Uneasy about 'gay' areas on naturist beaches

[London Joe]

From the outset I want to make it clear I am not gay bashing or otherwise in any way homophobic, just to shoot that one in the water early on. It's just that on clothed beaches there is never any reference to 'gay areas' or 'ends', so why should there be on a naturist beach? (as I just saw in a guide to Spain's naturist beaches)

To me, this just emphasises in the wrong way that general naturist beaches can also be places where some (not all, of course) gay folk can go to hook up with other gay folk in their unofficial 'special' areas, which of course has sexual connotations, unwelcome in a place where the vast majority of people are of a mindset that nudity is pure and natural and does not equal sex.

Thus, tagging a naturist beach with having a gay area says to me that the beach is used for activities other than enjoying the sand and sun - far more so than a clothed beach might be and this in my view is not good for the promotion of healthy naturism amongst those that doubt the sincerity of the 'naturism is non-sexual' claim, and also might put ladies off from ever trying it. (ie. my wife for one!!)

[Pete Knight]

A very good point, I must remember to broach that question with some gay friends. I've been approached by men on a beach, but more so online, and my conclusion is that the greatest problem is from middle aged men who are, shall we say 'Exploring their sexuality' rather than the gay men themselves.

A very good friend of mine actually prefers to mix with all nudists rather than confining himself to the gay ghetto, indeed if he didn't openly advertise his sexuality he would be mistaken for a straight guy, as a few of my lady friends would unhappily testify.

The sad fact is that the people indulging in sexual activity on naturist beaches are 'exploring' and aren't really committed naturists. Yes we have threatened beaches in the UK, the reasons put forward by the police and local authorities is the sexual activity that goes on, and they see naked people as the cause, no differentiation between naked sex seekers and nudist, we're all naked people to them.

On most official nudist beaches here in the UK the police stop taking an interest, and sadly anything goes, but the unofficial beaches draw their attention and anyone found naked gets rough justice.

I would urge all naturists, especially the gay naturists, to make a complaint to the police about the sexual activity, on what should be a family beach, so that the perpetrators can be targeted.

Pete Knight

[nakedstudent]

From the outset I want to make it clear I am not gay bashing or otherwise in any way homophobic, just to shoot that one in the water early on. It's just that on clothed beaches there is never any reference to 'gay areas' or 'ends', so why should there be on a naturist beach? (as I just saw in a guide to Spain's naturist beaches)

To me, this just emphasises in the wrong way that general naturist beaches can also be places where some (not all, of course) gay folk can go to hook up with other gay folk in their unofficial 'special' areas, which of course has sexual connotations, unwelcome in a place where the vast majority of people are of a mindset that nudity is pure and natural and does not equal sex.

Thus, tagging a naturist beach with having a gay area says to me that the beach is used for activities other than enjoying the sand and sun - far more so than a clothed beach might be and this in my view is not good for the promotion of healthy naturism amongst those that doubt the sincerity of the 'naturism is non-sexual' claim, and also might put ladies off from ever trying it. (ie. my wife for one!!)

I completely agree.

We've already discussed how nudity and sex are two completely different things. For this reason, I think it is wrong for EITHER sexual orientation to bring sex onto the beaches. A beach shouldn't be any more of a "hook up" spot than any other place.

I agree that we need to be extra careful as nudists because we are working to dispel common assumptions about nudity and every time there is a slip up or ambiguous case, we do a disservice to what are true lifestyle is.

[twisterboi]

Just as a point of clarification, many clothed beaches DO have gay areas. I would also have to agree with Pete that I believe many of the men going to these places for activity most likely do not identify as gay.

Anyway, if all of the guys looking for sex WERE gay, the ladies would have nothing to worry about! :laugh:

[Fitz1980]

Here in the US it's a bit different. The gay side, at least here in South Fl at Haulover, is as unofficial as it gets. People at Haulover, gay or straight, are on better behavior than many on the textile beaches because they know that they are just one bad news story from getting the clothing optional status revoked. The existence of it is totally unofficial but it's not something that much can be done about. No official designation exists, it's just that the north end is known for gay guys sitting there. So gay guys go there it sit. Not much can be done about it and who would want to be the protester on that one. I'm straight and have no problem with homosexuality but I certainly aren't going to want to take my girl up there to sit around a bunch of homo guys where there are mixed gender couples, families and even all female groups on the rest of the beach.

[David77]

I have been to Haulover Beach a number of times and I have not seen the gays on the north side of the beach mis-behaving. Gays need somewhere to make friends and to see friends who are gay. Nearly everyone, both gay and straight, want friendship, and this may or may not entail sexual activity. True, some gays as well as some hetorsexuals do not want emotional depth of friendship to develope, but unfortunately are interested only in the limited, restricting "one night stand".

Hopefully gay men on the north side of Haulover Beach can find their life's (gay) partner to experience the joy of mutual affection and happily maintain their stable household of two - or three, if they wish to adopt.

I have heard of women who used the gay side of the beach for their sunbathing so that they would not be bothered by Romeos.

A couple of liberal churches in St. Louis rent their social halls to gays and lesbians and their friends, to enable them to have dances and socialize. Sometimes the dances are sponsored by PFLAG. PFLAG is an organization which includes many parents of gays. The organization's initials, I believe, stands for "parents and friends of lesbians and gays".

[Pete Knight]

I have been to Haulover Beach a number of times and I have not seen the gays on the north side of the beach mis-behaving.
Haulover isn't an ideal example, you should see the dunes at Studland (UK) or the rocks at Lady Bay (Oz), what I'm trying to say is that somewhere to hide is often required, although there are exceptions, don't ask me about Brighton Beach (UK).

Pete Knight

[Journeyman]

...Thus, tagging a naturist beach with having a gay area says to me that the beach is used for activities other than enjoying the sand and sun - far more so than a clothed beach might be and this in my view is not good for the promotion of healthy naturism amongst those that doubt the sincerity of the 'naturism is non-sexual' claim, and also might put ladies off from ever trying it. (ie. my wife for one!!)

I don't understand why you're uneasy.

I've visited nude beaches around the world and there are sometimes designated but more often than not, UNdesignated sections for gays and lesbians.

Like David77 says, some straight single women (I've witnessed this on Hanlan's Beach in Toronto) sunbathe in the gay section so they're not harassed by straight nudists or voyeurs. Also, gay men and women do want to socialize together - that's why there are also gay bars and gay-oriented hotels and B & Bs.

But to suggest that having *gay* designated sections of nude beaches infers public sexual impropriety is sterotypical thinking and ignorant. Straight people are trying to get away with public sex on nude beaches all the time - Orient Beach on Saint Martin in the Caribbean is a good example.

Public sex from any orientation is NOT a smart or respected idea on any nude beach anywhere, and all gay, bisexual and straight *true* naturists know this. We don't want to lose what we have fought for over the years.

[Journeyman]

Haulover isn't an ideal example, you should see the dunes at Studland (UK) or the rocks at Lady Bay (Oz), what I'm trying to say is that somewhere to hide is often required, although there are exceptions, don't ask me about Brighton Beach (UK).

Pete, give us a break. You're only encouraging the ill-informed original poster. You have said on a couple of threads that you're bothered by gay men online or whatever - we get it.

My point is that *a minority of* people of all orientations try to get away with having public sex on nude beaches -- to blame it all on the gay population is wrong. This subject has been flogged on these forums already.

[Christian]

There is a fundamental difference between gays and straights when it comes to sexuality in general. Straights are very scared of sexualizing things - i.e.; the nude beach must be sexuality free at all time. Gay people are not as hung up on sex and sexuality as straights so while we may not be bumping and grinding ON the beach, we are open to the idea that, hey, we are all cruising some good looking naked guys and so what. There's nothing wrong with that.

This idea carries over into so many things that I won't go into in this thread. If you are not gay and you end up in a gay part of the beach and someone comes on to you then be like Nancy Reagan and JUST...SAY... NO. :-) The gays are not going to jump on you and take advantage of your innocent little self. In reality, however, you probably won't be hit on at all. A gaggle of giggling gays tend to stay to themselves. :D

[afzilla]

Well said, Christian.

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who blather about how nudism is "pure and natural and not about sex" spend so much worrying about the sex lives of other people.

I also have never understood why, in the campaign to assure textiles that nudists are not deviants, the message seems to be the nudists are asexual naïfs whose minds are never defiled by impure sexy thoughts. That would be deviance; just taking your clothes off, running around naked, and enjoying the sight of other naked human beings is actually mankind's normal, default condition.

[London Joe]

Journeyman,

Well thank you kind sir for informing me that I am 'ignorant' and 'ill informed', all because I happen to have an opinion that is different from yours!

Please read and understand what I am saying. The FACTS are that no clothed beach I have EVER been to has an area referred to as being predominantly 'gay'; not to my knowledge anyway. The inference from this is that people of all sexual persuasions would feel comfortable on all parts of the beach - right?

But when nudity is thrown into the equation re. some naturist beaches I am aware of, lo and behold, reference to a 'gay' area is made. I would say that you are being a little naive if you think that this is just a coincidence, and my unease springs from this fairly obvious link with the sexual aspirations of SOME of the gay fraternity, and the message this conveys about the values and morals of the WHOLE beach to local authorities, local residents, potential visitors (ie. my wife, who started me thinking about all this)

Calling my observation 'stereotypical' is a weak argument and does not change the fact that what I say may be stereotypical, yes, but it is still valid - as supported by others who have responded. Calling Belgians 'beer lovers' is stereotypical but its no less correct and does not need to infer negative connotations!

Of course, SOME heterosexual people use nude beaches as places where sex can be sought/carried out/watched etc. but that doesn't make it right, does it??

[London Joe]

Christian,

I get the fact that SOME gay guys typically have multiple partners and think nothing of one night stands, cruising parks, beaches wherever in search of more willing prey -it's part of what being gay is, (I emphasize, to some guys).

The problem I have with this is that it tends to clash with what most heterosexual people see as they way they want to live their lives, and specifically the way they want to enjoy beaches. To my wife, having a special gay 'area' in any walk of life, be it a gay bar, club, cruise etc. generally means that location is where gay people go to meet and search for sex, with the same, in your words 'less hung up' attitude than heterosexual people.

So the same would follow for a beach with a gay area, thus meaning in her mind that the beach as a whole is probably going to be more accepting of general sexual undertones than a clothed beach - which puts her off trying it. She is not naive enough to think that nude beaches or even clothed beaches are a-sexual, nowhere is, and is aware for sure that men will see her naked body, but doesn't like the idea that for some this would be more sexual than if it were a bikini'd body on a normal beach.

I guess I can kind of see her point - hence my original 'unease' comment but have also told her to get those thoughts out of her head and not care what others may or may not be thinking. I do subscribe to the 'judge others by their behaviour, not what they might be thinking' point of view so I hope she can turn to that mindset at some point.

[Pete Knight]

Pete, give us a break. You're only encouraging the ill-informed original poster. You have said on a couple of threads that you're bothered by gay men online or whatever - we get it. I no more enjoy the sexual advances of gay men than the ladies do from heterosexual men, it isn't about sexuality, its about harassment.

My point is that *a minority of* people of all orientations try to get away with having public sex on nude beaches -- to blame it all on the gay population is wrong. This subject has been flogged on these forums already. You're quite right, and if you'd have read my post properly you'd see that I consider middle aged hetro men exploring their sexuality to be the biggest problem. Here in the UK we do have a lot of problems with men gathering at certain beaches to 'meet up' and we all agree that this isn't what a beach should be for.

I have several gay friends who prefer not to frequent the gay area, one in particular attends numerous events purely as a naturist, and no one is even aware of his sexuality.

Brighton Beach, which I refrained from offering detailed information on, is renowned for sexual acts between men, the police don't stop them either, I think this is because it's seen as an official nudist beach and this sort of activity is what nudists do, do you?

Pete Knight

[Pete Knight]

There is a fundamental difference between gays and straights when it comes to sexuality in general. Straights are very scared of sexualizing things - i.e.; the nude beach must be sexuality free at all time. Gay people are not as hung up on sex and sexuality as straights so while we may not be bumping and grinding ON the beach, we are open to the idea that, hey, we are all cruising some good looking naked guys and so what. There's nothing wrong with that.

This idea carries over into so many things that I won't go into in this thread. If you are not gay and you end up in a gay part of the beach and someone comes on to you then be like Nancy Reagan and JUST...SAY... NO. :-) The gays are not going to jump on you and take advantage of your innocent little self. In reality, however, you probably won't be hit on at all. A gaggle of giggling gays tend to stay to themselves. :D

Whilst I agree that no one is going to take advantage of me, it is a matter of harassment, as for gays being more sexually liberated, no problem there either, I just don't want the few beaches we're allowed to use naked to be a no go are for families simply because you're likely to see a guy giving another guy a blow job.

