they do it.

I saw a man in the hot tub once with so many piercings in his genitals that I had all I could do to keep from staring and counting how many he had out of curiosity. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Al Bundy]

I agree with David77 100%.

[Trailscout]

Jon Marc, it's a bit like a guy who has "kick me" tattooed to his hind quarters and then is astonished when people take him up on the request. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nudist parks and resorts and the national organizations are in a position of leadership. Since admission through their gates is controlled, they can set standards of dress for those who wish to visit their property. People come to nudism from all walks of life and the newbies don't always know how to behave and need encouragement to accept their unadorned undressed bodies as God gave them.

Rather than let textile body shame or some fad from swinger or S&M culture call the tune, resorts in particular, but also magazines and national organizations need to step up to the plate and have policies that affirm the nude body, as is!

[NudistGuy47]

Although I am personally not into the body adornment craze, I feel the magazines publicizing the naturist//nudist life should potray the life as it is and present the whole gamut. With the photos showing the whole gamut, one will not be surprised when they visit a beach or club.

[Trailscout]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I got the impression that what we are talking about in the magazine was not merely a single photo that happened to include a pierced guy, but an article that focused attention on piercings and possibly advocated them.

I hope that a national magazine would not advocate self-multilation and defend it in the name of nudism. There's no "freedom" in that.

[Daveinct]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I got the impression that what we are talking about in the magazine was not merely a single photo that happened to include a pierced guy, but an article that focused attention on piercings and possibly advocated them.

I hope that a national magazine would not advocate self-multilation and defend it in the name of nudism. There's no "freedom" in that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on the information provided, you are quite wrong. There is no mention of an article, no mention of the magazine either focusing on or advocating genital piercings.

As for freedom, I'm in favor of people having the freedom to do with their own bodies what they choose, and I'm grateful that I'm free from a need to pass judgement on those people based on their choice.

If you don't like genital peircing, fine. Leave it at that. It's not as though they're running about trying to pierce yours.

Oh, and by the way, if the magazines were to "reflect the cultural norms of the larger society," everyone pictured would be clothed and you would have no idea who or what was pierced.

It sometimes amazes me how intolerant some who want acceptance of their own ways can be.

Dave

[Trailscout]

Thankfully both resorts I've visited this year will have none of it.

I am sure that those who insist on puncturing and mutilating their own bodies can find sanctuary easily enough. No one is forcing them to stop this destructive practice.

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
Hey Everyone -

I recently saw the summer 2005 issue of Naturally Magazine, and was quite surprised that there were a lot of photos with guys sprouting Prince Alberts (pierced penis).

While I don't have anything against piercings, and think of myself as a liberal thirty-something, I realized the limits of what is represented to be "naturist" went beyond my comfort zone. While great publications such as The Bulletin and "Nude & Natural" have made great strides in promoting body acceptance, that naturism is natural, and naturists are your neighbors, I felt perhaps Naturally is sending a negative message.


My question to you is, where do you feel the limit is of how naturists should be represented in photos in naturist publications. (I should also preface that this does not include any physical conditions related to genetic or medical issues). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, I believe these publications should tell it like it is.

Honesty is the best policy.

We lie to our kids about all kinds of stuff to "shelter" them from the nasty things that go on in the world. This does nothing to prepare them for real life, indeed it only makes it harder for them to accept the world as it really is. You can teach your kids about things without advocating them.

If you airbrush or manipulate photos to present a "perfect" nudist world, you are only lying to the public and ill-preparing them for their first public nude experience. Hmmmmmph!!!

P.S. I have 3 piercings and personally like them. Why do some want to force an "us and them" mentality into a lifestyle that is supposed to be all about acceptance? Acceptance does not mean approval, it merely means you mind your own business when you see something you don't like...double hmmmmmph!!!

[Trailscout]

Fish, if you've got piercings and you DON'T like them, I'd have to say you weren't right in the head.

I can't fault parents who don't want their kids to see the ugly side of life right off the bat.

We should write that magazine and tell them that we don't want to see roadkill photos and we don't want to see the human body desecrated and disfigured with metal going through the genitals.

Two men looked through prison bars, one saw mud, the other stars... I'm looking for stars every night!

[Soleil Nu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Two men looked through prison bars, one saw mud, the other stars... I'm looking for stars every night! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you should look at the bars and seek why you're behind them.

Some people are so used to being prisoners of their own mind they don't even see the bars of prejudice and intolerance they've been living behind their whole life.

[Trailscout]

Prejudice against body mutilation? Guilty as charged! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Fish, if you've got piercings and you DON'T like them, I'd have to say you weren't right in the head.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey hey hey, don't sell me short, Trail, I'm plenty not right in the head!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I can't fault parents who don't want their kids to see the ugly side of life right off the bat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said anything about "right off the bat". Some parents never let their children grow up, or they baby them far too long. Kids will learn what you don't talk to them about from the streets...and often at a far earlier age than you might think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
We should write that magazine and tell them that we don't want to see roadkill photos and we don't want to see the human body desecrated and disfigured with metal going through the genitals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what if they are featuring an article about a particular nudist facility that has a habit of not cleaning up the roadkill in a timely and efficient manner, hmmmm? Then you will go there and see all this roadkill lying all around and think, "Wow, I had NO idea!!". So all you are doing is propagating more lies!! More lies I say!!! Oh when will it ever end!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Tara]

I really couldn't care less if someone is pierced or tattooed all over their body. To them it is not mutilation, it's body art, and I respect that. I find it quite interesting and enjoy a little creativity with the nude body. Show people the way they are I say... be that nude and natural or nude and adorned. If you don't like it, look away. It's for themselves that they do it, not for others.

[Daveinct]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Two men looked through prison bars, one saw mud, the other stars... I'm looking for stars every night! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you should look at the bars and seek why you're behind them.

Some people are so used to being prisoners of their own mind they don't even see the bars of prejudice and intolerance they've been living behind their whole life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Soleil Nu, I couldn't have said it better myself. Sadly, this person who takes pride in his prejudice will likely never see those bars for what they are.

I was astonished earlier to realize that he's allowed to be a moderator. I don't know how long that's been the case, but it's astounding that despite his regular spewing of blatant prejudice (and his obvious glee in doing so), his completely unwarranted insults (both direct and indirect) of other members here and his constant judgemental blatherings, INA sees fit not only to have this person as a member, but as a moderator.

A moderator who exhibits such behavior in the most public aspect of INA, i.e. their forums, does harm to the perception of INA. Certainly his extremist thinking is not representative of INA, yet by having him as a moderator and allowing his extreme, admittedly (and proudly so) prejudiced rants to go unchecked, that's the impression INA gives to members and visitors alike.

Unfortunately, it's most likely that INA will do nothing about this, and we'll all continue to be subjected to his garbage. One can say we don't have to read his posts, but as he is one of the forum's most prolific posters, it is difficult to find a thread which doesn't contain his twisted viewpoints and hatred (both thinly and not so thinly veiled).

In a few months, my membership in INA will be up for renewal, and without change, I will not be renewing it. I've always seen tolerance as one of the core values of naturism and nudism, but by having one of its most intolerant members as a moderator and allowing them to espouse their intolerance so freely, INA appears to me to agree with the intolerance and blatant prejudice.

It's just one membership, and I'm sure INA doesn't care, but perhaps they should. If I remember correctly, only 60% of memberships are renewed from year to year. If I operated a business that only retained 60% of its customers, I'd be concerned about the survival of that business. Even if INA isn't concerned with the image of INA that such a moderator presents in its public forums, with a limited pool of potential new members, how many can INA allow to be driven away by one of its moderators before their wallet starts feeling it?

Dave

[tomkojohn]

Personally, I don't like peircings and would not consider one for myself, but I don't mind if others choose to participate in this activity. I wouldn't want people with piercings banned from anywhere, that's one nice thing in America -- freedom. If you object to piercings because they are "unnatural" then to be consistent you should also object to cosmetic surgery like breast augmentations, etc. Should people with artificially large breasts, noses, etc. be banned as well?

-- tomkojohn

[barbararuth]

I never quite understood the attraction toward tatooing and piercings but I defend the right of anyone who wants to do this. Some time ago the Discovery Channel showed a documentary about those who took this art to the extreme and that took a little more effort to defend!

I believe in freedom of art, freedom of choice and freedom to modify one's own body however they choose. I can't help but wonder also what harm is done in the process. Think about the infected needles, the potential path of germs directly into the pierced skin, the pain, etc. I know a guy who had to withstand painful skin peels and grafts to restore his arms after accepting an executive position to hide his skin modifications!

And if beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I don't "behold" a whole lot of beauty in this area..but that's just me!

[Trailscout]

I am not a moderator, just a regular on this forum like anyone else. I have no ability to moderate forums, delete posts, etc. I am considered a supreme member simply because I have been posting here for four years. INA and I part ways on some policies, we agree on others. There's no connection between what I say and what the INA official stance on any given issue is.

I don't consider myself extreme. I visit resorts that have "no piercing" policies. Their rules not mine. I am merely one of many who consider body mutilation completely unacceptable.

[NakedGary]

Tara

I adjusted and resized your huge profile off the screen in size I noticed on page one of this topic/thread. Let me know if its acceptable for you in the thread, Pvt.Msg. or e-mail.

NakedGary/Moderator

[luvsgettinnekkid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I am merely one of many who consider body mutilation completely unacceptable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may have gone over this before, and you are certainly welcome to have an opinion and voice it on this forum, even if I don't agree with it. What I'd like to know is as naturist, we're taught to treat the body as a whole - the genitals no differently than your arm. Then what about the millions of people who have their ears pierced, because using that same argument, piecing the ear should be no different than the genitals, or do you think that ear piercings, even a simple stud through the lobe are disgusting as well? I'm just curious.

I have a prince albert, I did it for personal reasons, have no regrets, and never had any problems with infection as so many people who know nothing about the process like to claim are an issue. I don't always wear my jewelry to the nude beach though as it sometimes attracts too much of the wrong attention.

As for the photos in the magazine, I'd like to see all types of people in a nudist magazine. I imagine that the people I'm used to seeing on my beaches here in california may be different from the people at other beaches/resorts in other areas. So it's no surprise that some may be shocked to see something like a genital piercing in a magazine. If you don't make a big deal about them though, pretty soon you won't even notice them, it's pretty easy. For some reason though this site seems to attract posts about genitalia like the plague, so I'm not surprised to see this here.
-Alan

[Trailscout]

All parts are not equal. A pat on the back is not regarded the same as a slap on the butt. Grabbing my wrist is not the same as grabbing my crotch.

Metal spikes on the penis by your own admission draw unwelcome attention. I can't imagine how inconvenient it would be to have one's urethra pierced and thus watch helplessly as one squirts urine in all directions, being forced to squat like a woman. I am no fan of ear rings, but they don't have that effect at least.

