Introduction to communal nudity [Archive]

luvnaturism

07-25-2002, 05:27 PM

I grew up in a small town in Illinois where the only swimming pool in town was the indoor pool at the high school. During the summer it was used for community recreational programs, with different times for boys and girls. Girls were required to wear suits; boys were not permitted to wear suits. No one asked why. It was just the way things were done.

I didn't swim there myself until high school (early '50s). Once the weather got cold PE was in the pool twice a week. I was a very shy kid, and thought being nude in the pool would bother me. However, by the time we were to swim we'd already had a couple of months of nude showers after PE, plus the normal nude horseplay that goes with boys locker rooms. Swimming nude was no big deal, but it did introduce me to wonderful feelings of freedom. To this day skinnydipping brings that same joyful freedom that I associate with my earlier days.

I never knew any boy who was bothered or offended by manditory nude showers or swimming, though perhaps some simply didn't talk about it. Many years later a classmate told me that he had hated nude swimming, which was a great surprise: I have clear memories of him always being in the center of the fun on pool days.

The college that I attended didn't have a pool, so I often swam at the YMCA...nude always. No one thought anything about it. I was past 30 before I ever wore a suit at a Y.

Today I find in myself a great deal of wholeness about myself as a male human being. Others, including counselors, have verified my self-impression of having a healthy sexuality. I am convinced that those many hours of being nude around others laid a valuable foundation.

In recent years I've had the opportunity and the inclination to participate in family naturism. Now I find that it aids my spirituality, helping to complete my wholeness in another dimension. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

07-26-2002, 08:23 AM

Growing up Catholic ..Modesty was ingrained in me.My fears of showering naked as I entered high school were soon overcome as it was something that had to be done.I also had "bashfull kidneys" which caused alot of uncomfortable times.My first exposure to naturism was while I was in my late 20s while I was doing a painting of a scenic beach and a well tanned young couple came and enjoyed the afternoon at the beach . It was so beautiful and idyllic that I was hooked although it took me a couple more years before I got up the courage to remove my clothes at a nude beach and experience that wonderful feeling of freedom.

nudeatheart

07-27-2002, 07:03 AM

I grew up in Houston and went to junior high and senior high school in the public school system. For the boys swimming was required to be done nude. No one questioned why; it was just that way.The only explanation I ever heard was something to do with the filtration system. I have heard that the girls were allowed to wear suits. There was never any planned sharing of the pool amongst the genders.(There was one time when the girls were to have the pool the second half of the hour.The boys almost did not get out in time.) I have also heard that some of the girls had found vantage points where they could sneak peeks at the boys; but did not hear hear this first-hand.

Xen

08-15-2002, 04:37 AM

Thanks for your replies.

Obviously the enforced nude swiming didn't put you off naturism (or else you wouldn't be on this website !) but interested to see that only one of you - nude at heart - seems to have gone straight from schoolboy nudity to being a naturist. Out door bare seems to have had a long gap and it's not clear about the first two. Was there a close link between your teenage nudity and your beomming nudists ?

I spoke to a friend in the UK at the weekend and he said that at his prep school (ages 8-13) swimming was always nude - and this included the teachers and any visitors - do you know if this insistence on total nudity was usual ?

nudeatheart

08-15-2002, 04:56 PM

To be honest with you I did not go straight from the schoolboy nudist to full-fledged nudist. It has not been but maybe the last ten or twelve years that I became interested in "social" nudity. As I have stated before, along with countless other single guys, it has been very difficult to find a club/resort that will give us the time of day. I am still looking.

mel

08-18-2002, 02:26 AM

I also attended junior high in the mid 60's and pool class for the boys was swimming nude. The first day in 7th grade was nervous since I didn't know very many of the guys, but you get used to it real fast and it just seemed normal. I was raised on a farm with 3 brothers and we and our friends always swam nude in the river on our farm. I have always liked being nude, but only started sociality the last couple years. Like so many others, my wife is not into it so it makes it harder.

Trailscout

08-18-2002, 08:16 AM

For those of us who went through a prudish phase, it would be helpful to understand what caused it and perhaps learn how to prevent it in the next generation.

I think that our society puts so much emphasis on looking good and being sexy that it raises doubts in the adolescent about whether he or she measures up. This seems to be especially true for girls.

Nudity on television is a double-edged sword. It may teach some to think of nudity as our normal state, but all too often, nudity is only seen in a sexual context.
Women particularly seem to be torn between displaying their bodies to attract men, while wishing to avoid the gaze of men who are looking them up and down like a prize-winning heifer.

As I entered my adolescent years, I began asserting my independence, seeking time alone to read, work on my hobbies, and daydream. I sometimes resented any intrusions on my private times. Wearing clothes when my parents were around was one more way I had of putting distance between me and the adults in the house.

I do not believe that prudishness is inevitable for the adolescent. Why should it take us to our twenties or thirties to regain the confidence to be content in just our skin? What can be done to avoid the broader problem of teen alienation from their parents?

Let me begin the discussion by offering the opinion that those parents who are nude nearly continually in their home and who take their kids regularly to nudist resorts are more likely to innoculate their children against adolescent prudishness.

Television and peer pressure are powerful enough to undo a parent's hard work to break body-shame. I think it's time for parents to take a firm hand with television use in their homes.