Please don't accuse me of being homophobic, I have many gay friends who are just as disgusted at the lewd behaviour of some on our nudist beaches, and I would no more like to see a hetro sexual couple openly having sex on a beach than I would a gay couple.

It's difficult enough gaining acceptance as a naturist, to expect wider public acceptance of public sex would ruin our chances of more nude beaches.

Pete Knight

[Christian]

London Joe:

I want to clarify some points here.

First - My post did not reference anyone having sex or giving blow jobs in a public place. The point was to uncover the difference between those who recognize their own sexuality and appreciate it or celebrate it versus those who hide from their sexuality and attempt to avoid it. If I came across people engaged in sexual activity on a public, "family" beach I would be pretty bothered no matter who it was.

Second - gaining acceptance of nude beaches has nothing to do with your idea of gaining acceptance of public sex. Those are two totally different things. I am not advocating that anyone has to be OK with public sex on nude beaches. Again, my point was that gays tend to be more understanding of the fact that we are sexual creatures and, in my experience, are more comfortable expressing that side of their personalities - generally more so than non-gay people.

As far as your wife's view that any place designated as "gay" is a place made for hooking up there are a couple things to be sad to that. I would suggest that she clear the muck from her eyes and understand that any place AT ALL where people get together, any kind of people, whether it be a pub, bar, nightclub, the grocery store, book store, or church is a place where people tend to see one another and look for opportunities to create relationships. It is ignorant to think that because I go into a gay bar I am looking for sex however it is just as valid to think that anyone who goes into a bar/nightclub may be trying to find a sexual partner. A designation of "gay" has noting to do with it. Here's the kicker: because there are so many backwards thinking jerks in the world we gay folks tend to congregate with ourselves so that we don't have to deal with anyone's crap. Therefore on a nude beach we are going to hang out with our friends and people like us so by default it will be called the "gay" area of the beach. Non-gays are more than welcome to come hang out there. :-) I think they're afraid they'll be eaten or something. Who knows?

To Pete Knight's point - smarmy men who don't identify as gay who go to parks, beaches, or other places for encounters are harming themselves and their families and are being lumped into the gay community because they are doing things with other men. These aren't member of the gay community - these are sexual deviants who are too closeted to even consider being gay but who get jollies by getting off with other men. We wouldn't have this problem if they would just be open and honest about what they liked sexually. Oh well... this is the world in which we live so we just deal with what we have and stay focused on our own lives.

[Croydon]

Christian,

I get the fact that SOME gay guys typically have multiple partners and think nothing of one night stands, cruising parks, beaches wherever in search of more willing prey -it's part of what being gay is, (I emphasize, to some guys).

The above statement is just so down right ignorant and stereotypical. What does the sexual activities of SOME gays have to do with you. As it has been stated many times, the cruising that may occur at parks and beaches generally are NOT gay men but often married men and men who are so foolishly afraid to come out. While we are on it, why are you singling out gay men. There are many straight people who have multiple sexual partners. What are you telling me, straight people are sexually pure? What you may find wrong in terms of sex and sexuality can be perfectly acceptable to others. I have few straight friends who are sexually adventurous and even a co-worker of mine, who I am friends with, has admitted that she and her husband are swingers. To me, that is fine. Not my thing but if they are happy and not hurting anyone, what is it to me?

The problem I have with this is that it tends to clash with what most heterosexual people see as they way they want to live their lives, and specifically the way they want to enjoy beaches. To my wife, having a special gay 'area' in any walk of life, be it a gay bar, club, cruise etc. generally means that location is where gay people go to meet and search for sex, with the same, in your words 'less hung up' attitude than heterosexual people.
So basically gays are causing stress in your life and that of many other heterosexuals? So what would you like us to do? Not be ourselves, hide in closet. Oh let me guess, "keep our sexuality to ourselves." We can do that if you can promise to keep your sexuality to yourself. If you can promise to not get married, not kiss your wife, not have children...just stop flaunting your heterosexuality, I can talk to my fellow gay brothers and sisters to do the same. Hey, after all, what you do behind close doors is your business as long as you aren't flaunting it in public, right, right?

[Croydon]

Journeyman,

Well thank you kind sir for informing me that I am 'ignorant' and 'ill informed', all because I happen to have an opinion that is different from yours!

Please read and understand what I am saying. The FACTS are that no clothed beach I have EVER been to has an area referred to as being predominantly 'gay'; not to my knowledge anyway. The inference from this is that people of all sexual persuasions would feel comfortable on all parts of the beach - right?

But when nudity is thrown into the equation re. some naturist beaches I am aware of, lo and behold, reference to a 'gay' area is made. I would say that you are being a little naive if you think that this is just a coincidence, and my unease springs from this fairly obvious link with the sexual aspirations of SOME of the gay fraternity, and the message this conveys about the values and morals of the WHOLE beach to local authorities, local residents, potential visitors (ie. my wife, who started me thinking about all this)

Calling my observation 'stereotypical' is a weak argument and does not change the fact that what I say may be stereotypical, yes, but it is still valid - as supported by others who have responded. Calling Belgians 'beer lovers' is stereotypical but its no less correct and does not need to infer negative connotations!

Of course, SOME heterosexual people use nude beaches as places where sex can be sought/carried out/watched etc. but that doesn't make it right, does it??
I have stayed away from participating on CFF forum due to the ignorance by many members BUT THIS, THIS IGNORANCE I WILL NOT STAND FOR. I don't care if my message ends up getting me banned but I will NOT allow this ignorance.

Your above posts clearly shows you know NOTHING of gay men and women and simply casting judgments based on what you perceive. Your perception of gays is nothing but pure ignorance and homophobia.

As my step mom would often say, "people judge what they don't know".

MANY beaches, clothed and nude, have gay sections. Just because you may not have seen them in your outings doesn't mean it isn't there. I have been to many clothed beaches where there is a gay area. Gay men do not congregate together to seek out sex but do so out of safety and comfort. This is the same for ANY minority group.

There is a reason why there are churches that cater to particular language or culture, there is a reason why we have gay bars and social clubs, there is a reason why we have women only fitness clubs, there is a reason why we HAD and STILL HAVE black colleges, and hell there is a reason why we have nudist groups/clubs. People of a minority or special interest group often come together or stay near each other because they share something in common, race, sexuality or other interest (sports, language, hobby). It is especially true when one is a member of a disenfranchised group. In the case of gays, we are often discriminated against, some people condemn us, and sometimes our safety can be placed in jeopardy. That being said, being amongst each other is a "SAFE HAVEN." It is an area where we know we can be ourselves without any fear of discrimination.

Because there can be a designated gay area is not some indication that gay men are meeting up to fulfill some sexual desire. Your statements of that is not only false but wholly ignorant and it clearly shows how small of a mind you have. You are falling into the same fallacy of many people in applying the actions of few to speak for the whole. You have "heard" of men acting inappropriately at beaches. So the action of few men, who we don't even know if are gay, speaks for ALL gays? I am not saying that inappropriate activities have not happened on the gay side of the beaches but to characterize all gays as the same based on actions of few people is not fair. I have witnessed inappropriate activities and in the 3 cases that I have seen, it was men coming from the "straight side" cruising the gay area. In fact, in one experience when I was 19, a straight man who was at the beach with his wife cruised me and wanted to know if I was interested in going somewhere else on the beach. Also, I have witnessed heterosexuals acting inappropriately on the beach. Should I characterize all heterosexual couples based on the action of the few that I have seen acting inappropriately. In fact, should I characterize all nudists as sexual exhibitionists?

Like any human, I have many parts of me that I feel makes me who I am. I am a black man and I feel more at ease among people of my race because we share a common experience and understanding about being black. I am a gay man and I feel more comfortable with my fellow gay brothers and sisters because we have a common understanding and experience of what it means to be gay. I am a nudist and I feel more comfortable with other nudists because we share an interest and understanding about nudity. I have a political leaning that is left and I feel more comfortable around democrats and liberals because we share similar beliefs regarding various social and political issues. I am into fitness and enjoy working out and I feel comfortable with people who are into fitness because we share a love in working out and being healthy. The list goes on and on.

Your views on gays and their designated areas on beaches is also flawed b/c it can be applied to nudist. I can see many textiles saying the same thing you said and applying it to nudists. So London Joe, why do we need to have nude beaches or areas on beaches designated for nudists? It is probably because these nudists are getting together to have sex and participate in sexual activities. Isn't that right? After all, that is the same thing you said about designated gay areas on beaches. Let me guess, you don't think it is the same thing?

The answer to the above is because we as nudists can not practice our lifestyle openly. There are many restrictions placed on us that makes practicing our nudity with openness. We have beaches, resorts, clubs, publications so we can CONNECT with other nudist. These things are in place for us so we can have a SAFE HAVEN to practice and share our nudity and be who we are w/o fear of negative retribution. They are established so we can be open and connect with others who share our interest in nudism.

In the end your "observation" is in fact stereotypical and ignorant. You're basing judgments on what you think gays do and how they are. Reality is, you know nothing of gays but what you have "heard" or "seen", which I am sure is nothing in both cases.

[London Joe]

Croydon,

I get it. You are gay and feel victimised by people like me who you think are homophobic just because we choose to express our opinions. What should we do - not say what we feel just in case some sections of society choose to intrepret it as 'victimisation' and feel 'offended' by it?

I have been down this road before and I think your rant at my perfectly non homophobic observation says about you and your hang ups than it does about me. Nowhere have I said that gay people should 'hide in a closet' for goodness sake!! I have no problem with sexually adventurous gay (or heterosexual) people, swingers etc. either - time and a place and all that, each to their own.

If you are telling me that there are recognised gay areas on many clothed beaches then fine, I can't argue with that although in all my years I have not come across this, leading me to be rather sceptical of your claim. My original observation was merely that - an observation based on my own personal experiences.

I have opinions and whether you like them or not, if I choose to express them I will. If you choose to retort then fine, but hey - cut out the personal abuse eh?

[Mutant]

It's simplistic to create distinctions based on such a minor difference as personal sexual expression. Gay people may be more straightforward with their sexuality, but that doesn't mean that you are somehow "safer" on the "family-friendly" end of the pool. I've been hit on at the legendary "family-oriented nudist resorts" that are covered with AANR logos than I have at an annual clothing-optional festival where 60% of attendees are gay. I'd rather have someone be completely upfront with they want so that I can decline and we can move on. I find that the "family-oriented" resorts have plenty of repressed people looking to sneak in some action whenever possible, all hiding under that $45 AANR membership card.

[Naturist Mark]

I find that the "family-oriented" resorts have plenty of repressed people looking to sneak in some action whenever possible, all hiding under that $45 AANR membership card.

Ever been to a textile beach, resort or campground and seen what goes on there?

How about spring break?

Just askin'

...

When people behave the same way naked as similar groups of people behave clothed ... the reason for the behavior of the naked people is their sex obsession, which is caused by their nudity ... Riiiight!!!

-Mark

[NudeTopher]

It's simplistic to create distinctions based on such a minor difference as personal sexual expression. Gay people may be more straightforward with their sexuality, but that doesn't mean that you are somehow "safer" on the "family-friendly" end of the pool. I've been hit on at the legendary "family-oriented nudist resorts" that are covered with AANR logos than I have at an annual clothing-optional festival where 60% of attendees are gay. I'd rather have someone be completely upfront with they want so that I can decline and we can move on. I find that the "family-oriented" resorts have plenty of repressed people looking to sneak in some action whenever possible, all hiding under that $45 AANR membership card.

:cheering:

Truer words may never have been posted here!

[NudeTopher]

Christian,

I get the fact that SOME gay guys typically have multiple partners and think nothing of one night stands, cruising parks, beaches wherever in search of more willing prey -it's part of what being gay is, (I emphasize, to some guys).

The problem I have with this is that it tends to clash with what most heterosexual people see as they way they want to live their lives, and specifically the way they want to enjoy beaches. To my wife, having a special gay 'area' in any walk of life, be it a gay bar, club, cruise etc. generally means that location is where gay people go to meet and search for sex, with the same, in your words 'less hung up' attitude than heterosexual people.

So the same would follow for a beach with a gay area, thus meaning in her mind that the beach as a whole is probably going to be more accepting of general sexual undertones than a clothed beach - which puts her off trying it. She is not naive enough to think that nude beaches or even clothed beaches are a-sexual, nowhere is, and is aware for sure that men will see her naked body, but doesn't like the idea that for some this would be more sexual than if it were a bikini'd body on a normal beach.