[Nu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luvsgettinnekkid:
Then what about the millions of people who have their ears pierced, because using that same argument, piecing the ear should be no different than the genitals.

I have a prince albert, I did it for personal reasons, have no regrets, and never had any problems with infection as so many people who know nothing about the process like to claim are an issue. -Alan </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is there equal pain involved in ear piercing and genital piercing?
How much pain is there?
Was the pain worth it?

Infections could happen if the piercing process was poorly done or the instruments were not clean.
Could considerable time elapse before an infection was noted?

[Daveinct]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I am not a moderator, just a regular on this forum like anyone else. I have no ability to moderate forums, delete posts, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly hope that is true. If you are identified as a moderator simply because of the volume of your posts or the length of time you've been posting, that needs to be corrected.

Dave

[luvsgettinnekkid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nu:

Is there equal pain involved in ear piercing and genital piercing?
How much pain is there?
Was the pain worth it?

Infections could happen if the piercing process was poorly done or the instruments were not clean.
Could considerable time elapse before an infection was noted? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I've had ear, nipple and a prince albert piercings, the nipple hurt the worst. The hard part about the PA is it's uncomfortable for a few weeks and bleeds for a few days. It's NOT for everyone. If it were it would appeal to me less. Haven't you ever tried to do something difficult, fallen and skinned your knee, maybe you learned something in the process, maybe the pain and blood and healing were worth it? A PA piercing taps into that process, sometimes it offers closure, somtimes it's a new beginning. I can't speak for everyone that has one but I'd imagine that few people with a PA just get it because it looks cool, they have a reason, it's not like an ear or bellybutton piercing. They have significant spiritual meaning to some people so saying that they are just disgusting is naive. If you don't like to see them, don't look at them, how hard is that?

I told you I have no regrets about mine. Our bodies are ever changing, they get rounder, skinnier, saggier, and tanner... we have no or very little control over these natual changes. Tattoos and piercings are a way for some to take control over their body, even if it's in a small way.

Of course infections can occur, that's why you only get piercings done by a trained professional who uses sterile instruments and an autoclave. Then you have to follow strict healing instructions as closely as possible.

[luvsgettinnekkid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
All parts are not equal. A pat on the back is not regarded the same as a slap on the butt. Grabbing my wrist is not the same as grabbing my crotch.

Metal spikes on the penis by your own admission draw unwelcome attention. I can't imagine how inconvenient it would be to have one's urethra pierced and thus watch helplessly as one squirts urine in all directions, being forced to squat like a woman. I am no fan of ear rings, but they don't have that effect at least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make a good point, all parts are not equal, I was mostly just curious how you'd respond. Not liking ear rings is just silly IMO, but you free to think whatever you like.

It's rude to make assumptions about a person's bodily functions. Having a PA does not mean you have to "squat like a woman" (you say that like it's a bad thing? why?). It takes a bit of technique and practice, but everything down there works just fine, but I think I'll spare you and everyone else on this forum the details.

[David77]

Karma Levels, Level Title, Required Points
1 Member 0
2 New Member 1
3 Member 30
4 Bronze Member 200
5 Silver Member 400
6 Gold Member 700
7 Platinum Member 1000
8 Diamond Member 2000
9 Moderator/Supreme Member 5000

Daveinct,
The above Karma level #9, the "Supreme Member" can be reached by getting 5000 points from your having posted many times, OR you become a "Supreme Member" whenever INA may accept your agreement to become a moderator.

Trailscout is not a moderator. He has been here for more than four years (at least over 5 months before I have) and has posted a lot, which adds up to many points. The name of any moderators on line at any time, is listed in heavy dark blue on the home page of the forum at the top, with the other names.

[WacoTX]

I'm from the old school...I dislike all of the piercing stuff. Women have been piercing their ears for centuries and I don't mind one or two piercings of the ear. I like some tatoos (those that are done in good taste and show obvious artistic ability by the tatoo artist. Body piercing, I think, is extreme. However, in a free society people are free to "decorate" their bodies as they please. I don't have to like it though. I dislike a lot of the things that go on now. That just shows I'm getting old and society is passing me by.

[NakedGary]

Trailscout

Being circumcised is considered permanent genital mutilation [by many] of the natural intact penis you were born with just as piercing are, including possible added risks of infection and STD's .

I hope the clubs you go to, & others will continue to overlook your visual permanent mutilation and continue to accept you as hundreds of other clubs and resorts do with thousands who ware non invasive genital jewelry or who are pierced and ware genital jewelry as well as many forums of personal preference or expressions of jewelry, piercing, and tattoo’s.

To my knowledge, can't anyone who has genital piercing and wears jewelry such as a "Prince Albert" or female genital jewelry, just remove the jewelry for the day, or when visiting various resorts that are known not to allow genital jewelry?

The very rare club or resort than bans permanent tattoo’s anywhere on the body are so narrow minded, they are selectively preventing just the people who will replace them as the future naturist, nudist, and managers of the future, especially the younger group of couples, families, and singles of either gender, and college aged who will surpass with the knowledge, acceptance, understanding, and equality of all in nude social recreation no matter how they express personal forms of expression or preference in what they wear, or don't or do with their own bodies.

.

[luvsgettinnekkid]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NakedGary:
Trailscout

To my knowledge, can't anyone who has genital piercing and wears jewelry such as a "Prince Albert" or female genital jewelry, just remove the jewelry for the day, or when visiting various resorts that are known not to allow genital jewelry?

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the piercing, some will close up almost imediately (like the tongue), but a Prince Albert will not. I have gone months without wearing jewelry. If you buy a neclace do you wear it every single day? usually not.

[need2Bnude]

Anymore you can't put a standard on any ones enjoyment. What I may see as wrong, may be perfectly normal to someone else. On some people, tatoos are nice, on others its overboard. (but only according to me) A lot will have to do with how intense the focus is on the subject in question. If we have nothing but pictures of genitalia, too many closeups, then what kind of effect are we making.
AS a nudist I do know this; I enjoy it my way, and so that I reach the people that I want to hang with, I do the things that relate, and not create negative recourse.

[NakedGary]

As David77 mentioned and explained about "Karma Points" there are many Posts on the subject you may view by typing "karma" in the Forums search engine, as the link/URL shows below:

Various Posts on Karma level assigned, earned, or determined by software and/or INA administration. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=karma&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=1&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search)

.

[Naturist Mark]

I see Karma Points legend has been revised so that people who are not moderators are no longer indentified as moderators. Somewhat confusing that.

-Mark (just a Diamond)

[NakedGary]

Naturist Mark & forum

The "Eve" Forums Program assigns and displays member status and karma level as part of each profile public and private area [accessible editable, and assignable by administration or by INA assignable permissions.

You can find information on "Karma" by clicking on your user name to launch to your Member Profile. At the top where the index tab "Tools/Help" click, click again on the "Underlined Help Link", on the left Eve panel click on "My Space" and you will see the "My Space and Karma descriptions [of which you can copy and past, or print.

You can also view, copy, or print your Karma Panel by clicking on your user name for your public profile "Member Profile for:", and on the "Eve" header go down to the "Underlined Karma Link" click, and they you launch to the Karma panel as "David77" showed in his post.

I hope this helps in viewing and understanding Karma description, assignments and to view, copy, and/or paste and print your Karma information Panel for yourself.

.

[Trailscout]

Gary,

Circumcision is as you know a medical procedure that was done in other years to facilitate hygiene of the penis and thus prevent penile cancer (due to the carcinogenic compounds in fermented smegma). Medical science has made enormous strides since the 1950's and 1960's. With the proviso of proper regular cleansing, the medical community no longer regards circumcision as medically efficacious in preventing cancer.

A corresponding benefit for puncturing the penis with metal spikes has not been established. Some genital mutilation involves puncturing the urethra and partially disabling the normal function of the penis. Risk of infection is real and ongoing for victims of this fad.

[Trailscout]

Permanent tattoos likewise deface the body, but generally do not draw attention to the genitals. I realize that it is popular for prison inmates to obtain tattoos for group solidarity, but nudist leaders should do all they can to discourage the members of their clubs and other organizations from defacing their bodies. Many artists refuse to paint or photograph nude models with tattoos or body modifications of any kind.

I have had a couple of courses in the visual arts and the instructor stressed again and again the beauty of the unmodified body, its subtle skin tone shades, the beauty of the body's shape, unobscured by clothing or other foreign objects to distract the eye of the artist. I must agree with my professor that all mods are mere graffiti, marring the masterpiece of the human body.

[Trailscout]

My final commentary on Gary's remarks:

I do not have any preconceptions that nudist philosophy will always march forward toward greater body acceptance, greater respect for the body. Indeed when I consider nudism as it was practiced by the pioneers of the movement: the rigorous regimine of exercise, nutritious diet, and a strong devotion to nudity in the outdoors and sunshine, I must contrast it with the current spector of morbidly obese, chain-smoking so-called nudists lying idly on their poolside cots while their body-shamed children lurk in the clubhouse too ashamed to be seen nude. And far too many of these people are hideously tattooed and have garish metal protruding from their genital orifices in some perverse sadomasochistic parade.

Thankfully this scenario is not universal. Many nudists reject these anachronistic fads that are at odds with everything we stand for as nudists. While they demand to mutilate themselves in the name of freedom of expression, a few of us insist on cherishing and protecting our bodies from such degrading and health-threatening practices.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Many nudists reject these anachronistic fads that are at odds with everything we stand for as nudists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Obviously not as many as you would like, or think. Most people take an attitude of acceptance, instead of rejecting people who decide to get tattoos or piercings.

[Trailscout]

Go back to the original subject. We are talking about an advocacy role for nudist leaders, nudist organizations and nudist periodicals. That is where we must draw a line in the sand and not lower our standards to whatever newbie textile fad is out there.

As an individual visiting a resort, my role is different. I am there as a friend to all I meet.

[MJ_KC]

The magazines and other information that is provided should show people as they truly are, not some idealized notion of what we wish they were. Leaders should advocate for all of the people who they represent, not some small subset of the group who happen to look real good in print.

Piercing and tattoos are not just for textiles according to what I have seen at any of the nude beaches that I have been to.

[David77]

In all of best worlds, I, for one, do not see the "sin" in drawing attention to the genitals or breasts or buttocks, such as in body-painting them two different colors for a parade. Is seeing painted toenails or fingernails less "sinful" than seeing painted genitals, breasts, buttocks?
I don't buy the idea of the "keeping from drawing attention" bit of reasoning.

Some say that it might give the general public a bad impression of naturists. This may be true, but essentially there is nothing shameful about this attention, eventhough the minds of some random persons in the general public may find offence at this and in nudity itself.

