What is the main problem with equating nudity and sex?

[TreyS]

I am quite aware that nudity and sex are distinct concepts. I am simply asking why equating the two is a problem.

[NatureFred]

Well, generally speaking, if you equate two concepts that you know are distinct, you reduce your ability to think and talk intelligently about the differences between them.

But you are probably more interested in specifics. To me, the core distinction is this: social nudists like to be nude with groups of like-minded individuals. They are not necessarily, and do not want to be branded automatically as, liking to have sex with groups of like-minded individuals. That's another movement entirely!

This is not to say nudists aren't sometimes sexually attracted to one or more of the nude people they socialize with. Clothed people are often sexually attracted to one or more of the clothed people they socialize with. But the purpose of the nudity in social nudism is not to promote sexual attraction among its practicers.

By and large the purpose of nudity in social nudism is to promote comfort--the physical comfort of shedding unnecessary layers of clothing, and the emotional comfort of knowing that no one is going to criticise you for the shape, size, or appearance of your body.

Your body is, after all, is the unreducible minimum aspect of your individual nature. In other words, you can't put on a different body for the weekend. It's YOU. It is very good to find a setting in which you are accepted just as you are. (Or as I like to say, bumps, scars, color variations, and stretch marks are part of the natural beauty of the product, and do not constitute defects in manufacture.)

[garbo]

Equating nudity and sex is just fine anywhere but in a social nudist situation. Having frequented the local resort on numerous occasions and taking advantage of all the amenities at one time or another, the subject does not come up. There is no reference to any sexual references or activities. It is simply not there! The only exception are the resorts that promotes swinging of course. Non-nudist can equate whatever they want but the truth is obvious to real nudists.

[NudeAl]

As a nudist the main problem I see with not segregating the two is that you have those who know nothing about nudism associating it with sex. Thus you have a great problem convincing those who have never tried nudism to give it a try. Even more problematic is when there is a nude beach or even a landed nudist club and they face resistance from those ignorant of the true meaning of nudism. You may have a situation where a family has been torn apart and going through a divorce or a grandparent may be trying to gain custody of grandchildren and an ignorant judge may decide that the mere fact that one of those parties involved is a nudist may end up being the deciding factor and use it against one those parties.

Nudism is not about sex. Those who wish to link them are doing it to advance their own agenda.

[NorthEastUSA]

I think because people are raised to always hide there bodys and sex is a private matter they just assume being naked is some how a private thing the same way sex is and the two some how become combined in there minds.

Just my guess...

[wantago9]

True - I do agree that a person that never when to nudity setting would veiw naked body as sexual thing. As for me, I have been with swimmers many years, I don't think of it as a sexual thing but only a healthy sport mind and body. To social with the nudist or naturist, I would rather fit in, and not thinking woo I am in sexual room. Yea I did stressed to control my mind at first, but then it wears off. I just simply respect to others around me for they would do the same to me.

[finchick]

I am quite aware that nudity and sex are distinct concepts. I am simply asking why equating the two is a problem.
it is not a problem, it is simply NOT TRUE.
u can have sex fully clothed with just unzipped trousers, and u can do nearly anything besides sex being nude. so obviously nudity and sex can't be equated

[TreyS]

I think that many people assume that sex is immoral. Thus, nudists try to disassociate nudity and sex in an effort to promote nudism and convince people that nudity is not bad. A couple of further thoughts:

1. There are some contexts, such as pornography, in which nudity is clearly connected to sex. Given that these kinds of contexts are more likely to be familiar to nonnudists, it seems to me to be somewhat counterproductive to argue directly that nudity and sex are not connected.

2. Instead of focusing on what nudity is not, why not focus on what nudity is. For example, as was mentioned above, for nudists being naked is comfortable.

[OZJames]

We all know that it is not appropriate to have sex in the presence of others (perhaps there may be some exceptions to that but we will not go down that track). Nudity is frowned upon by many prudish people with "Victorian" attitudes and I think one of their main arguments against public nudity is that nudity activates sexual desire and actions - because their experience has always been that clothes are taken off only with a spouse for the purpose of sexual activity. As a result those people have trouble suppressing their sexual urges if nude in the presence of others, so they strongly oppose public nudity.

"What is the problem with equating nudity with sex"

Because of the perceived effect nudity may have on peoples sexual urges and the need to make the point that just being nude does NOT stimulate sexual urges it is vital that organisations promoting public nudity strongly publicize the point that being nude in public has nothing to do sex.