I guess I can kind of see her point - hence my original 'unease' comment but have also told her to get those thoughts out of her head and not care what others may or may not be thinking. I do subscribe to the 'judge others by their behaviour, not what they might be thinking' point of view so I hope she can turn to that mindset at some point.

1) Your wife (or your strawman) doesn't want to go to a nude beach since there is a gay section; and gay sections sexualize beaches.

2) Your wife is worried that her nude body will be sexualized at a nude beach because it is sexualized by the existence of a gay section? So the very people who would want nothing to do with your wife, due to her gender, might bother her with their lusting for her?

3) Your wife might not want to go to a textile beach, mall, school, or any known area where heterosexuals tend to congregate. I've seen heterosexuals operate. Did you know they go to clothed beaches in skimpy, sexually provacative attire, to attract the opposite sex? My, I've seen the heterosexuals do the same thing at schools,churches, shopping centers and other public places. Wouldn't it make more sense to protect you wife from those very sexually provocative people that might actually desire her?

Sorry, your logic holds no water and your posts have the stench of a homophobic troll. Please take your nasty self elsewhere.[/quote]

[afzilla]

Ha ha. You forgot to add the Z-snap.

[NudeTopher]

...
I have been down this road before and I think your rant at my perfectly non homophobic observation says about you and your hang ups than it does about me. ..

It seems that London Joe has been called homophobic in other places. Can you imagine why? Do you want to bet that nudity wasn't even on the table in those instances?

Of course, Freud may have an opinion on supposed heterosexual men that doth protest a bit too much.

[Fitz1980]

Ever been to a textile beach, resort or campground and seen what goes on there?

How about spring break?

Just askin'

...

When people behave the same way naked as similar groups of people behave clothed ... the reason for the behavior of the naked people is their sex obsession, which is caused by their nudity ... Riiiight!!!

-Mark


I'd say that nudists generally are better behaved than textiles in their vacation places. Go into any textile resort, bar or club and you will see women getting their asses playfully smacked, breasts grabbed and just straight making out with guys. You don't see that at AANR nudist places, nudists keep that stuff in the bedroom, tent or RV.

[NudeAl]

I've been to over a dozen nude beaches over the years. The 2 I vistited most often were Blacks Beach and San Onofre in Southern California. There were gay sections of those beaches and from my experience most of the public sex when it occurred was in these areas however I would say only about 50 percent was gay sex. It seemed that those who felt like engaging in public sex went over to that area of the beach because they were not tolerated in the other sections of the beach. That apppears to be the problem. Often it is not someone who would identitfy themselves as a nudist they are going there exclusively to have sex. The parking lots have become known as areas where typically gay cruising occurs. I have no way of knowing but I suspect that those engaging in those kinds of things are in the closet about their sexual orientation. Kind of like the things that go on in some public restrooms across the US. This is just my opinion based on the things I have seen.

[sdson]

NudeToper,

I couldn't have said it better!

I'm really getting tired of the homophobic threads I see here. However, along with that I would like to also state my gratitude to those who defend gay people to help defeat these stereotypes. Yes, there are gays, AND straight people who troll the beaches and naturist venues looking to hook up. There are no groups, whatever their sexual orientation, gender, age, race, political affiliation, etc. who don't have people who engage in these types of behaviors. The sooner everyone recognizes this and stops generalizing it to one group will place the focus where it belongs; on the INDIVIDUAL who is responsible for engaging in that behavior.

[Mutant]

I suppose the patrons of "family-oriented nudist resorts" generally exhibit more appropriate social behavior than drunk teenagers on spring break or gawking men at sleazy bars, so kudos to family-oriented nudist resorts on achieving this exceptionally high standard. The point is that the criteria for joining the ranks of the "family-oriented nudist resort" population are ridiculously simplistic and ineffective. As a young, single male, I will always be eyed with suspicion when I ring the gate of any club. I wrote several essays on nudism in college and spent my adolelscent years reading every piece of written history on the practice. Does this matter? Nope. On the other hand, If I drag a female with me and wave a membership card that I can anonomously purchase online for $45, I'm in. It's silly. Young people don't join clubs anymore because it all reeks of inauthenticity. How do you think restricting young single males while recruiting young females looks to the outsider? It's like having "ladies night" at the local bar. We get it.

The point is, organized nudism is dying because the philosophy behind the practice is dying. I can be a nudist if I pay a fee, get a woman and avoid the use of the word "colony" as if my life depended on it.

[Fitz1980]

How do you think restricting young single males while recruiting young females looks to the outsider? It's like having "ladies night" at the local bar. We get it.


I understand what you are saying. It is unfair. I'm 28 and have been in organized nudism for 10 years so I've experienced exactly what you are talking about. If I brought a nymphomaniac, exhibitionist, fetish model who I was dating (and I did date one) to a nudist resort I'd be eyed with much less suspicion than if I came alone or brought a male friend.

As for "ladies night" lots of straight guys complain about ladies night, because it does mean that we are subsidizing free drinks for girls and that's not fair. I know it doesn't seem right to me as a straight guy. But than if we go into a bar and it's a "sausage fest" do we want to stay or to come back? No we want to go to where there's some 'chix, man.'

[Mutant]

we want to go to where there's some 'chix, man.'

Which is the implication of having a similar nudist resort policy. If I were a young woman, I would be offended by and suspicious of "free drinks for ladies" ads at a local bar, as I would be if I saw a "no single males, but single women are always welcome" policy in the bylaws of a nudist club.

"Nudism isn't about sex, but your chances of getting in are greatly increased if you happen to have breasts."

I preach about 1960's nudist philosophies to my friends, because I find the contemporary policies and practices difficult to explain and defend.

[afzilla]

I think he was addressing the disconnect between objecting to gay areas on beaches because that implies beachgoers with nasty, sexy thoughts on the one hand and the pretty transparent, sausagefest-avoiding "gender balance" policies at so-called reputable nudist establishments.

If, as we're constantly informed, nudism has nothing whatsoever to do with teh sexy (and that's why gay nude beaches are such a betrayal of the cause), then why should it matter if a club if 100% male or 50% male or 10% male or whatever.

Of course the reason is obvious: Straight dudes don't care for the sausagefest one bit! You got to have some naked ladies on the scene.

Now, this doesn't really bother me or anyone else who has a post-adolescent understanding of human behavior and human sexuality. Ladies aren't my thing, you know, but live and let live, I say.

Of course, live and let live means not getting your panties in a bunch when you read in Lonely Planet that this or that naked beach in Ibiza has a gay area.

[Naturist4Ever]

I somewhat symphathise with the o.p. I (Europe here) still have to find the first gy section on an ordinary textile beach, it just doesn't exist. There is just a normal blend of all people, pretty much. Now take the nude beach:

a) invariable there is contingent of cruisers. As has been pointed out at many other places, cruisers - although exclusively men, usually graying and in their 50's+ (so much for stereotyping ;-) - are not necessarily gays, quite to the contrary. The less social control, the more the worse it gets. Cruising happens "everywhere" but rarely at textile beaches (just look up sites that promotore places for cruising). One reason these guys are drawn to nude beaches compared to textile ones is that "well if they are caught with their pants down, heck that is just fine since it is allowed to be with your pants down."

b) invariably there is an unofficial segment on the nude beach where "gays" (?) seem to hang out, I guess grown by tradition, like "the north end" etc. When I speak to gay people they invariable are annoyed by the cruisers too (!) and don't want to be identified by it. However, they mostly seem to refuse to acknowledge that crusiing being a men-men thing it is closer to the gay community than it is to the rest of us.

NudeTopher>> and gay sections sexualize beaches.

Well, it does seem that gays are "overobsessed" with sexuality more than the average hetrosexual guy?. Where is the "textile-parade"? It doesn't exist. But Gay parades - with a lot of covert (or near-open) sexuality! are plentyfull. These parades are not about gay rights or alike, but flashing your wares. Exhibitionism. And what is not better about the nude beach then being able to flash it all... So yes, agree with o.p.

And also, whenever here someone describes a situation of nudism with the family, or we see pics of such a setting, everyone here cheers "yeah, true nudism" and the like. I have NEVER heard anything like that about gay congrations, let alone about the penisparade, the former photo section. In fact, refering to a recent topic by (was it naked gary) that parade is also developping into a covert sexual section. There you go.

I am now probably also flamed for being homophobe and ignorant, thanks! :-( I am just writing down my observations. That's all.

[NudeTopher]

I somewhat symphathise with the o.p. I (Europe here) still have to find the first gy section on an ordinary textile beach, it just doesn't exist. There is just a normal blend of all people, pretty much. Now take the nude beach:

a) invariable there is contingent of cruisers. As has been pointed out at many other places, cruisers - although exclusively men, usually graying and in their 50's+ (so much for stereotyping ;-) - are not necessarily gays, quite to the contrary. The less social control, the more the worse it gets. Cruising happens "everywhere" but rarely at textile beaches (just look up sites that promotore places for cruising). One reason these guys are drawn to nude beaches compared to textile ones is that "well if they are caught with their pants down, heck that is just fine since it is allowed to be with your pants down."

b) invariably there is an unofficial segment on the nude beach where "gays" (?) seem to hang out, I guess grown by tradition, like "the north end" etc. When I speak to gay people they invariable are annoyed by the cruisers too (!) and don't want to be identified by it. However, they mostly seem to refuse to acknowledge that crusiing being a men-men thing it is closer to the gay community than it is to the rest of us.

NudeTopher>> and gay sections sexualize beaches.

Well, it does seem that gays are "overobsessed" with sexuality more than the average hetrosexual guy?. Where is the "textile-parade"? It doesn't exist. But Gay parades - with a lot of covert (or near-open) sexuality! are plentyfull. These parades are not about gay rights or alike, but flashing your wares. Exhibitionism. And what is not better about the nude beach then being able to flash it all... So yes, agree with o.p.

And also, whenever here someone describes a situation of nudism with the family, or we see pics of such a setting, everyone here cheers "yeah, true nudism" and the like. I have NEVER heard anything like that about gay congrations, let alone about the penisparade, the former photo section. In fact, refering to a recent topic by (was it naked gary) that parade is also developping into a covert sexual section. There you go.

I am now probably also flamed for being homophobe and ignorant, thanks! :-( I am just writing down my observations. That's all.

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of Norway isn't extensive. But, I do know a few things about life here in the U.S.:

1) In New York State, we are blessed with perhaps one of the largest and most beautiful public beaches in the United State. (It was designed and constructed by Robert Moses as a WPA project in the Great Depression).

Being a New York State beach it is 100% textile by law. If you were to ask any visitor, on either the Ocean or Bay sides of the beach) where the "gay section" is located they will either tell you "Parking Field 6" or "Field 6-1/2" since they mean the extreme east side of Jones Beach State Park.

2) If youare looking for overt sexuality at the beach, take a look at the teen and 20's girls that parade up and down the waterline to show-off for the guys in their age group! No nude can be nearly as sexualized as some of those bikinis!

3) A mere fifteen miles east of Jones Beach is Robert Moses State Park. If you hike just to the east of the state beach (Parking Lot 5) is a nude beach on federal land known as Lighthouse Beach. Here the "gay/textile" section of the textile beach tends to abut the family side of the nude beach area.

4) About 45 minutes east of Robert Moses is Smith Point County Park. Being a Suffolk County Park makes it a textile beach. There is a "gay section here too" along the east side of the beach. Those beachgoers abut the family section of the gay beach (west side) since the gays tend to relax and sun on the east side of the nude beach. (The nude beach one again is on federal land - it's part of the National Seashore, Department of Parks.)

Just because I wear glasses doesn't make me blind. I can clearly see that there are definite gay/straight areas on the public beaches in New York State. I can even further see there are sections for families and singles too.

Are the beaches in Norway different? - Perhaps.

Perhaps, you wish to see what you wish to see. After all, your perception becomes your reality.

Lastly, with specific regard to your labeling yourself as both a homophobe and ignorant; I'm certain that you know yourself better then anyone on this forum.

[afzilla]

In honor of his being from Norway, I think that calls for an around-the-world-and-back snap.

[Running Bear]

Naturists like textiles have normal sexual urges. These animal instincts are under the control of the mind and a naturist is better qualified to control his mind and not hump the nearest girl. Appropriate behaviour between the sexes (and this goes for homosexuals as well) is a mind-game not a physical process. Gays like naturists just seek a quite life doing what they want to without causing offence.

The minority create the offence that should not be applied to the majority.

Like Pete I too have been approached on gay beaches by men and as soon as I declare no interest they trot off quite respectfully. I have no fear of 'catching' gayness and am quite happy to associate with them. Naturism for all is a good mantra where a persons sexuality is not important.