[Daveinct]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
Karma Levels, Level Title, Required Points

9 Moderator/Supreme Member 5000 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was aware of the basics of the Karma Levels, but had not looked at it in any detail. I was not aware that it could misidentify a member as a moderator. I'm glad that it's been corrected.

Dave

[BackpackerBrian]

Thanks to everyone who has responded to the poll I put forward. Just to keep us focused, perhaps I should clarify the question a bit more.

The question is not whether or not a nudist should have genital piercings (one of my good friends has a genital piercing and she is the coolest nudist I know). The question is if a naturist publication should promote a disporportinate number of photos with people featuring genital piercings. How does this present a naturist and our community to newbies, or to the "non-believers" wishing to close our beaches, clubs, etc.

Case in point . . . in the '60's many sex mags went on the market under the facade of a naturist magazine. This caused a backlash and sent the naturist movement backward. Do we want that to happen again???

So much for nudists accepting everyone as they are.... Trail bursts another myth.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
My final commentary on Gary's remarks:

I do not have any preconceptions that nudist philosophy will always march forward toward greater body acceptance, greater respect for the body. Indeed when I consider nudism as it was practiced by the pioneers of the movement: the rigorous regimine of exercise, nutritious diet, and a strong devotion to nudity in the outdoors and sunshine, I must contrast it with the current spector of morbidly obese, chain-smoking so-called nudists lying idly on their poolside cots while their body-shamed children lurk in the clubhouse too ashamed to be seen nude. And far too many of these people are hideously tattooed and have garish metal protruding from their genital orifices in some perverse sadomasochistic parade.

Thankfully this scenario is not universal. Many nudists reject these anachronistic fads that are at odds with everything we stand for as nudists. While they demand to mutilate themselves in the name of freedom of expression, a few of us insist on cherishing and protecting our bodies from such degrading and health-threatening practices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Trailscout]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
...The question is if a naturist publication should promote a disporportinate number of photos with people featuring genital piercings. How does this present a naturist and our community to newbies, or to the "non-believers" wishing to close our beaches, clubs, etc. ...snip
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, no we don't want magazines to show, much less promote images of pierced genitals because of the S$M peception they imply.

To the extent that nudist resorts and magazines become bastions for alternate lifestyles, swingers, self-mutilation fetishes and not mainstream America, social nudist venues will become increasingly marginalized. No one in their right mind would go to such a freak show.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
...The question is if a naturist publication should promote a disporportinate number of photos with people featuring genital piercings. How does this present a naturist and our community to newbies, or to the "non-believers" wishing to close our beaches, clubs, etc. ...snip
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, no we don't want magazines to show, much less promote images of pierced genitals because of the S$M peception they imply. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only in your mind Trail. Not that S&M is necessarily bad. It's as misunderstood as nudism is. However, very few people with genital piercings do so because they are into S&M or swinging or anything else. It's not a sign of anything other than they like piercings.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

To the extent that nudist resorts and magazines become bastions for alternate lifestyles, swingers, self-mutilation fetishes and not mainstream America, social nudist venues will become increasingly marginalized. No one in their right mind would go to such a freak show. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Watch out folks! He's just posted that nudists welcome everyone as they are and turns around to post something like this. Our nudist venues are already home to fetishes, swingers, gays and whatever else the mainstream consists of. We are no different, we represent all people, not just the ones Trail approves of.

[Daveinct]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
So much for nudists accepting everyone as they are.... Trail bursts another myth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cyndiann, in fairness to Trailscout, his nudist values are trumped by his obligation as a good Christian to not only be as judgemental as possible, as often as possible, but to go beyond judging to being prejudiced and proud of it.

Dave

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daveinct:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
So much for nudists accepting everyone as they are.... Trail bursts another myth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cyndiann, in fairness to Trailscout, his nudist values are trumped by his obligation as a good Christian to not only be as judgemental as possible, as often as possible, but to go beyond judging to being prejudiced and proud of it.

Dave </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately that isn't what being a good christian is really about. Somebody needs to clue him in, don't you think? (As if he'd listen)

BTW Dave, you've been making some great posts on here lately. Keep it up!

[Trailscout]

Well, resorts that become a freak show should not be surprized when most Americans considering social nudity pass them by for the family-friendly venues. (If this hasn't soured them on social nudity entirely).

Fortunately, many nudist parks are much more mainstreet America than this forum.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Well, resorts that become a freak show should not be surprized when most Americans considering social nudity pass them by for the family-friendly venues. (If this hasn't soured them on social nudity entirely).

Fortunately, many nudist parks are much more mainstreet America than this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate to break it to you but I <span class="ev_code_RED">WAS</span> talking about the family friendly venues.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daveinct:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
So much for nudists accepting everyone as they are.... Trail bursts another myth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cyndiann, in fairness to Trailscout, his nudist values are trumped by his obligation as a good Christian to not only be as judgemental as possible, as often as possible, but to go beyond judging to being prejudiced and proud of it.

Dave </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would have to say that he is doing a fine job of what you just stated. What happened to the idea of accepting people as they are?

[Bob S.]

Should nudist magazines and periodicals have articles supporting piercings? Yes.
Should nudist magazines show people in pictures with piercings, even if not as part of a piercing story? Yes.
Should the magazinges show a disporportionate number of pierced (or natural) people for a specific location? No.

Pictures of nudist parks should represent the parks' populations. Whether that be more older people than young, more huskier than svelt, more men than women, etc. it should give the reader a fairly accurate picture of the specific location. To do so otherwise is to be misleading. We, after all, deride some sites that show mostly young, thin girls/women in advertising for nudism. It is because it is not the right impression.

"To the extent that nudist resorts and magazines become bastions for alternate lifestyles, swingers, self-mutilation fetishes..."

You have described the extreme, Trail. To go from genital piercings and tattoos to sexual escapades is a long and bumpy road. They are not even connected.

People can have unusual piercings and still maintain traditional nudist ideals and be as friendly as anyone else. They can still exist in a family friendly environment. In fact, they can be a part of a loving family, the kind that nudist parks are looking for.

Bob S.

[Tyco]

It seems to me that it's the people who pierce and tattoo themselves, that can't accept themselves as they are. Otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to do this.

Trailscout has as much right to his opinion as anyone else. How often it is that those who cry "intolerant" are so intolerant themselves.

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tyco:
It seems to me that it's the people who pierce and tattoo themselves, that can't accept themselves as they are. Otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to do this.

Trailscout has as much right to his opinion as anyone else. How often it is that those who cry "intolerant" are so intolerant themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely. Furthermore, several posters here obviously have the mistaken idea that "tolerance" is the ultimate Christian virtue and that "true Christians" will "never judge." That is a popular myth at the moment, and about as true as the myth that all naturists are sex-crazed swingers.

Those who seek to use this fallacy to intimidate anyone who sticks up for some sort of moral standard usually know the scriptural phrase "judge not," but are almost always ignorant of what follows it: "for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." In other words, what goes around comes around. This was NOT a commandment not to judge others.

If Christianity stands for anything, it stands for a set of fundamental moral and spiritual principles by which we MUST judge, and which do not change despite the carping and catcalls of "intolerance!" In my experience those who yell the loudest at people like Trailscout who stand up for such principles do so because they can't abide the thought of having to curb or discipline their own natures or desires to conform to some superior authority, so they recognize the concept of an unchanging moral code as a threat, even if only subconsciously. Tyco is right on the money to note that those who cry "intolerant" are usually the most intolerant of all.

As to the particular issue here. My own opinion is that the body is a divine gift, perfectly designed, matchlessly beautiful, and deserving of as much respect and care as we can give it. I think it shows disrespect for God's gift and a lack of appreciation to deface the body with tattoos or piercings. Why anyone would want to do so is beyond me. Others are of course free to think and do differently, it is their right to do so. No doubt they will think me narrow-minded and intolerant. The number of middle-aged and senior citizens I've known who spend major bucks to have the tattoos of their youth removed persuades me that those who are wise will keep their bodies intact as God gave them.

[johny]

Trailscout:
Okay, I understand Your standpoint, yet I know even a few of quite heavily pierced (genital Prince Albert) naturists, and even more - them being a lifelong nudists, allready early pension age, so noone may say them had not standed a long way about proof their behaviours.

And that behaviour was been the same high as any average nudist if even not higher, even inspite of them not hide their sexual preferance which is, sad to tell, not straight.

I may witness, that nor the sexual preference, nor the piercing was not making any noticeable decline in the naturist supported norms of behaviour at the beach - therefore my decision, dear Trailscout, however Bible really condemns some certain lifestyle models, its not our sake to judge them NOW, when we surely have a Greater Judge Himself somewhere, so if certain person`s behaviour is still correct, its not even our business to tell them to pierce or not to pierce.

Yet if very personally, about piercings I am able to be quite tolerant about many of their kind, while tatoo at most of cases hit me to feel them balancing on the open Satanism boarder. But that is narrowly my mind, and I never would judge them by just a (perhaps) childish mistake in teenager age what is left for the all rest of life.

And, its so modern somehow now - I realize perhaps I am just old-fashioned.

[P.J.]

Personally, I detest tattoos and body piercings. I have never seen a tattoo or any body piercings which enhance anyone's appearance.

It seems that the misfits of the Hollywood elite have a bad influence on the younger crowd.

Some seem to think that as long as Angelina Jolie or Pamela Anderson get tattoos, then it must be alright.

I'm just glad that the Monkees didn't get tattooed or self-mutilated by body piercings back in their heydey otherwise I might've been permanently marked.

As much as I disapprove, I will not judge those who are marked and/or scared and mutilated. It's something that they will have to live with.

I'm glad that I never made that mistake.

[the NAKED eye]

Well, I'm for tolerating any lifestyle which does not harm others (and that means objectively not subjectively) Quite what a belief in Christianity has to do with genital piercings escapes me. For my part I have a few genital piercings, all for some years, and all in which I am pleased to wear rings and miniture barbells. True my Prince Albert ring is large (about an inch in circumference and a quarter inch thick) and I like it. It gets approval from most who have seen it- and many have over time. My Prince Albert shows in my avatar, but no further illustration of my "crown jewels" here on this Forum! The Moderators wouldn't approve.
Be naked- with or without piercings, with or without tattoos.
the NAKED eye

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tyco:
It seems to me that it's the people who pierce and tattoo themselves, that can't accept themselves as they are. Otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to do this.

Trailscout has as much right to his opinion as anyone else. How often it is that those who cry "intolerant" are so intolerant themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely. Furthermore, several posters here obviously have the mistaken idea that "tolerance" is the ultimate Christian virtue and that "true Christians" will "never judge." That is a popular myth at the moment, and about as true as the myth that all naturists are sex-crazed swingers.

Those who seek to use this fallacy to intimidate anyone who sticks up for some sort of moral standard usually know the scriptural phrase "judge not," but are almost always ignorant of what follows it: "for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." In other words, what goes around comes around. This was NOT a commandment not to judge others.