[smoothm]

I agree that in today's society having intercourse in the presence of others (most notably children) is taboo. However, I can't help but wonder why this has changed from the pioneering days of the one room log cabin when many of our ancestors had no recourse but to make love with others present.

Isn't is funny? Isn't it all about how we teach our children and how we raise them to have the view that this expression of love must be hidden?

[bernardc]

The problem is,that people through porn,see nudism in that light.The great difference between nudity as practiced by nudists,and the nudity in porn are the following few matters.
1)In porn,the focus is on the genitals,and on the males erection performing,and ejaculating
2)It focusses on the lust side of things,and is aimed at arousal.
3)In nudism/naturism,the focus is holistically.The body as a whole in its natural state,and its not penis/vagina and breast focussed.
4)It focusses on the esthetic body,not the sexual body.
5)Porn focusses on two or three idividuals as a unity,whereas nudism focusses on life stule,freedom and comfort.

[Nekkidhead001]

i have not read all of the replies so forgive me if im writing something that has already been posted. Does anyone also think that clothing can be more sexual than just plain nudity. many of our clothes (mostly women's clothing) does nothing but bring out certain body parts in a sexual way. when we are nude, it is all there and there is no emphasis on certain parts.

[NorthEastUSA]

i have not read all of the replies so forgive me if im writing something that has already been posted. Does anyone also think that clothing can be more sexual than just plain nudity. many of our clothes (mostly women's clothing) does nothing but bring out certain body parts in a sexual way. when we are nude, it is all there and there is no emphasis on certain parts.


I agree with that. My wife will tell you she is much more comfortable nude then in one of those super small bikinis that draws attention to certain areas or are super tight.

[kxix]

i've a thought about sex infront of children... that it generates incest actions in them... 'cause young children have tendancy to copy their parents and if they see their parents having sex... there's a chance that they try it with brothers/sisters...

any opinions??

[TreyS]

I would prefer it if this thread did not become a discussion of sex in front of children.

[bobk]

Hypocritical Victorian prudish attitudes are the problem.
However, there is an inconsistency in nudist discussion about nudity and sex.
This inconsistency begins with discussion of erections. It is natural for men to have erections, and probably women in a less noticeable way. Men bear the seed that fertilizes the female's egg and nature has a way of extremes. Pine trees drop thousands of cones to increase the chances of one growing into a tree. This concept carries over to human males who produce millions of sperm, and just to further ensure that the human race regenerates, the male carries his sexual urge beyond the years that it is needed, that is, past the average age of menopause in women. It is an urge so strong that repression of it creates all sorts of problems. The erection is the most obvious visible symbol of this sexual desire.
As nudists, then, we say that sexual activity, that is, the sex act, however defined, is not to occur in public, and erections should be hidden from view, so that nudist gatherings are pure and pristine, a line between purity and depravity drawn in the sand.
If we claim that our desire to be nude is not sexual, but only a desire to be without clothing, is that also hypocritical? By nature, speaking from the male veiwpoint, we are sexual beings and, like the pine tree, our sexual urge will not be denied.
I guess what we should be saying in defense, correctly, is that nude or clothed, the desire is always there, and the absence of clothing does not increase the likelihood of a sexual event. Furthermore, a partially clothed female body is more titillating than a nude female body. The partially clothed female body engages the imagination. The nude female body, when in the company of a gaggle of nude bodies, and the observer is also nude, is less titillating. Perhaps this is because, no matter how hard we try to think otherwise, we are a teensy bit embarrassed about our own bodies, and we need a recognition that the opposite sex does not object to what we see in the mirror. The same issue exists for clothed persons, but the clothed persons delude themselves that clothing hides from the other parties the features about which the clothed persons are embarrassed, until it is too late for the other party to back down.
Being citizens of the same country and members of the same society, we have to wonder why we are given less respect than every other minority. Why would our textile counterparts assume that our morals are more debased than their own?
If nudists engage in sex in the open, in view of many, or even one, or in front of children, are they not simply people who would have done the same act in a clothed environment? And in the case of children who observe the event, wouldn't properly raised children with well-adjusted parents simply shake their heads and go on about their play?

[Kouak]

I am quite aware that nudity and sex are distinct concepts. I am simply asking why equating the two is a problem.

This is the same as asking why can't we equate politicians and corruption? We all know that some politicians are corrupt. But just being a politician does not mean you are corrupt. If you can talk about these two topics together as if they are the same, then you can talk about nudity and sex together.