[walter05]

www.gaynaturists.org (http://www.gaynaturists.org) is a link for what appears to be the largest gay naturist group.

Quite a few of the clubs advertise that they have sexual activities.

As far as I know of, no other naturist group does so.

It is clear that sex and nudity are associated by many who call themselves gay naturists.

Walter

[redlevin908]

I apoligize if I came late to this post and reiterate points that were addressed earlier.

I agree with most that it is a minority of folks (gay or straight) that actively seek public sex on nude beaches. That said, I think the public sex behavior is much more pronounced in the gay community. I have been on many nude beaches where there is a steady stream of male couples ducking into the dunes or behind a boulder for a quickie. I have never seen this type of thing on such a routine basis amount heterosexuals or lesbians.

I think this kind of behaviour is incredibly damaging to the fragile state of affairs for legal nudity on public lands.

I will reiterate that this is behaviour that is conducted by a minority of the gay population, but I do believe that the gay community has to take a more disciplined stance in denouncing this type of thing.

[Journeyman]

The last two posters have seemingly decided to bypass reading the full thread, and have instead just stoked the fire a bit more.

You both decide to judge the entire gay male population of the world because of the actions of a few --and many of those few jerks who engage in beach sex would *never* actively describe themselves as gay.

I do not know of any self-respecting gay male naturist who is concerned about the fragile state of nude beaches anywhere, who would jeopardize any beach's status with overt sexual activity.

I've been a poster here since 2004, and this theme that keeps coming up every so often from those who "protest too much" is getting to be incredibly insulting.

To the last poster: how on earth can a minority of the population who happen to be homosexual be expected to monitor the distasteful actions of a few who participate in gay sex?? Should all Texans (or Americans) be held accountable for the carnage in Iraq thanks to Mr. Bush invading that country?

And to Walter: just because an association of gay nudists has some links to sexual sites does not mean that the entire gay "community" condones public beach sex! Don't you think you should spend your time investigating more important websites that mean something, other than one for a certain percentage of gay nudists. Why insist on flaming this thread? Did you even read it from the beginning?

[Pete Knight]

To the last poster: how on earth can a minority of the population who happen to be homosexual be expected to monitor the distasteful actions of a few who participate in gay sex?? Should all Texans (or Americans) be held accountable for the carnage in Iraq thanks to Mr. Bush invading that country? In the same way that the rest of the naturist population monitor the beaches![/quote]

The whole point is, why do gays need to gather in one place on the beach, why not integrate, why create a situation where those miscreants are attracted. As I pointed out in a previous post, my friend prefers to mix with ALL the naturists, to the point that he has women drooling over him (He's a damned good looking guy, not that I'm jealous of course!), but he leaves a trail of sad and disappointed women when he tells them he is gay.

It's actually quite funny to watch the ladies fluttering their eyes at him, then the look of disappointment bordering on horror when they find he bats for the other team.

So why go on the defence of gays when the emphasis isn't about gay bashing, we want to know if the gay community would be good citizens and report the miscreants, or at least actively discourage sexual activity on the beach.


The real point is that this male on male sexual activity brings gays and naturists into disrepute, and gay naturists especially.

I'd like to make one thing quite clear, the men who approached me were quite aggressive in their hitting on me, they were after sex, not a date. I have been chatted up by gays before, I do know the difference between a guy after a date and a guy who wants immediate sexual gratification.

Pete Knight

[FishyDave]

The problem as I see it is that the word 'gay' is so often used euphemistically to refer to a section of the beach where sexual activity (generally between men) is to be expected. Yes, gay people have every right to feel indignant about this, but they shouldn't be targetting the people who have just spotted the blindingly obvious.

The real culprits are the people who turned 'gay' into a euphemism for 'sexually permissive' in the context of clothing-optional beaches. As always seems to be the case in our little world, a minority has come along with its own agenda and a total disregard for the reputations and values of everyone else.

[David77]

Admitedly, I have been to only one nudist beach, which is Haulover Beach, but I have been there a number of times, as I feel that it is perfect.

They have volunteer "Ambasadors" who are nudists who monitor the nude section of the beach. All persons that I have seen are well behaved.

Quote -"SFFB’s volunteer Beach Ambassadors, with their distinctive turquoise and orange pith helmets, pass out etiquette cards and monitor the beach in cooperation with police, park officials and lifeguards".

http://www.pasconaturally.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=51

[walter05]

And to Walter: just because an association of gay nudists has some links to sexual sites does not mean that the entire gay "community" condones public beach sex! Don't you think you should spend your time investigating more important websites that mean something, other than one for a certain percentage of gay nudists. Why insist on flaming this thread? Did you even read it from the beginning?

Journeyman;

My post is an attempt to learn. I simply googled "gay naturist" and that was the organization at the top of the list.

The list includes: http://www.windycitygaynaturists.org/.

I was attempting to find naturist groups close to me. I thought I might prefer a group that is not gender mixed. I quickly learned that this group would be quite sexual.

I made calls to two other groups and found out the same thing.

Of the three groups listed as "Gay Naturist" in this area that I contacted, all had open sex at functions.

If I have found the wrong source as a resource please list a better one.

P.S. You don't consider yourself a "Gay Naturist" looking for "Gay Naturists". You are a Naturist that is gay looking for other naturists regardless of orientation.

However, the evidence does seem to suggest that there is a group of gay naturists that want to get naked and have sex. I suspect those make up a disproprotionate part of the ones at the "Gay Naturist Section of a beach".

[Naturist4Ever]

Journeyman>> Should all Texans (or Americans) be held accountable for the carnage in Iraq thanks to Mr. Bush invading that country?

You elected the man, you got what you elected. You had a choice. Are you going to hide behind "wir haben es nicht gewust"...

Nudetopher>> Are the beaches in Norway different? - Perhaps.

It is interesting to note that the OP was from the UK, I also lived in the UK, am from the Netherlands and know a great deal about European beaches. With a few exceptions, what you describe as gay sections on textile beaches is something unheard off here. That is what the OP wrote, that is also what I wrote as an observation. I cannot tell for US beaches since the only US beaches I have been too were ... nudist :-)
BUT that difference is not suprising, because just as a speedo is completely normal on any european beach whereas in the US.... You get it! So there are definitively cultural differences.

Your point on "you wish to see what you wish to see. After all, your perception becomes your reality" is well taken, that applies to any community. Herd mentatily merely reinforces it.

Journeyman>> And to Walter: just because an association of gay nudists has some links to sexual sites does not mean that the entire gay "community" condones public beach sex!

I think most of us agree that it is not the average gay person who is the subject. We can safely put that to rest (I hope). So let's take the cruisers, you find them everywhere, but in contrast to textile beaches where they are mostly absent (why on earth would they be there?) it is a common sight around (European) nude beaches. Their motivation is exclusively sexual. This is about men-to-men sex. But the gay community says "oh, no - that's not us!, we have nothing to do with them", thanks!- because now it is the nudists problem and the nudists get associated with sexual behaviour instead the some of the extreme sides of the gay community. And since the gay community is generally more accepepted than the nudist community, conclusions are easily drawn. If you add to that the majority of nudists are men, preferably men over their 50's, you can work out the simple logic for joe textile. That is all.

PeteKnight>> The real point is that this male on male sexual activity brings gays and naturists into disrepute, and gay naturists especially.

That's not my observation, see above comment. In fact quite to contrary - gay parades are drawing 1000's of on-lookers. Even Stu might be among them.

PeteKnight>> the men who approached me were quite aggressive in their hitting on me

I thought these were called cruisers?... i.e., people actively looking for (gay)sex. They are not necessarily gay at all. But that is irrelevant.

[redlevin908]

In the same way that the rest of the naturist population monitor the beaches!

[snip]

The real point is that this male on male sexual activity brings gays and naturists into disrepute, and gay naturists especially.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks Pete - you made my point more eloquently than I did.

I freely admit that this problem is caused my the minority regardless of sexual orientation, but it seems to me that the gay community wishes to deny that there is a problem rather than roundly denounce this behaviour.

[redlevin908]

[

PeteKnight>> the men who approached me were quite aggressive in their hitting on me

I thought these were called cruisers?... i.e., people actively looking for (gay)sex. They are not necessarily gay at all. But that is irrelevant.


This is the point in the discussion where I always get lost. How is it that people looking for gay sex are not gay?

[FishyDave]

This is the point in the discussion where I always get lost. How is it that people looking for gay sex are not gay?
I don't know about in real life, but most of the dodgy ones I've met on-line are basically bi-curious but in denial. They're interested in getting naked with other guys on a one-to-one basis (either a meet or webcam) for a bit of show and tell and maybe more. If they used a gay hook-up website, then that'd be an admission, but as long as they do it through nudism, they can kid themselves that what they're doing is perfectly heterosexual.

[Pete Knight]

I don't know about in real life, but most of the dodgy ones I've met on-line are basically bi-curious but in denial. They're interested in getting naked with other guys on a one-to-one basis (either a meet or webcam) for a bit of show and tell and maybe more. If they used a gay hook-up website, then that'd be an admission, but as long as they do it through nudism, they can kid themselves that what they're doing is perfectly heterosexual.
Which goes back to what I wrote way back at the beginning of this thread, middle aged men exploring their sexuality, for whatever reason, suppressed sexuality, or just not getting enough from the wife.

Whether they are in denial or in de Nile, we must all take responsibility for actions that threaten our nudist beaches, and the gay community have as much to lose as the naturist community, the gay naturists stand to lose the most.

Do something, speak out against these people.

Pete Knight

[Journeyman]

Journeyman>> Should all Texans (or Americans) be held accountable for the carnage in Iraq thanks to Mr. Bush invading that country?

You elected the man, you got what you elected. You had a choice. Are you going to hide behind "wir haben es nicht gewust"...

Hey, Norway, read to see from where a poster's comments emerge. I am Canadian and cannot vote in a US election.

I was making an analogy in response to the American poster who wrote the gay "community" should take responsibility for men looking for public gay sex on beaches.

[Sanslines]

From the outset I want to make it clear I am not gay bashing or otherwise in any way homophobic, just to shoot that one in the water early on. It's just that on clothed beaches there is never any reference to 'gay areas' or 'ends', so why should there be on a naturist beach? (as I just saw in a guide to Spain's naturist beaches)

To me, this just emphasises in the wrong way that general naturist beaches can also be places where some (not all, of course) gay folk can go to hook up with other gay folk in their unofficial 'special' areas, which of course has sexual connotations, unwelcome in a place where the vast majority of people are of a mindset that nudity is pure and natural and does not equal sex.

Thus, tagging a naturist beach with having a gay area says to me that the beach is used for activities other than enjoying the sand and sun - far more so than a clothed beach might be and this in my view is not good for the promotion of healthy naturism amongst those that doubt the sincerity of the 'naturism is non-sexual' claim, and also might put ladies off from ever trying it. (ie. my wife for one!!)

Look at it this way. Many women who want to get away from the constant unwanted attention from 'straight' guys head to the gay end where they will be left alone to enjoy their day on the beach. Most 'straight' guys would NEVER set foot on the gay end of the beach. If there was no gay end, then where would those women go? They undoubtedly would leave the beach and never return.

[David77]

This is the point in the discussion where I always get lost. How is it that people looking for gay sex are not gay?

Good question. One would suppose that these fellows who pointedly cruise for gay sex, enjoy sex with men. If they like sex with men enough to cruse, then they must have some homosexual tendancies {more or less?}.

There has been much debate as to whether Alfred Kinsey's research study and book on human sexuality is valid. In his research he concluded that sexuality is on a continuum scale of from 1 to 10, from 100% hetrosexual to 100% homosexual, with persons on the scale in between 1 and 10.

Freud - One of Freud's concepts was that all children are essentially homosexual. Young boys prefers boys to associate with, and young girls prefer girls. It then follows that eventually most outgrow this and prefering the opposite gender.

We all know that generally young boys prefer to associate with boys and young girls prefer to associate with girls - until their hormones kick in, when they take a great interest in the opposite sex, generally.

I am undecided about what part of either Alfred Kinsey's and Freuds ideas seem valid. So I will again repeat a previous post above, which is,

This is the point in the discussion where I always get lost. How is it that people looking for gay sex are not gay?