If Christianity stands for anything, it stands for a set of fundamental moral and spiritual principles by which we MUST judge, and which do not change despite the carping and catcalls of "intolerance!" In my experience those who yell the loudest at people like Trailscout who stand up for such principles do so because they can't abide the thought of having to curb or discipline their own natures or desires to conform to some superior authority, so they recognize the concept of an unchanging moral code as a threat, even if only subconsciously. Tyco is right on the money to note that those who cry "intolerant" are usually the most intolerant of all.

As to the particular issue here. My own opinion is that the body is a divine gift, perfectly designed, matchlessly beautiful, and deserving of as much respect and care as we can give it. I think it shows disrespect for God's gift and a lack of appreciation to deface the body with tattoos or piercings. Why anyone would want to do so is beyond me. Others are of course free to think and do differently, it is their right to do so. No doubt they will think me narrow-minded and intolerant. The number of middle-aged and senior citizens I've known who spend major bucks to have the tattoos of their youth removed persuades me that those who are wise will keep their bodies intact as God gave them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not having an opinion that is troubling here. Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of what Trail posts on this site. What I disagree with him on is that people who have piercings should be barred from nudist resorts and clubs. He makes many assumptions about individuals whom he knows nothing about personally except for the fact that they have piercings.

Remember, man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at the heart... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Soleil Nu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
Those who seek to use this fallacy to intimidate anyone who sticks up for some sort of moral standard usually know the scriptural phrase "judge not," but are almost always ignorant of what follows it: "for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." In other words, what goes around comes around. This was NOT a commandment not to judge others.

If Christianity stands for anything, it stands for a set of fundamental moral and spiritual principles by which we MUST judge </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not having a single shred of political corectness in me, the only thing I can say about this is that it's complete b*ll****. This kind of reasonning is a perfect example of the way so-called "christians" throughout history have deformed the original teachings of Christ to justify unspeakable abominations like war, torture, murder, slavery and genocide, just to name a few.

The other day I was watching an anti gay marriage demonstration on the news. Some of the demonstrators held up signs on which were written in large letters the words: "GOD HATES GAYS". Obviously, these *ssholes were completely missing the most fondamental point of christianity which is LOVE, and has nothing to do with this "set of fundamental moral and spiritual principles by which we MUST judge" crap, which sounds much more like the line of thought of the pharisees who's hypocracy was so vehemently denounced by Christ himself. The only thing a real christian MUST do is LOVE; Love his neighbour, love his ennemy, love the sinners. Why is this so hard to grasp for so many people ?

The teachings of Christ are contained not only in his words, but most importantly in the way he lived his life. A piece of advice for you TimO'c and all of those so-called "christians" who think they are so much more rightious than everyone else: Go read your Gospels. And when you're done, read them again. Obviously you haven't done this enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
Others are of course free to think and do differently, it is their right to do so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the other hand, this phrase sums up perfectly what tolerance is all about and I couldn't agree more. As was said by another poster, tolerance does not have to imply agreement. It means accepting the fact that others are free to make whatever choices they see fit for themselves, even if it means choosing "eternal damnation" according to one's beliefs.

[Trailscout]

Fish,

When I was in high school the hoodlums wore leather jackets. Some of the guys were not hoods, they just liked the look. But they got treated the same, good or bad. Not fair? No, but it was their choice to look that way.

I know you are a good soul, but you seem to have decided to look like the bad guys.

Come to Georgia and let's go fishing. Just hang a piece of liver from all your hooks and jump in the lake. After ten minutes you'll have lots of bass and catfish hanging off you and we can then have a fish fry!

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Fish,

When I was in high school the hoodlums wore leather jackets. Some of the guys were not hoods, they just liked the look. But they got treated the same, good or bad. Not fair? No, but it was their choice to look that way.

I know you are a good soul, but you seem to have decided to look like the bad guys.

Come to Georgia and let's go fishing. Just hang a piece of liver from all your hooks and jump in the lake. After ten minutes you'll have lots of bass and catfish hanging off you and we can then have a fish fry! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then, when Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself.", what He really meant was, "Love your neighbor as yourself, unless he looks like, or is, a 'bad guy'. Then, you should snub him. But first, let him know all about the bad decisions he has made. That will surely win him over to Me...".

It's sad that those of the world understand this commandment and follow it better than those in Christianity.

P.S. I hate fishing!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif How could you even suggest it? Oh, the in-fish-anity of it all!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I would much rather go hunting down cats and do this:

http://www.geocities.com/gamblefish@sbcglobal.net/piercedcat.jpg

[TimO\'C]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
This kind of reasonning is a perfect example of the way so-called "christians" throughout history have deformed the original teachings of Christ to justify unspeakable abominations like war, torture, murder, slavery and genocide, just to name a few.[QUOTE]

I agree. And I think every true Christian should be as horrified as you and I are by such perversions of Christ's example and message.

[QUOTE]
The other day I was watching an anti gay marriage demonstration on the news. Some of the demonstrators held up signs on which were written in large letters the words: "GOD HATES GAYS". Obviously, these *ssholes were completely missing the most fondamental point of christianity which is LOVE, and has nothing to do with this "set of fundamental moral and spiritual principles by which we MUST judge" crap, which sounds much more like the line of thought of the pharisees who's hypocracy was so vehemently denounced by Christ himself. The only thing a real christian MUST do is LOVE; Love his neighbour, love his ennemy, love the sinners. Why is this so hard to grasp for so many people ? The teachings of Christ are contained not only in his words, but most importantly in the way he lived his life. A piece of advice for you TimO'c and all of those so-called "christians" who think they are so much more rightious than everyone else: Go read your Gospels. And when you're done, read them again. Obviously you haven't done this enough. [QUOTE]

I agree with you again. Such demonstrations are ridiculous and not in harmony with the teachings of Christ. I believe they are hateful and bigoted.

However, you then demonstrate my point, which is the current popular notion that "love" and "tolerance" must obliterate everything else Christ taught and stood for. He did indeed preach love and tolerance and patience and forgiveness. But He taught a lot more than that, some of it very personally demanding. And when He forgave the woman taken in adultery, He didn't say "Oh, that's all right." He said "Go, and SIN NO MORE." That is, He was forgiving, but He also expected her to keep the standard and not slip again.

Is this enough cognitive dissonance for you? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Loving the sinner does not mean we have to abandon all support for avoiding the sin, or that we can simply decide ourselves that a sin is no longer sinful. I'm speaking generically here, not about any particular "sin." So don't start with the "bigoted homophobe" stuff. Again, it's a very popular myth that Christ taught nothing more than love and forgiveness. It's popular because it doesn't demand any self-sacrifice or self-discipline. Anybody who taught such a philosophy would probably be welcomed wherever they went, because everybody likes being told they're OK, and nobody likes to be reminded of their faults.

It is a difficult and strenuous thing to try to live according to ALL the teachings of Christ. Nobody manages it perfectly. And nobody should be forced to try. Force, compulsion, intimidation, embarrassment are not divine, they are tools of the other side. Christ invited but never forced anyone. But Christianity is not a smorgasbord either. If one professes it, one has a duty to try to follow all of it, not just the "love and tolerance" part. And that sometimes means sticking up for morals and standards that many will mock as "narrow minded" or worse. It is a difficult balancing act.

BTW, I read the scriptures almost daily. Would be curious to know how often you do. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'm glad we're in agreement on respecting freedom of choice. I hope you recognize, though, that respect for that freedom does not mean I have no right to protest against what I think is un-Christian or morally wrong or sinful or harmful. Frankly, I don't appreciate being called "intolerant" when I do so. Someone who resorts to name-calling usually does so because they can't argue against what they don't like on more substantive grounds. So if you disagree, set aside the personal attacks and show me from the scriptures why I am wrong. That approach I will respect, regardless of whether we agree or not.

[Bob S.]

"He makes many assumptions about individuals whom he knows nothing about personally except for the fact that they have piercings."

Amen to that gamble! I believe that judgement should be reserved to behaviour and not to looks/appearances.

Example: some people are fat because they are lazy and eat too much. Therefore, any fat person is that way because they are lazy and eat too much. Major fallacy, outright wrong, and plain ignorant.

Yes, we send out messages based on what we wear and adorn ourselves with. But the people who can see past that message and actually find out who that person is by talking with them is doing best and in the process, is undoing any prejudice that he/she has.

"I know you are a good soul, but you seem to have decided to look like the bad guys."

Trail, let's judge Jesus by the people he chose to hang out with. Lepers, prostitutes, impoverished, criminals, etc. Or do you look past what he looked like and who his friends were?

Bob S.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
When I was in high school the hoodlums wore leather jackets. Some of the guys were not hoods, they just liked the look. But they got treated the same, good or bad. Not fair? No, but it was their choice to look that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You choose to judge a book by its cover without bothering to look inside. This is a very clear example of prejudice.

My older brother could have been described as one of the people that would have been considered a rough kind of person at first glance. He is now the police chief of the town he grew up in. Shows just how valid your surface judgements are.

[Unwired]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
I hope you recognize, though, that respect for that freedom does not mean I have no right to protest against what I think is un-Christian or morally wrong or sinful or harmful. Frankly, I don't appreciate being called "intolerant" when I do so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way; calling someone "intolerant" is a factual observation, not name-calling. Not everyone here agrees on the same source for whatever moral codes by which they live, so it is presumptuous to exempt oneself from being judged intolerant when they have taken it upon themselves to impose their own particular standards on others who may not even have the same beliefs. I'm intolerant of many things, and I don't have a problem with being called on it if it's in fact the truth.

You and anyone else here are free to state your convictions in such a way that does not slander or defame individuals or groups or violate the TOS, but if anyone decides that they themselves have the moral authority to judge others based on their own particular moral code, then they had best be prepared to be questioned about it in the public forum.

Now, about that first stone...http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



Unwired

[TimO\'C]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Unwired:
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way; calling someone "intolerant" is a factual observation, not name-calling. Not everyone here agrees on the same source for whatever moral codes by which they live, so it is presumptuous to exempt oneself from being judged intolerant when they have taken it upon themselves to impose their own particular standards[QUOTE]

A "factual observation" is "sunlight is warm." "Intolerant" is almost completely subjective; for many people it essentially means nothing more than "somebody who doesn't agree with me and says so." You also assume--mistakenly--that I have sought to "impose" my standards on others just by speaking up in defense of them. A non sequitur. I've done no such thing.

[QUOTE] if anyone decides that they themselves have the moral authority to judge others based on their own particular moral code, then they had best be prepared to be questioned about it in the public forum. [QUOTE]

Agreed! And that goes both ways. I don't expect anyone to accept what I say without question. By the same token, those who yell "Intolerant hypocritical Christians!" had better be prepared also for rigorous questioning of their justifications for their judgments and authority for doing so.

[Daveinct]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tyco:
It seems to me that it's the people who pierce and tattoo themselves, that can't accept themselves as they are. Otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to do this.

Trailscout has as much right to his opinion as anyone else. How often it is that those who cry "intolerant" are so intolerant themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely. Furthermore, several posters here obviously have the mistaken idea that "tolerance" is the ultimate Christian virtue and that "true Christians" will "never judge." That is a popular myth at the moment, and about as true as the myth that all naturists are sex-crazed swingers.

Those who seek to use this fallacy to intimidate anyone who sticks up for some sort of moral standard usually know the scriptural phrase "judge not," but are almost always ignorant of what follows it: "for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." In other words, what goes around comes around. This was NOT a commandment not to judge others.

If Christianity stands for anything, it stands for a set of fundamental moral and spiritual principles by which we MUST judge, and which do not change despite the carping and catcalls of "intolerance!" In my experience those who yell the loudest at people like Trailscout who stand up for such principles do so because they can't abide the thought of having to curb or discipline their own natures or desires to conform to some superior authority, so they recognize the concept of an unchanging moral code as a threat, even if only subconsciously. Tyco is right on the money to note that those who cry "intolerant" are usually the most intolerant of all.

As to the particular issue here. My own opinion is that the body is a divine gift, perfectly designed, matchlessly beautiful, and deserving of as much respect and care as we can give it. I think it shows disrespect for God's gift and a lack of appreciation to deface the body with tattoos or piercings. Why anyone would want to do so is beyond me. Others are of course free to think and do differently, it is their right to do so. No doubt they will think me narrow-minded and intolerant. The number of middle-aged and senior citizens I've known who spend major bucks to have the tattoos of their youth removed persuades me that those who are wise will keep their bodies intact as God gave them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is sone of the funniest things I've read in a very long time. Thanks for the laugh.

Dave

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:

A "factual observation" is "sunlight is warm." "Intolerant" is almost completely subjective; for many people it essentially means nothing more than "somebody who doesn't agree with me and says so." You also assume--mistakenly--that I have sought to "impose" my standards on others just by speaking up in defense of them. A non sequitur. I've done no such thing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the problem here is not your opinion or your speaking up in defense of it. What I object to is when someone tries to keep me from entering a place because I have decided to do something to my body that they don't like. Now, you are forcing me to "conform or be cast out".

Now, if the owner of said place says I can't come in, then I will have to abide by his wishes. I probably would not like it there anyway. I like to get along with people, no matter what our differences may be. Trust me, there are plenty of nudist venues that have no problem with piercings, and judge you only on your behavior, not what you look like.

Final thought, the crux of this issue (for some) is that people with piercings are "sexual deviants" and therefore are not fit to socialize with. If only they knew how many "sexual deviants" are in the churches of America...

[Unwired]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:

You also assume--mistakenly--that I have sought to "impose" my standards on others just by speaking up in defense of them. A non sequitur. I've done no such thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When someone assumes the imperative to judge someone else's behavior as "moral" or "immoral" based on their own personally held beliefs, I would say that's tantamount to the imposition of a moral code.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the same token, those who yell "Intolerant hypocritical Christians!" had better be prepared also for rigorous questioning of their justifications for their judgments and authority for doing so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bring it. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



Unwired

[Unwired]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:
Now, you are forcing me to "conform or be cast out".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SUBDIVISIONS!

Well said as usual, Fish. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daveinct:

This is sone of the funniest things I've read in a very long time. Thanks for the laugh.

Dave </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, folks, those who don't have the substance to argue with will resort to mockery or name-calling. QED. Thanks for the demonstration Dave.

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
When someone assumes the imperative to judge someone else's behavior as "moral" or "immoral" based on their own personally held beliefs, I would say that's tantamount to the imposition of a moral code.

Unwired </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you and I and everyone do that all the time. It's unavoidable. You have a "moral code" too, and you judge others by it. You're doing so right now. "Imposing" something on someone else means forcing them to actually DO something they don't want to. Just because I or anyone else speaks their mind about what they believe doesn't "impose" anything. If that were the standard, then kiss the First Amendment goodbye. But what you propose is even more ominous, namely, that even to think of conclusions about someone else is wrong. An unrealistic and impossible standard. That is a true "factual conclusion."

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:
Again, the problem here is not your opinion or your speaking up in defense of it. What I object to is when someone tries to keep me from entering a place because I have decided to do something to my body that they don't like. Now, you are forcing me to "conform or be cast out".

Now, if the owner of said place says I can't come in, then I will have to abide by his wishes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. And rightly so. That's the owner's right. I wouldn't argue for anything more than that, because respecting his right to do so protects everyone's right to make such decisions for themselves.

[Daveinct]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daveinct:

This is sone of the funniest things I've read in a very long time. Thanks for the laugh.

Dave </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, folks, those who don't have the substance to argue with will resort to mockery or name-calling. QED. Thanks for the demonstration Dave. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to disappoint you, but I was neither calling you names nor mocking you. I honestly found your post to be hilarious.

Dave

[Unwired]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
But what you propose is even more ominous, namely, that even to think of conclusions about someone else is wrong. An unrealistic and impossible standard. That is a true "factual conclusion." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa! Uhm...can anyone identify in my posts where I even came close to suggesting such a thing?

This is starting to have an unsettlingly familiar ring to it: "I am free to pass whatever moral judgements I see fit, yet anyone who states their opposition to my beliefs in a way that I don't like (such labelling me 'intolerant') is a member of the thought police." Please tell me that's not where you're going with this.

I will say it one more time: anyone is welcome to state their convictions as long as they do not violate the TOS. Just don't expect a free pass in doing so.



Unwired

[TimO\'C]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
Whoa! Uhm...can anyone identify in my posts where I even came close to suggesting such a thing?

This is starting to have an unsettlingly familiar ring to it: "I am free to pass whatever moral judgements I see fit, yet anyone who states their opposition to my beliefs in a way that I don't like (such labelling me 'intolerant') is a member of the thought police." Please tell me that's not where you're going with this.

Unwired </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, that's not where I'm going. As I've said, people are and should be free to state their beliefs without restriction. The thought police are those who try to impose (active verb, not just speaking or thinking) punishment on others merely for speaking or thinking. That I will never do.

[gamblefish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TimO'C:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gamblefish:
Again, the problem here is not your opinion or your speaking up in defense of it. What I object to is when someone tries to keep me from entering a place because I have decided to do something to my body that they don't like. Now, you are forcing me to "conform or be cast out".

Now, if the owner of said place says I can't come in, then I will have to abide by his wishes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. And rightly so. That's the owner's right. I wouldn't argue for anything more than that, because respecting his right to do so protects everyone's right to make such decisions for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I do respect his right to do so. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now let's go one step further. This owner who bans those with piercings can be said to be intolerant of those individuals. By his own admission, he will not tolerate people who wish to pierce themselves coming into his club. No matter that they may behave better than someone who is not pierced, he is making a judgement solely on an outward appearance. And he is perfectly free to do so. But, just like Trail's "bad guy" analogy, don't be suprised when someone calls him "intolerant".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Trail, let's judge Jesus by the people he chose to hang out with. Lepers, prostitutes, impoverished, criminals, etc. Or do you look past what he looked like and who his friends were?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob, meant to comment on this before. This is an awesome point. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
SUBDIVISIONS!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This song perfectly describes my youth...

[Trailscout]

Fish, quite a few resorts have a "no clothing in pool" rule. Quite a few have a "no genital piercing" rule.

If your dress (either of above) conflict with the goals of the resort, then either remove these items or find somewhere else to go.

You are a nice guy, but you insist on admission to a place with policies that you don't like. Why keep bashing your head against a brick wall? People aren't going to change an entire resort's policies just to suit you. Get over it!

[Brian1972]

Hello Forum contributors,

Thanks for your interest in the Travel Naturally magazine that had an article illustrated with pierced naturists. I am the author of that article and after monitoring the posts over this topic I really am a bit disappointed by the responses.

I get the impression that a majority of people only looked at the photos without understanding the purpose of that story. The point was to express that naturism is under distress right now. Naturism is losing members. Naturism is having a tough time getting new members to join clubs - landed and nonlanded. Clubs are not evolving to be tolerant and accepting towards young naturists or all naturists for that matter. The people who are making the rules are looking for new members who fit their criteria. If you want new, young members then you need to analyze and understand what the members you are seeking are interested in. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this often does cause unrest because the views of others are different from yours.

This articles purpose was not to promote piercing, tattoos, etc.

The purpose was to say - hey - young naturists are pierced, they have tattoos, they are not in a committed relationship as soon as their parents and grandparents were and there are also some relationships which are same sex.

In any event, I am glad to see that it sparked some dialogue - just wish it would have been about the real issue of the article.

[Trailscout]

Are we so desperate for warm bodies at nudist resorts that we would expose our children to mutilated genitals and pretend that it's okay, that we have to tolerate the antithesis of what we stand for: the affirmation of the nude unadorned body?

We don't have to make that choice. Plenty of people young and old are pouring into the family resorts and they are not wearing clothes and the beauty of their bodies is not marred by gruesome metal spikes.

Family naturism will grow; not because we abandon the principles of nudism or naturism, but because we stand our ground and help a hurting world escape body shame and escape a lecherous view of simple nudity. I have seen local success because we have programs for children, activities for teens, sports events for all ages and a warm family atmosphere. Fair prices and a firm committment to a hassle-free environment are also part of the formula for success.

[NudeAl]

I think there is some middle ground here. Moderation is the key to everything. One or two peircings isn't going to be a big deal in most places, some resorts yes. Now if the guy or gal is wearing enough metal to set off and airport metal detector then yes okay maybe they need to rethink this before heading out to the resort. I just think we can find a happy medium somewhere with out all the arguing.

[Trailscout]

Al, I go to resorts that ban the metal. I don't have to say anything to anyone. It's possible that some folks are removing the stuff before they attend the park for the day. That's their business. I have never seen a piercing and I hope I never do. There is no conflict in the real world.

[jon71]

I say live and let live. Not something I plan on but in a free country adults should be free to live their own life. For that matter it's not something to hide from kids either. If my girl wanted to I would say do your homework, research it, and if you can pay for it when you're 18 that's your call. Until 18 the answer is no and it won't be done on my dime but children aren't children forever (mores the pity). I won't even let her pierce (spelling?) her ears until she's old enough to clean and care for it herself. That day will come however. We can raise them right but we can't hold them back. Sooner or later they enter the world and we (parents) have to trust we did our job well.