[Mutant]

People are curious and some people are more curious than others. Lots of gay people have fooled around with the opposite gender, lost of straight people have fooled around with their own gender. Much of the excess one might observe on the "gay end" of the beach has less to do with the tendancies of one particular subculture and everything to do with men who are in like company and are free to become reckless, wild boys. Gay clubs, beaches, etc. are really not much different than sports bars and fraternity houses, where men revert to being irresponsible boys. Besides that, when are straight folks going to start apologizing for resorts like Hedonism, where open sexuality is advertised and celebrated? The last I saw, these swinger clubs were scoring some sweet ad space in the AANR Bulletin.

Just saying. We all have a responsibility to keep the premise of nudism intact and not allow it to become just another form sexual expression.

[zharth]

Freud - One of Freud's concepts was that all children are essentially homosexual. Young boys prefers boys to associate with, and young girls prefer girls. It then follows that eventually most outgrow this and prefering the opposite gender.

Freud... I'm sorry, but I just can't pass up a comment like this. I'll be straight, I don't like Freud. I think he's (in hypothetical terms) a natural enemy to the nudist movement. Because he thinks everything is about sex. It's true, from what I can tell, that younger children tend to associate with other children of their same gender, but why should that have anything to do whatsoever with sex? Particularly when we're talking about children who do not yet have any kind of a sex drive? It's when the sex drive kicks in that they start actively associating with the gender they are attracted to. Before that, it's a matter of associating with the people that resemble you, and act like you. Sorry, but Freud was a hack.

[afzilla]

I'll be straight, I don't like Freud.

Why exactly should we care who you like or dislike? There is a troubling trend of people who seem to believe that things like "I believe X" or "I don't like Y" ought to count as proof of anything.

Because he thinks everything is about sex.

Maybe if you read some actual Freud, instead of whatever wikipedia article you got this lazy simplification from, you would have a better counterargument. Or at least sound less asinine.

Just a protip.

[Mutant]

Besides, sexuality is far more complex than deciding which gender you prefer to exchange fluids with. Nudism can be a sexual experience in that it satisfies a natural, lifelong curiosity for many and allows one to move on to a higher understanding of the body and its functions. It forces one to appreciate sexuality at a level far beyond "show me your boobs." I doubt that most initially explore nudism out of a desire to "celebrate God's greatest creation." Sorry, Clothesfree.com, for dissing your assertion in your own forum. Instead, most initially drive out to the naked camp to satisfy some adolescent curiosity and to see flesh flopping at a volleyball court. Theoretically, once that natural curiosity is satisfied, one ceases to gain sexual gratification from visualizing boobies and weenies and begins to explore the emotional and psychological dimensions of sexuality. The body ceases to be a fetish. Nudism can be a priceless tool in one's sexual evolution, which is kind of the point, in my own opinion.

[Fitz1980]

I am undecided about what part of either Alfred Kinsey's and Freuds ideas seem valid. So I will again repeat a previous post above, which is,

One thing I always liked about Kinsey was his "Kinsey Scale" that ranked people's sexual preference. Basically it's a 7 point scale for sexual preference. On one end (number 0) you have exclusively heterosexual, meaning only attracted to the opposite gender. On the other end (number 6) you have exclusively homosexual, meaning only attracted to the same gender as your own. In the exact center (number 3) you have pure bisexuals, meaning people who have equal physical attraction to their own gender or the other gender.

The thing I like about the scale is that I feel it's more accurate than the current standard of gay/bi/straight being the only options. Lots of people have tried different things and at different points in their lives be considered different things. In fact many on both sides want a gay/straight, yes/no, all or nothing system for it. They don't like bisexual even being an option. Lots of straights feel that bisexuals are just gays who are in denial. And lots of gays feel that bisexuals are just straights who are trying to be trendy or edgy by pretending to be on the edge of something that they are not.

The nice thing about Kinsey's scale is that it has multiple points the accommodate a wider variety of positions. If someone is a 1, 2 4 or 5 they fall somewhere in between the old gay/bi/straight organization because they may prefer one gender, but also do have some attraction to the other. Seems to account for more of what we see in nature, our own and that of animals.

Society has a role to play in how these desires play out. In ancient Greece man/boy love was socially acceptable and encouraged so men at any midpoint of this chart were socially pushed to develope homosexual love. These days girl/girl stuff is popular, trendy and chiq so many women who are anywhere in the middle feel pressure to act bi, because it's sexy. Even if their only interest in other women stops at a booty-smack and innocent no-tongue kiss and anything further makes them sick they often play it out because that's what society or whoever expects.

On the flip side you have guys who are in the middle of the scale. Society expects the old "pick one side or the other" and homosexuality is much more taboo on the male side so they often either pick to be totally hetro, and just try to keep any and all homo urges bottled up or at least on the down low. While the other option is to "come out" as gay and just expect that the majority will label you as a "flaming ***." This dichotomy is why you have things like 'straight' frat boys who aspire to join an all male club, where you live in a house with 20 other guys and the new guys have to undergo some type of naked sexual humiliation to get it.

If you go back a few generations, perhaps some old WWII recruiting films, the game was much different back than. I remember watching one where a bunch of guys were on a Navy ship, the off duty guys were laying out on the deck. Some of the guys were laying out by leading on other guys in that way that a girlfriend would lean on her boyfriend. Of course there was nothing sexual about it in those days, it was just friends doing what friends do; these days some guys won't even hug a male friend because they don't want to look gay.

And all of this brings us to....

This is the point in the discussion where I always get lost. How is it that people looking for gay sex are not gay?

Now you are getting into the idea of "self identification" which is a fancy way of saying 'what do you call yourself?" The easiest one to say is a married man, who's fathered several kids (clearly not having too much of a problem with heterosexual sex if he got a female pregnant) who also has an interest in sex with another male. Technically we'd call that guy bisexual or bicurious. In fact most of the guys who get busted having nasty gay sex in a mens' room or at an unoffical nude beach are self identified straight guys, who often have a wife and kids at home. If they were out of the closet homos do you think they would be hanging around a dirty mens' room looking for some anonymous gay sex with a nasty middle aged closet case when they could go down to South Beach (or a gay bar in any major city) and meet plenty of local young well dressed gay dudes?

Freud... I'm sorry, but I just can't pass up a comment like this. I'll be straight, I don't like Freud. I think he's (in hypothetical terms) a natural enemy to the nudist movement. Because he thinks everything is about sex. It's true, from what I can tell, that younger children tend to associate with other children of their same gender, but why should that have anything to do whatsoever with sex? Particularly when we're talking about children who do not yet have any kind of a sex drive? It's when the sex drive kicks in that they start actively associating with the gender they are attracted to. Before that, it's a matter of associating with the people that resemble you, and act like you. Sorry, but Freud was a hack.

The details of Freud's ideas are mostly discredited these days, as with many first step people. But the one thing I think he should get credit for is bringing sexuality out of the closet. In his early days sexual attraction was seen as deviant behavior that only sinners experienced; and that sex was your marital duty that wasn't for fun/pleasure but only for reproduction. He actually said that sexuality was part of our nature. He was certainly wrong about many of the details of it, but at least he got people talking about sexuality being a normal part of the human condition.

[Running Bear]

I'd like to make one thing quite clear, the men who approached me were quite aggressive in their hitting on me, they were after sex, not a date. I have been chatted up by gays before, I do know the difference between a guy after a date and a guy who wants immediate sexual gratification.
Pete Knight

Most gay approaches seem to be civil and a gentle 'no thanks I am not gay' will suffice. I do recall some aggressive approaches (perhaps a better term is more forward) and then a 'bugger off' seems more appropriate. The level of approach determines the level of response.

To me this seems strange. Does this dilemma of a non-gay male to gay advances equate exactly with women and the predator advances? A friendly advance to a lady results in a 'no thank you' reply but a more aggressive approach results in 'threat by sharp instruments'?

This surely confirms my opinion to judge the individual and not the group.
It is also mistaken to correlate a gay web site promoting sex as representative of the group any more than I can be seen to represent an English naturist.

[Pete Knight]

Why exactly should we care who you like or dislike? There is a troubling trend of people who seem to believe that things like "I believe X" or "I don't like Y" ought to count as proof of anything.

Even Freud admitted that his well respected books on children were bunk, he learned an awful lot more in the years after writing the book than he learned whilst examining life under a microscope.

I'm afraid I have very little faith in so called 'experts' who spout their doctrine as if it were the only truth.

One thing that has come out of this very interesting discussion, it would appear that the people causing naturists so much grief are in fact just sexual predators, the gender matters not to them as long as they get their sexual gratification. Gays and naturists are victims of this group of people, they use the gay community to hide and prowl, as much as they use the naturist community, so the conclusion is that gay naturists are double losers, they are in danger of being discredited from both angles.

Of course I only saw it from the naturist angle, but now I'm beginning to understand that our gay friends are just as uptight about being maligned as are naturists.

Of course the very worst of these sexual predators don't even stop at gender, they don 't let age become a barrier to their carnal desires.

Pete Knight

[Running Bear]

Of course I only saw it from the naturist angle, but now I'm beginning to understand that our gay friends are just as uptight about being maligned as are naturists.
Pete Knight
Exactly! recognise the other persons viewpoint. I have joined a swingers forum (for research purposes only) and they have the same concerns. The vast majority of swingers/ doggers/ Voyeurs and Exhibitionists are reasonable but there is the minority that give them a bad name. Again you cannot catch swinging so there is no excuse for ignorance. Do not condemn them until you have walked in their moccasins.
Rather than blaming the swingers for the loss of our beaches blame the idiot swingers that give the general swinging group a bad name. Rather than fighting them why not try to work together? They would like to live a life free of discrimination just as a naturist would.

[redlevin908]

The conversation has taken a turn from discussion of "what is happening" to discussion of "why it is happening". While the topic is informative, I don't really care why gay/straight/bi/curious/label-of-the-month people cruise for (male-on-male) sex on nude beaches. All I care about is that it stop so that I do not lose a tenuous privilege.

[This is probably another topic, but I do believe public nudity is a priviledge not a right. We earn that privilege by behaving responsibly. If we don't behave responsibly, then we have to fall back on our right to do whatever we want in private (e.g. at home or at a club).]

[David77]

Of course the very worst of these sexual predators don't even stop at gender, they don 't let age become a barrier to their carnal desires.

Rapists are the very worst and aggressive of these sexual preditors.
It is claimed that it is not primarily sex that rapists are wanting, but to express their hostile dominance over another.

Do some aggressive sexual preditors who cruise for men have similar motives of dominance as the rapist? I have not read any studies on this subject.

I have been propositioned by acquaintances a few times in my long life and find that "No, thank you" is sufficient. I feel that they have a right to ask, and no "drama of being offended" needs to be made in replying.

[BeachBum]

I have to agree with David on this one. I have been to several nude resorts, beaches, etc, and have been "propositioned" (for lack of a better word) by men a couple of times. I did not feel threatened or coerced in any way. A simple "no thank you" is all it takes. I would imagine it could escelate past that if one to be aggresive in their "no thank you," however, as with anything, being civil and diplomatic usually always gets the message across without hurting anyone's feelings.

[Running Bear]

R
...It is claimed that it is not primarily sex that rapists are wanting, but to express their hostile dominance over another. ...

It is claimed that rape or assault-without-consent is dominance rather than a sexual act primarily. The line of tolerance for naturist activities only extends to as far as consenting adults. Children (vulnerable adults) need responsible adult wisdom.
Being vigilant and involving the law is essential in these dangerous cases but the power of the law must not be misused to persecute any group. Charge the criminals but leave the 'normal' community alone. If police powers are not abused by trivial claims then they will have greater power when they are really needed.

[Pete Knight]

But being hit upon several times in one day IS harassment, and as I pointed out earlier, the manner of the proposition is aggressive if they only intend sex, whereas chatting up isn't, the tone is easily detected.

And I have had a number who become abusive when I politely decline their offer, things like "Why the f**K are you on this part of the beach if you're not interested" comes over as aggressive to me.

What I seek is the support of gay naturists in stopping this invasion of the nudist beaches by sexual thrill seekers, not much to ask is it?

Pete Knight

[Fitz1980]

But being hit upon several times in one day IS harassment, and as I pointed out earlier, the manner of the proposition is aggressive if they only intend sex, whereas chatting up isn't, the tone is easily detected.


I think that the women who don't like coming to the nude beach alone, because they can't get a moment's peace would agree with you.

[NudeTopher]

I think that the women who don't like coming to the nude beach alone, because they can't get a moment's peace would agree with you.

OMFG. Are you really suggesting that heterosexual males might cruise nude beaches for nakie girls?

[Lilwilly]

I have visited quite a few nude beaches in various countries. I have always enjoyed the experience and as a hetrosexual male can honestly say there is far more controversy on this thread than I have ever experienced at any of the nude beaches.

[redlevin908]

Are you really suggesting that heterosexual males might cruise nude beaches for nakie girls?