[Zorro]

Being a massage therapist, I've worked for many years on many people with tattoos (it's kinda difficult to tell what sort of piercings they have below the neck since they're otherwise draped), and work with many therapists who have tattoos and piercings. Plus, I see many people at Harbin with both as well, so it's normal for me. I think there is a limit (where they set off metal detectors at airports), but otherwise, just like everything else, moderation is a good thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brian1972:
Hello Forum contributors,

Thanks for your interest in the Travel Naturally magazine that had an article illustrated with pierced naturists. I am the author of that article and after monitoring the posts over this topic I really am a bit disappointed by the responses.

I get the impression that a majority of people only looked at the photos without understanding the purpose of that story. The point was to express that naturism is under distress right now. Naturism is losing members. Naturism is having a tough time getting new members to join clubs - landed and nonlanded. Clubs are not evolving to be tolerant and accepting towards young naturists or all naturists for that matter. The people who are making the rules are looking for new members who fit their criteria. If you want new, young members then you need to analyze and understand what the members you are seeking are interested in. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this often does cause unrest because the views of others are different from yours. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take into consideration that most of us never read the article and that the person that started this topic failed to mention what it was about, preferring to comment only on the photos. I personally had no idea what it was about. Sounds like something I'd be interested in reading.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

This articles purpose was not to promote piercing, tattoos, etc.

The purpose was to say - hey - young naturists are pierced, they have tattoos, they are not in a committed relationship as soon as their parents and grandparents were and there are also some relationships which are same sex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is why they aren't at the resorts.... the rules at many of them don't allow single males, piercings, all those attributes that belong to the younger ones very often. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

In any event, I am glad to see that it sparked some dialogue - just wish it would have been about the real issue of the article. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No reason why we can't do that now.

It seems clubs intentionally do things to exclude people. Not very good marketing if you ask me. Someone mentioned that it's usually the co-op clubs that are this way but I've not found this to be true.

Lake Como here in Florida is a co-op and allows both genital piercing (within reason) and singles. Matter of fact, they have singles weekends quarterly. There is still not many younger people there. Maybe they need to get the word out a little better, huh?

[Brian1972]

I found it very interesting that people are responding with such emotion over a photo comment made by someone who may have not read the magazine article that it accompanies.

Therefore, I am offering to mail a copy of the Travel Naturally magazine containing this article (and photo) to anyone on either side of this debate. Please email me your mailing address and I will send it to you without cost.

[Brian1972]

You may also post your additional comments directly to the editors of Travel Naturally magazine at their website:

Internaturally.com/members

All magazines appreciate direct comments about the content of the magazine. Be Pro-Active.

Thank you for all comments - pro and con.

[Trailscout]

Maybe nudity is the problem with attracting young people. If nudist resorts would ban nudity, the young people would come streaming in. After all, visit any textile beach in America and there are young people aplenty and women slightly outnumber men.

Nudity is obviously passe and an impediment to the success of nudist venues.

And maybe a sexual atmosphere is the missing key to success. The more gruesome and lewd the body jewelry, the more the "hip crowd" will come racing in to party down. The S&M crowd can replace the ranks vacated by people fleeing the freak show.

And by all means subscribe to magazines that promote this macabre spectacle! Impressionable young people need role models and what better than images of men who have ruptured their urethras and ruined all hope of normal function?

The magazine must be praised for being on the cutting edge of fashion, so contrary to the respect for the body that nudism used to elevate as the ideal. But who cares about the goodness of the nude unadorned body anymore? This is the 21st Century and the age of the Borg, no human body must go unmodified. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated; you will be pierced!

[jon71]

I'm not going to get into a long debate on this one but let me toss this bit out. I work at wal-mart in a small town in the south. From this conservative (ish) piece of America I can tell that ink and piercings are becoming more common. I have several coworkers who have tattoos and/or navel rings (wouldn't know about more) and I am talking about middle aged parents (30 something to 40 something). This is no longer cutting edge or out there but something that middle America has accepted. No one has to like it but strict rules would bar a lot more people, mainstream people, than you might imagine. My last comment, live and let live.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
The magazine must be praised for being on the cutting edge of fashion, so contrary to the respect for the body that nudism used to elevate as the ideal. But who cares about the goodness of the nude unadorned body anymore? This is the 21st Century and the age of the Borg, no human body must go unmodified. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated; you will be pierced! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would indeed have to praise this magazine for showing people as they are instead of some unrealistic depiction of how some people wish things were.

I for one do not care whether someone has tattoos or piercings. It is their decision and I do not have a problem with it. It is not my responsibility to go around telling people what they are allowed to do.

My concept of nudism is to do the same things you do when you are wearing clothes. It is just more comfortable to not wear clothes in many situations. Nudism is not about restricting choices, it is about expanding choices.

[Trailscout]

As they are? Wearing clothes or metal is not "as you are". It is the textile mentality masquerading as tolerance.

Tattoos and metal are graffiti on a work of art. It is your right to ruin the masterpiece you own, but the right of the owner of an art gallery not to admit graffiti into a gallery of the fine arts. Same thing with owners of nudist resorts.

In these parts, there are plenty of people who enjoy going to a resort with a "no body mutilation" policy.

I simply chose to go to a place that does not allow such ugliness within their gates.

[Soleil Nu]

For some people, nudism (or naturism) is more than mere nudity; it is a philosophy, a way of life, a set of values and moral standards including healthy lifestyle choices, closeness to nature, respect to one's body and to the environment.

As for some other people, well, they just wanna get naked.

There are as many definitions of nudism as there are people.

Similarly, resort owners have there own definition of nudism. For some, the combination nudism-piercing is simply unthinkable. As for others, they couldn't care less. And of course, each resort owner is absolutely free to run his business as he sees fit, and according to his own personnal definition of nudism.

The same goes for editors of nudist magazines. Can they put on the front cover a picture of some guy with a genital piercing ? If this is consistent with their vision of nudism, and this is the kind of nudism they wish to promote, then yes they can.

Those who don't agree only have to not read these magazines, and not go to the resorts that associate themselves with them. There are more than one nudist magazines, and if one does not find among them one that corresponds to his/her particular vision or nudism/naturism, then why not start their own magazine/resort ?

[Brian1972]

Sincere respect and admiration for those who have posted intelligent responses.

The offer is still valid, in case recent posters haven't scrolled up, to receive this 'controversial' issue for free if you wish for me to send it to you. Email your mailing address and I will send it. I am the associate editor of the magazine and author of this article.

Please read the article and understand what the reason for the photo use is about. The picture is not on the cover nor does the magazine promote that nudists run out and get pierced.

As is the case with all hobbies, clubs and religions, there are those who adopt a fundamentalist attitude. Travel Naturally magazine respects the beliefs of all naturists! Unfortunately, the only constant in life is change and we understand that naturism is evolving too.

In the broader scope of life, you can see how an intolerant attitude would inhibit the growth of naturism in changing times.

[Bob S.]

"Family naturism will grow; not because we abandon the principles of nudism or naturism, but because we stand our ground and help a hurting world escape body shame and escape a lecherous view of simple nudity."

Trail, the principles of nudism are going to change with every generation just as the principles of society do as well. If social nudism does not adapt to a changing society, it will become a fossil and die out.

Reread Brian's message. He mentioned that the 18-25 set, a good demographic to attain to, may not be able to get into a number of nudist parks because they may have tattoos, piercings, and are single. Or are we to just abandon them until they can remove their tattoos and piercings and get married?

"If nudist resorts would ban nudity, the young people would come streaming in."

Trail, what you wrote in that sweet smell of sarcasm I will reply with the strong aroma of seriousness.

You know that is wrong. The other problem is that nudist parks are not bastions of young adult activity. They are more conservative areas that cater to an older clientelle. But they could also do more to attract the younger, semi-independent and independent sets namely college students and graduates.

Volleyball, pentaque, and swimming are not going to cut it with younger people. They need a reason to be there. What is it that they want? I know that I would be out there a lot more if there were more to do that I liked.

Again, this is about catering to the demographic you want. Banning or limiting singles, tattoos and piercings are not going to help bring in the youth.

Bob S.

[Trailscout]

Bob, you are not making much sense today. I can't imagine why nudists have to abandon their principles every few years and try to come up with something new. Do Jews or Christians do that? I think not.

When I was in college, quite a few people would go to a pasture, drink beer, crank up the music on our car stereos and talk to girls. We were in a rural area and there wasn't much else to do, but they seemed to enjoy going to this field every Saturday night.

Some resorts don't attract young people because of prices, but I just don't agree with your comments about sports. Where I go, the one place you will see teens and young adults the most is at our sporting events, including volleyball and petanque. We also have dances for teens that are very popular.

We ban piercing and it's never been a problem.
We allow tattoos. I don't care for them, but a few people sport them. It's a non issue.

I think you need to learn the difference between principles andd prejudice.

[Bob S.]

"I can't imagine why nudists have to abandon their principles every few years and try to come up with something new."

I am not saying they have to abandon anything, but they have to take into consideration where the prevailing winds of society are blowing. You see the unadorned body as one of hte ideals of nudism. I and many others see that much differently.

In my philosophy of nudism, tattoos and piercings are welcomed. Both of those were probably looked at very negatively 20 years ago, but with the proliferation and popularity of both tats and piercings as time went on, society has come to accept, more or less, most kinds of piercings and tats.

Now that society has accepted them, how long will it take before organized nudism will? I bet that in 20 years, there will be very, very few resorts that ban tats and/or piercings.

"Do Jews or Christians do that? I think not."

Yes, but not every few years. There are Christian Bible magainzes, new modern interpretations of the Bible, Christian Rap and Hip-Hop (what was once condidered the Devil's music), etc. Religions have to reach into the pop culture to reach teens who couold become disinterested. Nudism should be doing that, too.

"Some resorts don't attract young people because of prices..."

That is a weak argument. It is also a whole other topic. Young adults will pay to get into places where they feel wanted, welcomed, and have many different things to do.

"We ban piercing and it's never been a problem."

It has never been a problem because they are not allowed in. It may be a problem to those who cannot enter because of it.

Bob S.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
It has never been a problem because they are not allowed in. It may be a problem to those who cannot enter because of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Discrimination usually isn't a problem for the person doing the discriminating. It is a problem for the target of this discrimination.

[PaulC]

Well, I guess we have had about all of the possible comments we could on this subject. However, I'll put in my 2 cents worth.

I have several piercings in my foreskin usually only wearing jewerly in one. I have had mixed reactions at various nudist venues. Years ago, the first time I attended the Nude Volleyball Superbown at White Thorn in PA I had a small ring in my piercing. At the pool I was politely asked if it was possible to remove it for the day. Of course I did. At places such as Haulover, I and many others wear our body jewerly with no problems. Some resorts and parks do not mind, others do. So lets just go with the flow and not get up tight about it. After all, the important thing is that we are not asked to put on clothes.

[link to wesbite with inappropriate content removed]

[Tyco]

There could be another aspect of this that I don't think has been mentioned yet.

Resorts may be concerned with the health issue. Many resorts will not allow anyone into the pool or hottub with cuts or open sores. They may be refusing piercings for the same reason. They have no way of knowing for certain that someone's piercings are not oozing or bleeding, or might do so after getting into the hottub. This would be a very understandable concern from the resort's viewpoint.

Also, at my resort (which does not ban piercings....yet) I have seen several people with piercings have to leave the sauna because the metal would get uncomfortably hot. Seems to me, all they would have to do is remove the piercings, but I don't think they did.

[BackpackerBrian]

But don't genital piercings decorate and thus draw attention to the penis or vagina??

And isn't nudism about the naturalness and normalness of nudity, where the genitals are simply another body part.

So by drawing attention to the genitals with piercings, are you being a nudist or an exhibitionist?

And what message are you conveying with these phots, in a magazine which represents the nudist lifestyle. Are we nudists or exhibitionists? What's next? Articles on Nudes-a-Poppin?

[Soleil Nu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
But don't genital piercings decorate and thus draw attention to the penis or vagina??

And isn't nudism about the naturalness and normalness of nudity, where the genitals are simply another body part.

So by drawing attention to the genitals with piercings, are you being a nudist or an exhibitionist?

And what message are you conveying with these phots, in a magazine which represents the nudist lifestyle. Are we nudists or exhibitionists? What's next? Articles on Nudes-a-Poppin? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aren't earrings drawing attention to the ears ?

Isn't lipstick drawing attention to the mouth ?

Aren't rings drawing attention to the hands ?

So if the genitals are "simply another body part", then why would we have the right to draw attention to any part of the body but these ones ?

[Brian1972]

BackpackerBrian...I disagree that it draws attention any differently than do earring, a necklace, rings, bellychains, a hat or even eyeglasses.

Secondly, I think Soleil Nu has the premise you are trying to endorse - that genitals are 'simply another body part'.

My thought provoking question for everyone would be to think back about 10 year ago...(This happens to be when I became interested in naturism.)

1. I clearly remember that the shaving of the genital region was unheard of, few people did shave their genitals and when they did they were deemed to be 'outcasts' by the conservative naturists. Now, it is an accepted practice and one that provokes an exchange on 'how-to.'

2. I also would like to question breast enhancement surgery. Why is this not drawing 'fire'? Don't enlarged breasts constitute a modification of the natural female body?

3. How about penile implants? I have seen men at resorts with a perminent semi-rigid penis and no one complains about that!

BackpackerBrian...have you read the article in Travel Naturally that accompanies the photo you find offensive? The purpose was not to promote tattoos, piercings etc - it was primarily to alert the naturist community that ignorance and a lack of openness by those running the nudist community is creating a disservice because they are alienating the young adults. The very people - the young generation - that the mature (for lack of a better term), 40-60 something crowd, is trying to attract are being denied. The new members that the older generation is searching for are not to be found...

This very week - a 30 year old single woman with a young child was denied membership to my local club because her nipple was pierced!

Every year the costs to be a member of nudist clubs and resorts will continue to rise because of taxes, utilities etc. Each year the membership base will unfortunately decline because of deaths of older members. Eventually, the stubborn members who refuse to move with the times will have to split the costs among themselves and have no choice but to close their resorts because they cannot afford the club's costs.

What I thought to be most welcoming about naturism when I found this lifestyle was that people accepted me for who I was without my clothes...unfortunately...as time has moved on...it has become evident that they only accepted me without my clothes as long as I agreed with their attitudes and views.

Best wishes to all - regardless of your views on this topic.

By the way...with so many expressing their opinions, only 2 people have requested a free copy of this issue that I offered to mail! I found this to be quite ironic.

Enjoy each others differences!

[Trailscout]

BackpackerBrian,

I agree, hanging shiny metal spikes off the tip of your penis, or worse, skewering it so doesn't even function right, sure does scream,
"Exhibitionist"!

Also, I reject the premise that genitals are no different from other body parts. Try a little crotch-grabbing in public and you can independently confirm that hypothesis.

And I can't believe that other Brian's lament that vast numbers of whining pierced young adults are weeping outside the iron gates of a nudist resort.

Most young adults are not skewered. Those who are reluctant to visit a nudist resort need a little more education, help with body image, maybe some programs to attract them. Nudist resorts can do much more to attract young people, but throwing open the gates to the weirdest of the weird is not going to win over the general public to nudism.

[Brian1972]

Trailscout...do you think that you might prove your point better if you dropped the negative adjectives and formulated an intelligent and educated adult response to prove your point?

From all your posts I can only get the impression that seeing pierced people makes you very uncomfortable. That seems to be a more reasonable response for you.

I do not think 'function' of body parts is a concern of this topic nor do I find that your belief that youth are banging on the doors to be let in is the objective of this conversation. On the contrary, since they are not interested enough in naturism because they are not feeling welcome. This should be of utmost concern to all naturists. United we stand, divided we fall...to the conservative elements of our government!

Above all else - calling people names (eg. 'the weirdest of the weird') is by far the ugliest and most childish thing that anyone can have attached to themself because that cannot be removed.

[Trailscout]

Negative adjectives come in handy when describing something that is negative. I use them sparingly, but do not regret my choice of words.

Ruining a perfectly good organ or merely putting it at risk of infection is but one of several valid criticisms of piercing. Such wanton damage is the antithesis of a philosophy that intends to nurture the nude human body. I can understand a hapless newbie naturist getting confused about this, but I am appalled that an ostensibly naturist magazine would succumb to such folly.

Are young victims of piercings a vast untapped market for nudist venues? No, of course not! Private naturist venues need not abandon common sense or lower their standards. Those who wish to attract young people can do many more practical things to make young adults feel welcome. Indeed lowering their standards will only chase away the majority of people who are not eager to enter a gallery of the macabre.

[Brian1972]

Trailscout...thank you for making your opinions on this topic so clear. Your remarks are appreciated.

Since everyone is familiar with my views too I do not think there is much more for me to say either.

I hope that others will take advantage of the opportunity to respond in either direction.

I personally think there is more validity to a magazine that doesn't try to colorize and fool the world about what is actually happening outside our comfort zone.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if the genitals are "simply another body part", then why would we have the right to draw attention to any part of the body but these ones ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, I reject the premise that genitals are no different from other body parts. Try a little crotch-grabbing in public and you can independently confirm that hypothesis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt that anyone would want someone to grab their butt, breasts or head of hair, so, by this "logic", it would also follow that head of hair, breasts and butt are also off-limits for attention. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But don't genital piercings decorate and thus draw attention to the penis or vagina?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what if it does?

[WacoTX]

I can't believe this topic is still going on! I posted earlier that I didn't care for piercing anything, but what other people do is not my concern. Denying membership to a woman with a pierced nipple is ridiculous. If you don't like seeing pierced parts of the body, divert your attention somewhere else. Get used to it. It is a fad and will go away in 20 to 30 years.

[Goddess402]

Didn't Travel Naturally offer a copy of the magazine to anyone who hadn't seen the article? I've read it, and though I personally dislike tattoos and piercings, have not found them offensive. The article addressed serious concerns of younger naturists, and I think resorts and clubs will benefit from hearing again, a major problem in accepting everyone for who they are, not what they wear!

[Bob S.]

"But don't genital piercings decorate and thus draw attention to the penis or vagina??"

Brian, I believe that fairly hariless people who have unshaven pubes are also drawing attention to their genitals. Seeing an island of hair in a sea of flesh does stand out. So should all relatively hairless people shave?

"Also, I reject the premise that genitals are no different from other body parts. Try a little crotch-grabbing in public and you can independently confirm that hypothesis."

Well Trail, it would depend on what kind of crotch grabbing it was. Maybe the guy had an itch. Maybe a bug just bit him. Would it be acceptible for a guy to just rub his lips with his fingers lustfully? Is it appropriate to pick your nose in public? Many things can be done that are inappropriate that have nothing to do with the penis.

"Ruining a perfectly good organ or merely putting it at risk of infection is but one of several valid criticisms of piercing."

But is it a good reason for discriminating against them at nudist parks?

"Such wanton damage is the antithesis of a philosophy that intends to nurture the nude human body."

But that is a philosophy that may be dying out, at least in the piercing and tattoo department. As I have mentioned, we can't go back to the days of Rev. Boone. Nudism must look forward for new ideas on how to introduce and maintain new nudists. Accepting them as they are is one way to do that. Maybe you can wean them off piercings when they get inside.

Using a religious analogy, you have a better chance to get a sinner to atone by welcoming him into your home than by denying him entry until he repents.

Bob S.

[HereticChick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
Thanks to everyone who has responded to the poll I put forward. Just to keep us focused, perhaps I should clarify the question a bit more.

The question is not whether or not a nudist should have genital piercings (one of my good friends has a genital piercing and she is the coolest nudist I know). The question is if a naturist publication should promote a disporportinate number of photos with people featuring genital piercings. How does this present a naturist and our community to newbies, or to the "non-believers" wishing to close our beaches, clubs, etc.

Case in point . . . in the '60's many sex mags went on the market under the facade of a naturist magazine. This caused a backlash and sent the naturist movement backward. Do we want that to happen again??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they should stick with reality. If there is 30% of naturists with piercings, then they should show it that way. If not, then don't.

I have a labia piercing, but I don't have it to draw attention to my genitals. I also have nipple piercings. They are totally for my benefit only. Not to draw your eyes to them. To each, his own, I say http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
I have a labia piercing, but I don't have it to draw attention to my genitals. I also have nipple piercings. They are totally for my benefit only. Not to draw your eyes to them. To each, his own, I say http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they DO draw the eyes to those areas. That is the purpose of jewellry is it not?

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But they DO draw the eyes to those areas. That is the purpose of jewellry is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A mans wedding band is not for the purpose of drawing attention to the finger, but is to announce that he is married.

A gold necklace with a symbol, such as a cross, Star of David, or other religious or fraternity symbol, shows his affiliation and is not for the purposes of drawing attention to the neck.

[Zorro]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
I have a labia piercing, but I don't have it to draw attention to my genitals. I also have nipple piercings. They are totally for my benefit only. Not to draw your eyes to them. To each, his own, I say http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they DO draw the eyes to those areas. That is the purpose of jewellry is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They draw attention to those particular areas only if one is already looking at those areas.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But they DO draw the eyes to those areas. That is the purpose of jewellry is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A mans wedding band is not for the purpose of drawing attention to the finger, but is to announce that he is married.

A gold necklace with a symbol, such as a cross, Star of David, or other religious or fraternity symbol, shows his affiliation and is not for the purposes of drawing attention to the neck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They have more than the one purpose: one to adorn and draw attention to that part of the body and two as symbols that adorn that part of the body.