In my experience (albeit limited), the folks that harrass the women at nude beaches are clothed men sitting on coolers of beer or hiding in the bushed. The folks that harass men at nude beaches are naked men looking for sex. I have never seen a naked man harass a women or a woman (naked or otherwise) harass anyone. Just an observation.

[Naturist Mark]

In my experience (albeit limited), the folks that harrass the women at nude beaches are clothed men sitting on coolers of beer or hiding in the bushed. The folks that harass men at nude beaches are naked men looking for sex. I have never seen a naked man harass a women or a woman (naked or otherwise) harass anyone. Just an observation.

Harass may be the wrong word. Pester perhaps?

I've seen it plenty. Taken one at a time each approach is just fine. The guys are almost always very nice, polite, very careful not to offend or come on too strong - or hardly at all by being very low key - indeed putting on their very best graces and trying to subtly impress rather than be crass or pushy. But when there is an endless stream of nice earnest admirers and a single woman is never let alone ... it feels little different from harassment.

Trust me guys ... if a woman at nude beach or resort is interested in meeting you - she is perfectly capable of letting you know. ... Ummmm ... I should hasten to add - she is capable of letting you know by saying so - not just by being there naked. Some people don't quite get the distinction.

-Mark

[peter12]

I believe anyone who wants to be nude should do so and have respect for one another. I believe anyone who wants to be clothed should do so and have respect for one another. Being a gay man, if I went to a nude beach and someone flirted with me, I might flirt back. I might do the same at Barnes and Nobles with all my clothes on. Gay, straight, black, white, and on and on... Sexuality is a part of everyone's life, nude or clothed, and, to think that all thoughts of sex disappear when becoming nude is ridiculous (not that anyone thought that of course). I know, I get it, the nude public beach is not a place for a wild rendezvous for a sex starved exhibitionist or those crazy sex crazed "homos", as some people on here who say they are gay friendly refer to us. R-E-S-P-E-C-T: respect who's on the beach. Behave in a manner where everyone can get along despite the differences we all have. If there is something objectional going on: report it, take a stand, write to your congress woman, do something! If the beach is completely deserted and you want to steal a little kiss, OK. Gay people -- if there are straight families at the beach, respect them and their children! Straight people -- if there are gay people on the beach, respect them also! As exciting as it sounds, don't make out in front of anyone on the beach. The hotel is just down the block, you can wait a bit? For each and every criticism we make on others, we have ten to make on ourselves.

[jennan32za]

^These are all very valid points.

There is an unofficial nude and usually deserted beach in my neck of the woods here in Cape Town, smack between two other big, popular beaches; unfortunately, it also has the reputation of being an unofficial cruising spot for gay activity. I don't mean to judge, but it is obvious to the casual observer that something sketchy is going on - too many men fully dressed, standing furtively in the dunes and clearly not interested in anything related to being at the beach - and the last thing you want is to find the place crawling with cops because someone has laid a complaint. As I said, it's unofficial since public nudity is illegal, but the cops have an attitude of ignoring it unless there is a complaint.

My experience there has been mixed - some guys hover and hope but eventually realise you're not interested and leave it. Others are quite forward and assume that your lack of interest is your playing hard to get (same story at my gym sometimes, also annoying), even when you politely tell them "no thanks, I'm here to catch a tan." I had to threaten to break one such particularly forward gentleman's arm in three places when he touched me the second time, and even then he was persistent to the point where I packed up my stuff and moved. It bugs me that some guys don't respect your right to not being pestered.

I stand 6'3" and have a black belt so I'm not usually concerned should there be something physical, but I understand why other guys I know are not keen to go there since it can appear predatory.

I have only once seen a topless woman on the beach there; usually the undressed people are men. The women you usually see there are jogging or walking their dogs between the two bigger beaches on either side.

-d-

[deafnwsport05]

i agree with last post because anyone wants to be nude if they want to be and its their choice and its their body if they want to show off the body of theirs its their decision.

[Running Bear]

For each and every criticism we make on others, we have ten to make on ourselves.
Excellent post.
I have another version of this quote.
If you point a finger at somebody look at your hand. Under your thumb you will see the the third fourth and fifth fingers pointing back at you.
If I point a finger at you there are three fingers pointing back at me

[Pete Knight]

A report in the New Zealand newspaper 'Nelson Mail (http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelsonmail/4812821a6510.html)' highlights the very problem we've been discussing, the reporting is sympathetic, but it still blackens the reputation of the gay and naturist communities.

Pete Knight

[jennan32za]

Please read and understand what I am saying. The FACTS are that no clothed beach I have EVER been to has an area referred to as being predominantly 'gay'; not to my knowledge anyway.

I have - the Clifton beach complex in Cape Town is like this.

Basically, it's four beaches, all connected at low tide but seperated by rocky outcrops at high tide, and then connected by walkways and steps. Clifton 4, on the southern end, has very much a family vibe - probably because it has all the amenities and is easiest to get to with a large car-park nearby. Completely mixed crowd aged 8 months to 80 years

Clifton 1 on the northern end is very rocky but has good surf. The beach is long but very narrow. It's for die-hards who don't like crowds.

Clifton 2 is not as long, but much deeper and can seat plenty of people. The crowd is mixed, but mostly under 40s.

Clifton 3 is very much known throughout the city and the world as a gay beach and has been a cruising spot for years. There are small rainbow flags on the sign showing the path down to it, but that's it. It is Speedo city; the users are 95% male and all over 18 with the occasional tourist and a few women. However, getting from 2-3 or 4-3 is very easy and there are no warnings apart from word of mouth.

-d-

[Fresh Air]

Yeah, I kind of agree. Zoning a "gay" area is defining a location based on sexual preference. If nudism is not supposed to be about public sexuality, then we'd do better not to have that as a defining point.

I'm all for homosexuals and heterosexuals mixing company. I know I've had some great conversations with homosexual nudists who weren't 'cruising', but rather were just human nudists.

[LamontCranston]

I'm all for homosexuals and heterosexuals mixing company. I know I've had some great conversations with homosexual nudists who weren't 'cruising', but rather were just human nudists. Agreed. I've had conversations with folks and never discerned their preference in this area. I'm sort of slow on the uptake with these things. If there's a gay area at the campgrounds or swims I've attended, then I didn't know it.

When we're trying to get a volleyball game going, the nudists I've seen don't hand out a questionaire on sexual preference... they just hit the ball around. If you want to play, you can play. If you want to swim, you can swim. If you want to sun, then sun.

[Fitz1980]

Yeah, I kind of agree. Zoning a "gay" area is defining a location based on sexual preference. If nudism is not supposed to be about public sexuality, then we'd do better not to have that as a defining point.


It's usually not a zoned area. It's usually unofficial.

[mmacdonaldca]

wow. this is a tricky one by the looks of the posts here. I can see pros and cons to both sides of the issues raised.

First up, the homophobic question...many people suffer from this, but it is truly just a fear of the unknown. It is an ignorance of what gay means. And I DONT use the word "ignornace" as an insult. Far from it. We are all ignorant is some way. I know I am on many issues and topics. There is a BIG difference in my mind between being homophobic (ignorant of orientation) and being bigoted. One is based on a lack of understanding, the only is based on hate.

So, now onto the issue of gay sections of a nudist beach. They are there, they are not always about sex, but somtimes they are. Sometimes a "nude" beach is all about sex. It just depends on who frequents them. A truly nudist beach, whether it has a gay and str8 section or not, will attract fun, happy, respectful people who love to recreate in the buff. Those who have kids will want to hang with others who have kids. Those who are self-indentified as gay will want to hang with other gay persons. People of the same nationality will want to seek out others of their nationailty. Naked or not, this is what happens in the world. It's when we can all come together now and then that boundries can fall. And we will truly enjoy each other's company. At the end of the day, we seek out those people who we feel most comfortable being around.

I think if it makes you uncomfortable that some beaches seem segmented, then start frequenting the parts that concern you. Bring your friends, get to know who is there. The ones who want to use the beach for less then honourable reasons will soon get tired of you being there. And in the process, I would expect you will make some new friends and learn something new about a culture, a sexual orientation or a race you didnt know before.

:)

[Journeyman]

Good post, mmacdonald.

Lamont and Fresh Air - the word preference is *not* an adjective to use to describe gay people -- women or men. It is an orientation, something inbred, just like you two have a heterosexual orientation.

You didn't one day decide to "prefer" the opposite sex over same sex: your sexuality just is a part of you.
cheers
J'man

[Agde]

This thread makes pretty clear that if anyone -- whether straight or gay or swinger or voyeur or whatever -- brings sexual orientation to a beach, it sexualizes the atmosphere. But it is not the only way to cause tension. There aren't de facto Baptist or Socialist or Irish sections of beaches either -- that would create an atmosphere of religious, political or nationalist divisions, wouldn't it? At the same time, it is completely understandable if, say, a group of teenagers or Aussies hangout together at the beach, why not? Its all a matter of affinity versus fractiousness. Overt sexual orientation may be a particularly sensitive issue on naturist beaches because of our struggle with the old nudity=sex misconception, but the core issue is really that we all do our part to create an naturist community atmosphere of welcome, safety and comfort -- perhaps particularly for groups like women, gays and Texans who need the break from off-beach "pestering". How about if we all just agree to mix together, leave our passions and clothes in the car, and enjoy the sun?
:vacation:

[DrewSea]

What a thread! As an avid gay nudist and beach lover who's been fortunate to experience a pretty big variety (I think) of clothed and nude beaches around the world, etc., I feel compelled to chime in with my observations:

- Contrary to an understandable but still false impression by many straights: Yes there absolutely are "gay sections" on clothed beaches. In fact, my guess is there's a gay area at ALL major beach parks and strands, clothed and nude. My favorite is the very popular gay beach in Rio -- finally, somewhere the gays enjoy some prime real estate, center of the Ipanema strand, with a perfect view of Corcovado's Christ the Redeemer statue. (A totally apt symbol of love and acceptance, if ever there was one. To fully appreciate what this is about, get yourself to Rio...but only if you're a true lover of beaches AND mass humanity.)

- Most (but not all) gays prefer to relax and socialize on gay beaches for the same *non-sexual* reasons they prefer other gay venues. For any straight person this puzzles, I invite you to pause to imagine your experience and enjoyment spending your daily life -- work, church, clubs, school, stores, restaurants -- among a community fundamentally 90% different (and often hostile) to your personal orientations, interests, and self-identity. Oh, and be sure to imagine being noticeably feared (the topic of this thread, right?), judged, and occasionally bashed, too. Got that thought? Now, are you still certain gays congregate on the beach so they can cruise, have sex, and "promote the gay agenda"? (Btw, will someone please send me a copy of that gay agenda? I seem to never have received mine when I came out, so have just been making it up as I go along.)

- Where they can be, gay beaches are clothing optional. Not sure why, but I think it's generally understood that gays are both more nudist AND tolerant of nudism than the general str8 population. My advice to straight nudists: Get some some gay friends! They'll likely support your nudism better than your straight friends and family, plus the social diversity will be good for everyone.

- Most gays expect to see some amount of cruising on gay beaches, and are not offended by it (and those who are appropriately divert to other beaches.) Many (but not all) gay beaches around the world have well known "cruising areas" in nearby dunes, woods, trails, but only a minority of the beach goers wander into these places. My take is, gay beaches attract cruisers for the same reason any beach attracts ice cream vendors. What's relevant to this discussion is that cruising in the vicinity of a gay or nude beach is a totally separate activity from clothed or naked beach-going, and (as others here have pointed out) even actually being gay.

- Lastly, just to be provocative: Sex on the beach is pretty awesome, whether your gay or straight. If you haven't done it, you really should try it before you depart the planet! What the heck would it take to get some beaches where that would actually be possible? Why must all beaches everywhere, all the time be "family friendly", i.e. asexual?? And how remote and hard to reach would such beaches need to be before all the fear and complaining stopped about them?? [I'm really only half tongue in cheek on this one....]

[Running Bear]

very eloquent post. It seems what you say is tolerance to all and respect to others. In a social situation individuals should behave in a way that others do not find upsetting but not in a way that suppresses their own freedom of expression.
A noble cause.
I do not think I have noticed the ghettos of gays, families, singles but beach areas seem to attract like-minded people. Textiles on one side of the line, naturists on the other kinda thing :-) There is no real defined line and we all seem to muck in together.
I do not find cruising offensive but perhaps it defines one as gay. On reflection perhaps a heterosexual parading up and down the beach is similar. A form of display associated with social behaviour to encourage the mingle. Nothing at all wrong in that.

[DrewSea]

Talk about "mixing it up", another fascinating nude beach I'd recommend anyone experience is Wreck Beach in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. On no other nude beach have I seen such diversity of age, orientation, ethnicity, sub-culture, etc. (not even beautiful Sandy Hook, NJ.)

The only human attribute appreciably missing is obesity, since access to the beach is only through a VERY steep, long staircase and trail through the woods. That fact, plus its location on a university campus (lots of students) and Canada's more healthful and liberal culture, makes it the youngest and most fit mix I've seen on any beach, clothed or nude. While I'd say most go nude, many others stay clothed but are there to enjoy and support the festive and tolerant atmosphere, not to mention one of the best mountain views any beach could probably have. Regrettably, Pacific NW climate restricts Wreck's sun & warm season to a few weeks in Jul/Aug.

[minitim]

One of the things that I like about the beach is the chance to relax. I decided about 10 years ago to avoid the so-called straight area of the nude beach because of all the racket. A group I was sunning near was so loud, yelling in a friendly manner to each other, and divulging all types of personal drama. :surprised: I wanted no part of it. The gay end was quieter, and I would say more respectful of each other's space.

I can't say it is always like this. But whenever I arrive at the beach, I head directly to wherever it looks peaceful.

[jennan32za]

Most gays expect to see some amount of cruising on gay beaches, and are not offended by it (and those who are appropriately divert to other beaches.)

It doesn't bug me that people cruise at the beaches. To each his own - I try very hard, not always successfully, not to judge people.

However, it bugs me when I get harassed down at the beach, especially since the guys involved all look extremely obvious to anyone watching. The beach I go to is unofficial and I'm not keen to be the one who gets arrested because the cops have decided to stake the place out because there was a complaint the day before and I'm the first guy who happens to pitch up and get his kit off on their watch.

I know the nature of cruising often involves playing somewhat hard to get - this is another problem, which is where the harassment starts. The guys cruising seem to think if they hover near you and rub their crotches enough while standing nearby that you'll eventually go for it. I tire of having to tell people three or four times politely to leave me in peace before I get aggressive, and then having that scenario repeat itself fifteen minutes later and fifteen minutes after that again with the next few guys who come past.

Unfortunately, there is only one beach anywhere near me where I can go, so diverting to another is impossible.

-d-

[DrewSea]

Guess I've been fortunate never to have witnessed cruising so overt and persistent, esp. around clearly uninterested beach goers. As I mentioned, virtually all cruising I've observed has been in nearby trail/woods areas, not on the main part of the beach.

[David77]

Iv'e never seen crusing at Haulover Beach, although there is what I would call a rather large gay section on the north side of the beach. The men, like all beach goers, sun peaceful, converse, and swim.

[nudenwv]

i would say having their own area is a place where like minded groups can get together. what type of conversation would a straight person have with a gay person. unless you are open minded and not easily offended. just my opinion and thought!

[DrewSea]

Despite their lifestyle differences, gays and straights have much in common they can discuss, on beaches and elsewhere. That said, having lived on both sides of the fence now myself, the one traditionally straight (although this is changing) subject guaranteed to bore the daylights out of gays is...kids (and grandkids)! How cute little Johnny and Susie are/were/will be, how well they're doing in school/job/prison, etc.

Although, now that I think about it, that's probably more about single vs. married than gay vs. straight. As more gay families show up on the gay ends of the beaches, I bet we'll see some changes in social dynamics and conversation topic evolution there as well! :)

[richo]

Well, it's not a matter of conversation - most of my friends are straight, and we have plenty to talk about. It's mostly a matter of there being things you don't have to explain or dance around or wonder if the other person will understand/react badly. Think of it like trying to talk about naturism with someone who's got no real clue about the lifestyle, and you'll get the same kind of feeling :) It's just more relaxing to have it not be an issue on the table.

[David77]

Well, it's not a matter of conversation - most of my friends are straight, and we have plenty to talk about. It's mostly a matter of there being things you don't have to explain or dance around or wonder if the other person will understand/react badly. Think of it like trying to talk about naturism with someone who's got no real clue about the lifestyle, and you'll get the same kind of feeling :) It's just more relaxing to have it not be an issue on the table.

If people don't understand each other,(for example, an individual or a group of gays and non-gays), it is very beneficial for both sides to explain their attitudes and share information about the subject with each other for greater understanding and possibly heal emotionally destructive attitudes on both sides.

This encountering and educational group is the kind of group we have had at our church, in an effort to make it one of what our denomination calls a "welcoming congregation".

Thus, by these meetings, many misconceptions were cleared and further understanding was fostered.

The gays and non-gays have lots to talk about outside of these group meetings other than talk about differences in sexual practices, as we are all simply human. Outside of these special meetings, sexual practices are not a subject of conversation, such as during our pot-luck Sunday's, for instance.

[walter05]

I am happily married to my wife. I am not discussing having sex with any one else.

Who that person chooses to have sex with is not a topic of conversation either.

However, the president, the stimulus package, sports, the beautiful setting, etc. are topics of conversation.

Any one who thinks one can't have a conversation with a gay person if that person is straight has a problem.

If you only talk to people you might have sex with, you will not have many to talk to.

[richo]

I agree with both Walter and David - again, most of my friends are straight, and I have no trouble integrating in "straight society".

But what we're talking about here is relaxation, and the fact that I can say "straight society" at all exemplifies the point. The default assumption in society is that one is heterosexual; this isn't a big deal, as most of the time it's correct (simply by numbers).

However, it *does* lead to situations. For example, when I'm at a party, a topic of conversation that often comes up is something like "so, are you seeing anyone?" or "do you have a girlfriend" or such, usually just with people - mostly wives or girlfriends - being polite and trying to find out more about a person; the "default" in society is that if you're moderately intelligent, moderately decent-looking, and moderately successful, you're likely in a relationship.

This kind of question may seem innocent, but it can start a very complex series of questions. My usual response is something noncommittal - 'no, just a bachelor at the moment' - as it's not most people's business what I do in the bedroom; of course, that sometimes leads to more questions, or even attempts at "setting you up with my friend x", but if it gets past the first question I'll usually just end up being blunt/honest. However, I've later had people get upset with me for *not* telling them I was gay right away. Of course, if I *do* say, "no, I'm gay", there's a possibility (and depending on the environment, a probability) of a negative or even hostile reaction.

Most people don't have to deal with it, and most of the time I'll just be upfront and take what comes, but it *is* a source of stress (however small) and something one would rather not have to deal with, *especially* if one has gone somewhere specifically to relax. And, that's just one example - there are plenty of others. It's simply the case that there are default assumptions people make, and when those assumptions are wrong, it can cause friction.

This isn't necessarily something wrong with "the straights"; they're just being polite. Nor is it something wrong with "the gays"; we're just trying to figure out the best course. But it *is* a source or friction. And while I'm normally more than happy to face down demons on both sides (I've got something of a reputation for being completely honest with anyone), when I've paid to go to a resort or gone out of my way to relax on a beach or something, I'm usually not in the mood to play politics.

Again, it's probably no different than couples going to couples-only retreats, or bikers going to biker bars, or naturists going to members-only clubs. Being around like-minded individuals - in whatever capacity - tends to cause less friction.

[walter05]

The easiest way to handle a dating question is to say that I consider that personal.

Another is that I recently had a difficult relationship and I am not ready for that. I will let you know if I am.

Whether straight of gay, having people mind your personal business is a problem.

[richo]

Walter: The point is the underlying concept - a set of assumptions that can lead to situations that are, at best, slightly confrontational and at worst downright dangerous. Congregation in an area with like-minded individuals removes those assumptions so that there's less to "worry" about. There are other reasons for such groupings as well, but this is certainly a big one.

As I stated, I have my own methods for handling that specific question - usually amounting to telling the truth and letting whoever is asking to deal with the consequences; my favorite author has sometimes referred to such behavior as "guerrilla ontology".

[walter05]

The problem with your approach is that it means that straight people and gay people don't learn to interact.

If you are at a singles club attempting to meet someone, then sexual orientation is an important variable.

However, if you are at a non-sexual event, it should not matter.

I was attempting to point out that for most of us, sex is personal regardless of orientation.

I think the concern is more in your head.

[Journeyman]

The problem with your approach is that it means that straight people and gay people don't learn to interact.

If you are at a singles club attempting to meet someone, then sexual orientation is an important variable.

However, if you are at a non-sexual event, it should not matter.

I was attempting to point out that for most of us, sex is personal regardless of orientation.

I think the concern is more in your head.

Walter, again you are assuming you know what it's like to be a gay person in an all-straight party or situation. You don't really know what it like to be black, Catholic, gay, Canadian or anything beyond what you are.

I didn't think Richo's comments were suggesting that straights and gays cannot learn to interact more - indeed they do all the time, consciously or unconsciously, in every sitiation imaginable. But comments like Richo's are an attempt to shed some light on how gay people feel when confronted with the "aren't you straight like me" default scenario.

[jennan32za]

The problem with your approach is that it means that straight people and gay people don't learn to interact.

I think the concern is more in your head.

With respect, Walter, you're largely mistaken here.

I don't advertise, but I answer honestly if anyone asks. It's caused a fair amount of awkward reactions in the steam-room at my gym, I must tell you!

-d-

[NatureFred]

I don't know that my two cents worth here is even worth two cents, but here goes. On several notes raised in this thread.

It ought to be possible to tell someone who's persistently trying to fix you up with a girl "well, I'm gay, so that's just not on," but there are too many people with a bad gut reaction to homosexuality to make that a safe choice. I hope that any gay acquaintances of mine realize that they can tell me they're gay, but I completely understand why gay men don't just go blurting it out in company. I'm an atheist, I think that intellectual property isn't property at all, and I think most people who have guns in their homes are taking a terrible and unnecessary risk, but I've learned not to blurt those things out in company myself. (You might be surprised how often those topics arise and have to be avoided.)

I've been bashed (a little) for being gay. Even though I'm not. I guess it's because I'm skinny and I wear an earring? I don't know. But being chased down a dark street by a crowd of drunken frat boys yelling "Get out, ******!" and throwing beer bottles was a terrifying experience. Having a group of big buff Marines making kissy sounds at me at the beach gave me cold chills, and I got away fast. So I understand why gays might want a separate place to congregate where that stuff is less likely to happen. Back when I was single I wished there was someplace where I could congregate where that was less likely to happen, and still have girls present.

I guess what I'm leading up to is saying, it'd be great if there didn't have to be a separate gay area of the beach, but given my experiences, I don't think it's the gays who make it necessary so much as it is the rest of the population. So it's pretty ugly to tell the gays that they're the ones bringing sexuality onto the beach by creating a separate area for themselves.

[Journeyman]

I'm sorry for the near-bashing experiences you had, Fred, but I am glad you've posted your experiences. You're one heterosexual who has gotten an unfortunate taste of what happens all too often to gays and lesbians in everything from small towns to big cities.

[walter05]

Journeymand and Jennan;

I have interests that are sexual and non-sexual.

I am also a member of a minority group. Being Jewish, I understand what it is like to face the disapproval and discrimination from others. I also understand what it means to be threatened by it.

If one is a HOMOSEXUAL and that sums one up, then there is another problem. That person is boring.

Interesting people are dynamic with a variety of interests.

I was with another male and we were sharing a hotel room on a business trip. {It was right after Hurrican Katrina, and I had a hotel room. I offered to share so he would not sleep in his car.} I needed to use the toilet and he was in the bathroom. As I was standing there, he looked at me and said I hope my being gay does not bother you.

I told him I am married and am not interested in sex with anyone else. I also don't expect anyone to want sex with me.

He turned to face me and had an obvious erection and asked if it made a difference.

I said it meant he was healthy.

Later, he came into the room with just a towel on. I sleep naked and I was sitting on my bed. He told me that he never felt so accepted before and asked if I minded if he gave me a hug.

I told him I would be honored. As he was hugging, his towel slipped off. I ignored it.

I will agree that it was obvious from his experience that having a straight naked male accept him as a naked gay male and not be threatened was an increcible experience for him. I have never held another naked male crying before. I can't totally empathize, but I can understand to an extent.

Before being naked in the same place, we had a relationship as men. If I met either of you, we would enjoy each other as men. Sexual orientation would not matter.

People who attempt to fix someone for being gay attempt to fix everyone. That same person will make a lot of people of various orientations uncomfortable.

If you focus on the rude ones, there will be a barrier.

Instead focus on the rest of who will be willing to embrace you for who you are.

[mmacdonaldca]

walter05...

just quite simply, thank you!

[walter05]

I think being Jewish, I have an advantage attempting to understand.