[KirkOntario]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zorro:
But they DO draw the eyes to those areas. That is the purpose of jewellry is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They draw attention to those particular areas only if one is already looking at those areas.[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting shiny things don't catch the eye? Diamonds don't dazzle? Gold does not have lustre? We look at them because they shine and draw the eye.

[BackpackerBrian]

Hi Brian 1972, just to reply to some of your post . . .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brian1972:

BackpackerBrian...have you read the article in Travel Naturally that accompanies the photo you find offensive? The purpose was not to promote tattoos, piercings etc - it was primarily to alert the naturist community that ignorance and a lack of openness by those running the nudist community is creating a disservice because they are alienating the young adults. The very people - the young generation - that the mature (for lack of a better term), 40-60 something crowd, is trying to attract are being denied. The new members that the older generation is searching for are not to be found...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I did read the article. I found it to be very similar to the views represented in the CFF. I agree that young naturists have a different attitude about their bodies and what is acceptable. I too have friends who are naturists and tatoo-ed and pierced. I do not agree at all that the "new members that the older generation is searching for are not to be found". I am a young naturist, as are my friends. And we are proud to be naturists, even though we are often an age minority.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Every year the costs to be a member of nudist clubs and resorts will continue to rise because of taxes, utilities etc. Each year the membership base will unfortunately decline because of deaths of older members. Eventually, the stubborn members who refuse to move with the times will have to split the costs among themselves and have no choice but to close their resorts because they cannot afford the club's costs.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is indeed an issue. However I am not certain whether your article contributes to a solution or the problem.

First, for those who have not seen the article, in the photos I referred to, four men and two women display full-frontal nudity. Of those six people, only one does not have pierced genitals. This 5:1 ratio is not representative of young naturists.

By portraying "the anatomy of young naturists" in this manner, you run the risk of shooting yourself in the foot . . . twice. On one hand, you could turn off young naturists and potentials who are more "mainstream", leaving them with a negative impression of this is how "young naturists" are. On the other hand, you run the risk of alientating older naturists' acceptance to younger naturists. You don't have to be so extreme to make a point. Moreover, younger naturists are different than older naturists in regards to body art, relationships and other lifestyle choices. However, your aticle, while it addresses these issues, it fails to address our commonalities. And when we see our commin-ground, we are more open to celebrating each others' differences.

[Brian1972]

Hi BackpackerBrian,

Thanks for the reply. I know that there are young naturists out there but the inspiration for this article was written to inform 'older' naturists as to possible ways to increase the participation of young naturists who are otherwise excluded and made unwelcome. Why are young people a minority and what can be done to increase their numbers? This article was an exploration as to a segment of young naturists who might be interested in belonging if they were invited to belong. Of course there are many young people who do not participate in body modification: tattoos, piercings and circumsized (because that too my friend IS body modification!) but what can we as naturists do to increase participation on a universal level?

You are correct too that this article can both contribute to the solution or add to the problem. The goal, however, was to show a part of life that is actually out there. If you go to a public nude beach - this is what you can and will encounter. Travel Naturally magazine showed a real part of life as it does exist in the naturist community and not colorize and censor over a genuine issue.

I do need to disagree with you as far as to the content of the photo - understandably when you wrote this you might not have had the photo in front of you.

1. There are 7 people in the photo
2. The man in the center is over 50, with his scrotum pierced and showing his approval with a thumbs up sign to represent his approval of the young naturists that are with him (Young being those 35 and under - a different generation than his)
3. The 2 guys in the top left both have their penis pierced and with their arm around each other further showing an aspect of being together in a same sex relationship
4. The 2 girls on the far right have no piercings showing but they both have tattos on their backs and they too have their arms around each other to show an aspect that they could be in a same sex relationship
5. The girl on the bottom left does have both her nipples and her labia pierced, has a tattoo on her breast and she is Rubinesque
6. The guy on the bottom right has very long hair, a pierced nipple and no genital piercings.

Young naturists are a combination of the following discriminated groups: Tattooed, Pierced, Single in their 30s, in same sex relationships. The article pointed this out.

So I disagree that the ratio of genital piercings is 5:1 because I calculate it to be 4:3 which just about average - unless - you are considering the nipples to be part of the ratio but those are not genitals.

A single girl is welcome but not if she has a pierced nipple.
Couples are welcome but only if they are heterosexual.
Etc...

I understand your point that it is not necessary to be 'extreme' to make a point but sometimes extreme is the only way to spark a necessary conversation and that conversation is exactly what the written portion of the article (and thanks for telling us that you read it) is that we need to find ways to increase the population of youth in the naturist community while educating the conservative mainstream that there is a real, valid segment of young naturists interested in being welcomed.

The article does in fact address that there are young naturists (our commonality!) who have differences. Being naturists IS our "common-ground"...unfortunately...the older, conservative naturists are not "open to celebrating each others' differences."

Respectfully,
Brian1972

[BackpackerBrian]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brian1972:
1. There are 7 people in the photo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Two photos actually; four with pierced genitals in one photo, and one in the other photo (woman with thumbs-up). The women with their backs to the camera were not included because there's obviously no way to tell. The guy with no piercings was the "1". Thus the 5:1 equation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So I disagree that the ratio of genital piercings is 5:1 because I calculate it to be 4:3 which just about average - unless - you are considering the nipples to be part of the ratio but those are not genitals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never had nipples in the equation. I don't buy the 4:3 ratio as "average". You are saying for every 4 young naturists with pierced genitals, there are three without??? Does not add up. Even reversed, it's wicked skewed, in my opinion.

I am not questioning the validity of the argument or the article, simply the extreme case that was graphically made. This extreme action can in fact backfire by alienating a larger segment of young naturists - those who are more mainstream - as well as older naturists who set the rules at clubs.

[justsoaking]

adding humor to the subject.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brian1972:
What I thought to be most welcoming about naturism when I found this lifestyle was that people accepted me for who I was without my clothes...unfortunately...as time has moved on...it has become evident that they only accepted me without my clothes as long as I agreed with their attitudes and views. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have found many resorts to not be accepting at all.

As a single male living in Kansas City, I have had to learn to deal with the fact that the nearby resorts won't admit me. I would have to join a group in order to visit any of the full service resorts within several hours of here.

What I truly find amazing is the fact that all I would have to do is show up with a woman and I would be admitted. I am not even considered important in this matter, only the woman is.

Piercings are just one more thing that the resorts use as an excuse to turn away people. It is no wonder that the number of card carrying members of AANR is in decline when these various discriminatory policies are viewed as acceptable by the resorts. A primary reason to join AANR is in order to gain admittance to affiliated resorts and now we know that this won't even work for many people.

[Brian1972]

BackpackerBrian,

In discussing the ratio...It was in relation to the photo used with the article. It was never intended to be a 'scientific poll' of the population-at-large of young naturists. The photo was intended to show a diverse cross section of young people and the decisions that they may choose to make: piercing was only one and not the primary purpose. The photo was also representative of 2 men in a relationship, 2 women in a relationship, a single woman, a single guy, a guy with long hair, people with tattoos, without tattoos, various body shapes, multicultural relationship black girl/white girl...unfortunately, everyone has chosen to bite only on the piercing aspect. If there were young 'goth' naturists available when I took this photo - I would have most certainly have asked them to be in the photo too!

Regarding the ratio that I provided - it was correct for that specific photo - there were 7 people and the numbers need to reflect 7 people (in the photo) thus 4:3 (4 are pierced and 3 are not). Now if you want to include the second photo then my revised ratio would be 5:3 to reflect a total of 8 people represented in the 2 photos used.

I understand that you are not questioning the validity of the arguement or the article but I do not understand how you can say that this is an 'extreme case that was graphically made?' When you read the article and analyze all aspects of the photo in conjunction with the article then it is not as graphic as it seems to have appeared to you.

This article was meant to be informative and to spark conversation...not controversary - on one aspect.

I would be very happy to work together with you, and all interested, to find ways to increase interest among youth, to find new young naturists and most importantly to find acceptance and tolerance between old and young naturists with differences.

Brian1972

[BackpackerBrian]

Hey Brian1972,

Hmmm, I never really caught onto most of the other hidden messages in the photo (multicultural relationship, long hair, etc.), but now that you mention it . . .

I'm also not going to debate ratios; there's multiple ways to do ratios and play with numbers. Just ask Enron, Worldcom or Arthur Andersen.

However, I do see your publication as a great vehicle to spread a message of uniting diverse people for the good of ALL naturists. Just this weekend I had a good chat at my club with two college-age people about getting more of their age group coming to the club. In fact, one wanted to get a group from his college to come for an annual 5k fig leaf run, but he was struggling for support and guidance.

Travel Naturally has an excellent platform to support young naturists like him who have so much initiative. You can give them a voice, and most importantly, moral support. Likewise, your publication also has a readership of club owners and boards, the people who make decisions at the clubs. You have an opportunity to influence these people to see the immediate and long-term benefits of making the clubs more youth-friendly, not only in policies, but also in marketing and outreach programs.

There are already a lot of posts in various forums from members like Hooked, barbaruth, whitestokes, DoctorSurferDude just to name a few, who have offered terrific insights, as well as expressed interest and/or attempts at promoting naturism to young people (a few postings at bottom). I'm sure you will find support from them, and of course myself.

When can we get started?

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8500016152/m/8810037063

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8500016152/m/6460065353

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6880058252/m/4090076063

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1600016152/m/4730058753

[PhilH]

Surely nobody gets pierced (or tattooed) just to exhibit themselves in a naturist forum. People have been decorating their bodies as long as they have walked this planet it's just part of the human psyche. One could include hairstyles as just another way of a person expressing their individuality. I think that why some people feel uncomfortable with genital piercings in particular is that they remind them that people have a sexual side to their nature which is probably one of the reasons that piercings were acquired in the first place. Personally I regard tattooing as a much more agressive statement in as much that they are permanent. If they are accepted at naturist venues for that reason then I don't see what is wrong with piercings. It is not reasonable to expect people to remove piercings on demand as apart from the practical difficulties in re-instating them this just draws attention to the prejudices of the persons concerned. I have numerous piercings and I find that they are an inhibiting factor when I wish to visit a naturist beach - I have no wish to offend. However they were acquired over some 40 years and they are part of my personality. I just wish them to be ignored and I have no exhibitionist agenda.When I visit a beach I do so just to swim and sunbathe. There is however a large proportion of so-called naturists who spend their time parading up and down in a most intrusive way on such beaches - the latest ploy I encountered was an individual with a metal detector plotting the most devious path amongst the sunbathers. There was also a recent article in our local newspaper saying that the police had been asked to go undercover on a local popular naturist beach as sunbathers were being approached by single men asking for sex.It this this aspect that is most likely to deter me from naturist venues not my piercings.

[andy_ma]

I say live and let live. Personally I wouldn't want one, but who am I to decide or comment for others. Just my humble opinion.