Many fundamentalist Christians will work very hard to fix me and get me to be Christian.

Many fundamentalist Muslims will work very hard to fix me or kill me if I refuse to accept their view.

Many secularists who find that I am not threatened by science and find it to be a very helpful discipline also feel threatened. They can't accept the possibility of someone being able to understand and use the scientific method and still have strong religious convictions.

Since so many people work so hard attempting to fix me, I know how it feels to be on the receiving end.

At the same time, there are Jews, Muslims, Christians, and secularists that I enjoy to be with. We find that we have so much in common that we enjoy each other.

When we have differences but respect each other, the differences can be exciting and we can learn a lot about ourselves from each other.

At the same time, there are Jews, Muslims, Christians, and secularists that I attempt to avoid. They are usually closed minded, believing they have all of the answers, show disrespect for those whose views are different, and attempt to fix others.

If I substitute the terms Gay, Lesbian, Straight or Bi, I believe all of my statements above would also be true.

I am far more offended at males and females having sex without any concern for the consequences. When sperm and ovum are in proximity in a female body, conception is possible. Unnecessary abortions, and children growing up unloved, abused, etc. are terrible consequences of this behavior. They also spread STDs with consequences they can't grasp.

Gay men who are promiscuous also play a big role in spreading disease. Rectums are designed to reabsorb water from feces. Rectums are also more likely to bleed or tear than vaginas and therefore facilitate the spread of disease. If a man ejaculates in a rectum, this design maximizes the likelihood of transmitting a disease from the penis to the rectum.

BI men who are promiscuous then expose their female partners to a very high level of risk also. When the female partners have sex with promiscuous straight men, They spread the diseases.

As a result, the behavior of promiscuous gay, bi and straight men is extremely risky for spreading disease. However, since promiscuous straight people can concieve, the consequences can be worse.

My belief is that responsible gay, straight, and bi people are all wonderful. Unless I want to have sex with one of them, their sexuality is none of my busienss.

Those of us that are responsible should oppose the irresponsible promiscuous behavior that leads to STDS and when practiced by straights leads to unwanted pregnancies and children.

Therefore, someone being gay does not matter to me.

[jennan32za]

Sorry for coming back into this so late.

If one is a HOMOSEXUAL and that sums one up, then there is another problem. That person is boring.

Careful. You're on very shaky ground here.

One thing I have learned from interacting with other not-straight people over the last few years is that many of them want this to be their defining characteristic, because it is as inherent as skin colour and, as far as they are concerned, should be regarded as just as important and should be just as obvious to everyone. Why? Because it is something that they spend their lifetimes either learning to be proud of, or teaching others like them to be proud of, or both.

It flummoxed me at the start, I must tell you, because I don't define myself that way; however, I'd not be at all surprised anymore if I was in a minority among the gay and bi guys.

Forget "I'm a doctor" or "I'm a Catholic" or "I'm American" or "I like the colour blue" or anything else you might choose to tell people about yourself; if they could tell everyone just one thing about themselves, it would be that they are gay. This is the nature of Pride.

You may call it boring and tire of hearing them go on about it - I do, very quickly - but until there is no more prejudice, we'll all have to live with it.

My belief is that responsible gay, straight, and bi people are all wonderful. Unless I want to have sex with one of them, their sexuality is none of my busienss.

These are wonderful sentiments, and if this sort of logic were applied to all sorts of differences - sexual, cultural, political, religious - the world would be a better place.

However, the operative word there is "if."

Therefore, someone being gay does not matter to me.

You might find that many - perhaps even most, I don't know - people are different in their opinion. The problem with your attitude towards people different to you is that it is YOUR attitude, and they all have their own attitudes. The other problem is that everyone believes his or her attitude is the best one, don't they?

The problem with your approach is that it means that straight people and gay people don't learn to interact.

Perhaps the big issue here is rather that some people opt not to learn, or - a bit like Stu and physically being around nude people, I suppose - would prefer not to interact at all. In a free* society, of course, that is everyone's prerogative.

-d-
*However free we currently regard it to be, at any rate

[Pete Knight]

I have several gay and transgendered friends, so that aspect doesn't worry me, but I do get a feeling of unease on some beaches where a gay section exists, it concerns me because these places attract men looking for sex and some can be quite aggressive. Having been approached by men for sex, then see them get quite abusive when I decline, even told to f@#k off out of the gay area if I'm not interested, I naturally come to dislike gay areas.

If there has to be a separate gay area, why shouldn't there be a separate black area, or Jewish area, why does there have to be a separate anything area. It's bad enough that naturists have to be corralled into enclaves, but to further divide into different types of naturist isn't doing us any favours.

Pete Knight

[walter05]

When I was growing up in Savannah, Georgia, the Girl Scouts sponsored an annual festival called "Night In Old Savannah". Until it outgrew the setting, it was in Johnson Square, the first of the Savannah squares that was set up by General Oglethorpe when Savannah was settled.

The girl scouts sponsored the event, paid for the entertainment, and received all of the proceeds for entrance.

However, the different ethnic groups set up booths along all of the steets surrounding the square. They had various ethnic booths where the different ethnic groups had ethnic foods, crafts, and sometimes performances.

I had a good friend who preferred to go the Chinese booth for an egg roll, go the Korean booth for Kim Chi, go to the Jewish booth for a potatoe Latke, go to the African American booth for corn on the cob, and then he would finish at the Greek booth for Baklava.

My point is that each ethnic group added something that made the festival better. I think this festival helped me learn that I can be proud of my ethnic group and still appreciate others.

Once someone learns that pride in oneself does not mean that others have to be like oneself, then other differences are easier to accept.

They don't have this festival any more because it outgrew that site. When they moved it to the revolutionary war "Siege of Savannah" site, it never had the same ambiance again.

Too many people want everyone to be like themselves. I don't. I like myself and like others that are different also.

[richo]

Pete and Walter:

When we can go a month without a multiple major news stories of people being beaten, stabbed, shot, or worse, simply because they happened to be gay, then you might have an argument.

And, yes, I realize there are hate crimes of a large variety, but a very small percentage of individuals in "western" society actively proclaim anti-black or anti-Jewish sentiment: it's not accepted and actively discouraged. Yet these same societies have people becoming national celebrities specifically because they're anti-gay; just look at this senators in Utah and Colorado, proclaiming that homosexuals are equivalent to Islamic terrorists. That engenders a definate feeling of insecurity or danger in the general gay population.

Yes, there are some gay men and women who basically end up shunning straight society as much as possible; they're the exception, not the rule. Someone's choice to go to a gay beach does not necessarily reflect their entire life style or social group as Walter seems to be suggesting, no more than choosing to go to a naturist resort means shunning the clothed world. It's simply a place that's more comfortable to be when one wants to relax.

[Fresh Air]

Good post, mmacdonald.

Lamont and Fresh Air - the word preference is *not* an adjective to use to describe gay people -- women or men. It is an orientation, something inbred, just like you two have a heterosexual orientation.

You didn't one day decide to "prefer" the opposite sex over same sex: your sexuality just is a part of you.
cheers
J'man

Well, I prefer the opposite sex over same sex. Sexuality is not as solid an "or" in my mind, not 'inbred'. Though, I can understand where your coming from and I apologize if my wording offended you. I was just speaking from my own perspective, and I personally see it as a preference.

[Pete Knight]

Yes, there are some gay men and women who basically end up shunning straight society as much as possible; they're the exception, not the rule. Someone's choice to go to a gay beach does not necessarily reflect their entire life style or social group as Walter seems to be suggesting, no more than choosing to go to a naturist resort means shunning the clothed world. It's simply a place that's more comfortable to be when one wants to relax.
I can fully appreciate that, but getting back to the unsavoury behaviour on beaches, I resent being approached by men for casual sex, even if I were gay I wouldn't jepodise a beach for a moment of pleasure, so what I'm looking for here is clear support from the gay community to stop beaches being used for casual sex, meet up by all means, but go home if you wish to consumate your new friendship.

I can't undestand why there needs to be a seperate gay section, my gay freind mixes with everyone, and no one knows he's gay unless he choses to tell them (It's upset quite a few ladies too, he's a handsome guy.). When you're on a nudist beach, just be a nudist, your sexuality isn't an issue, and seperating yourselves from the rest of us does you no favours whatsoever..

Pete Knight

[walter05]

I will not get into the argument as to which group is subjected to the most abuse. All abuse is wrong.

Pete;

I have been approached by men and women. I simply say no thank you, I am happily married and they leave me alone.

[mmacdonaldca]

Just to weigh in on the "preference" issue...for me you can call it what you want. I am fully aware thanks to science that being gay is a biological matter. However, there are many who think being gay is only about sex. Those that just want to have sex with their own gender might not be gay. I am a firm believer that being gay means loving the same gender, not just having sex with them. There is a difference.

Just like there is a difference between being naked for the sake of enjoying a naked life and for sexual reasons. I do agree that it would be nice if all the genders, orientations, races, etc could enjoy each other without barriers. But in the real world, we do all prefer to feel comfortable with people we can relate to, that we share common interests with. I know this forum is about "gay sections" of a nude beach might make some uncomfortable. But the same can be said if there was a family secton of a nude beach. That might make some adults very uncomfortable and they might prefer to be around only other adults. (and vise versa)

On the topic of feeling uncomfortable because guys might hit on you and then get aggresive if you show no interest...thats a problem on all beaches, in all walks of life. The point is to de-sexualize nude beaches. The seedier elements of the world will find opportunities everywhere they can. The way to fix it is to make sure everyone knows that kind of behavior is not acceptable...by gays, str8s, families, etc

So dont be uncomfortable by gay only sections. Better yet, start taking a walk through these sections. If we all do this, the beach once again becomes a place to enjoy social nudity and a place to enjoy each others company. It still allows those who wish to hang with those they feel more comfortable with to have that comfort level. But for those who are looking for more than just social nudity, they will soon realize their favourite lurking location is not as easy to control.

By the way, Pete. I found it odd that you are upset about being approached by gay men on the beach but you did not seem to find it a problem to have your gay friend approached by str8 women. ("It's upset quite a few ladies too, he's a handsome guy.") Isn't that a double standard? Of course, I am not talking about the agressive behaviour by some. That is completely wrong on all levels.

Thanks for letting me put in my thoughts.

[walter05]

I find your post very thoughtful and thought provoking.

I would enjoy sitting with you, drinking some beers and enjoying your company. I could care less what section of the beach we are on.

[Pete Knight]

Pete;

I have been approached by men and women. I simply say no thank you, I am happily married and they leave me alone.
You were lucky then, I've had verbal abuse for declining an offer.

As I've stated previously, I believe the worst offenders aren't even gay, they are middle aged men exploring their sexuality, then going back home to wifey and the kids.

Pete Knight

[Pete Knight]

By the way, Pete. I found it odd that you are upset about being approached by gay men on the beach but you did not seem to find it a problem to have your gay friend approached by str8 women. ("It's upset quite a few ladies too, he's a handsome guy.") Isn't that a double standard? Of course, I am not talking about the agressive behaviour by some. That is completely wrong on all levels.


I have no problem with being approached, and have been hit on by guys a few times, but there are two issues here:
1) The verbal abuse I got for declining, and being told I shouldn't be in the gay area if i didn't want to play. My gay friend wasn't verbally abused by the disappointed lady, and she wasn't looking for sex on the beach. I knew the lady in question.
2) A beach isn't the right place to be consummating your new relationship, or the old one for that matter, yet some guys go to the beach just to hook up for sex.

Pete Knight

[Running Bear]

As a strait man I would feel that if a gay man approaches me I feel happy he found me attractive. If a woman approached me I would feel happy she found me attractive. Both scenarios give me pride that a fellow human being found me pleasing, their sexual preference does not come into it.

If we start on a compliment idea then our response should be thank you for the compliment but no thanks (or yes please in the latter!), We should not be aggressive to all just because some have approached with aggression. The best defence for aggression is not further escalation or it will be pebbles at 30 paces :-/ (why are most naturist beaches not sandy; I would prefer to kick-sand-in-their-eyes!)

[mmacdonaldca]

Pete

I agree with both of your last two posts. Just wanted to say that. Sometimes I might come off as argumentative no matter what is posted but I dont mean to. What you have said about the way you are approached and the reasons for the approaches are on the mark. There is a time and place for everything and the beach is not the place for most of it :)

Take care
M

[DJ Leo]

As a naturist I believe that we are all sexual creatures by nature, but there is a time and a place for sex. wether it be with people of the opposite sex or same sex. God created us all in his own image and liking. Nudity should not have to involve sex. To be on a beach, or in a park or where people meet to be of like company. JMHO ;)