I have read reports that show that in families that spend the evenings at home together, the parents have greater influence over the formation of their children's values than the children's peers do.

08-18-2002, 02:07 PM

You're so right, Trailscout. Children raised in a nudist home will grow up without the hangups about nudity. Although, not being raised that way I can't speak from personal experience. They won't be embarrassed with their own nudity or fascinated by anyone else's. I believe that they will be less inclined to get into porn because they've already seen all there is to see, although they hopefully haven't seen the sexual part of nudity in nudist clubs and resorts.

All children should be raised in nudist homes. Of course, we know that this won't happen. Most people raise their children to be very prudish about their bodies and to be very curious about other people's bodies. My grandkids are being raised to be very modest around one another.

My dad was not a nudist; he was an exibitionist who enjoyed exposing himself in the home to anyone. My mother was very prudish. I was extremely shy about my body with everyone except two of my brothers. I grew up being very shy.

Getting into social nudity last year at age 55 has helped me to get over my shyness, but it wasn't easy working up the courage to do that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob S.

08-18-2002, 07:46 PM

Trailscout,

Teens go through many phases in their journey through adolescence. They are asserting their independence and individuality. Usually, that means disassociating themselves with their parents and trying to be more like their peers. It's a tricky balancing act, but with understanding parents and good friends, it is one that can easily be oversome.

Realizing that, if a teen's friends are all textile and prefer to distance themselves or even joke about the nudist lifestyle, then the teen will do so also. If anyone caught the MTV show, "RealLife" (I think) where they interviewed the son of the owners of Desert Shadows Nudist Resort in California, you will see that Alex (the son) remained clothed at all times they shpwed him. He much preferred his friends outside of the park and I'm not even sure if he had any friends within the park.
He wanted to be exactly opposite of what his parents were. He even commented that he wanted to live some place where it was cold and rainy all the time just so he didn't have to see "another naked person."

So in order to prevent the "prudish phase", teens must have nudist peers and ample places to be naked with them. And understanding parents who will give them space to grow.

The only thing that growing up in a nudist household does for the children is teaches them to respect their body and others' bodies and allows them to view the naked body as something natural and not just as a sexual object. To raise good, moral children requires parents who spend quality time with their children and who have a firm yet fair disciplinary technique.

And children who respect and really care about what their parents think and say will place them at a higher eschelon than their friends, but it still doesn't mean they will follow in their parent's footsteps.

Bob S.

Trailscout

08-18-2002, 09:30 PM

Bob,
I went to a high school where some of the kids dropped acid, cut class, smoked pot, shop lifted, had casual sex, and got drunk.

My brother and I did not do any of that. Why didn't we roam the streets with the wild ones instead of the well-behaved? All the kids, both wild and behaved, were our neighbors and classmates.

In retrospect, I walked in my parents' path, but not in their footsteps. My hobbies are different, I am much more outgoing than my parents, and I have worshipped in different congregations from my parents since I was 16, although I stop to visit theirs once in a while. I took the nudist path further than they did, but perhaps the nudity-tolerant upbringing they gave me contributed toward that.

Bob S.

08-19-2002, 09:25 PM

Why does one child choose a life of drugs and crime while another chooses to go on the straight and narrow?

Sometimes, it is simply their personality type. Do they tend to follow others or are they leaders? Sometimes there is even groupthink, or an idea that seems better the more people that are involved.

Usually though, it is the parents who can guide their children through everything. Parents who are available to their children, have taught them a good moral sense, and have fair, consistent discipline with their children.

Also luck and circumstance play a part. Luck in that your kids will never have to make that decision. Circumstance in how close to the druggies, or whatever bad people you want to use, are to your home. Also in circumstance is income, where you live, and who you know.

Bob S.

Gary Naturist

08-20-2002, 06:17 AM

At summer camp in the Boy Scouts, everyone went swimming in the lake nude. I would usually get an erection when nude in anyone's presence for more than a couple of minutes. Same thing in the communal showers in high school. Others didn't seem to have the same problem. While I liked the feeling of being nude, I was very fearful of being found out.

My erection problem continued through my twenties and definitely limited my involvement in nudism. The problem gradually disappeared, and as it did, I increased my involvement in nudism.

Gary

Nate Dekan

08-20-2002, 07:28 PM

Dear Gary Naturist,

Unfortionatly, I'm not at all surprised that your discomfort with erections has limited your involvement in nudism. I think the attitude most clubs have on this issue limits the involvement of many people and therefore limits the growth of nudism. Have you read the "Body Acceptance?" article here on INA's site? http://www.clothesfree.com/bodyacceptance.html
Errections should only be a problem if the persons BEHAVIOUR is a problem. If a persons behaviour is a problem it needs to be delt with whether there is an erection or NOT.

Nate

Xen

08-22-2002, 03:13 AM

I went to a nude swim in London (UK) last night for men only and got chatting to a couple of Americans who had come for the first time.

I asked what had brought them along - and if they were naturists. It seemed that they weren't it was just that they were quite used to swimming naked - as they always had done at the YMCA - in a single sex environment and thought nothing if it.

Unfortunately in the UK we have no (recent) tradition of nude swimming such as you are lucky enough to have in the US.

desertdude

08-23-2002, 02:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nate Dekan:
Dear Gary Naturist,

Unfortionatly, I'm not at all surprised that your discomfort with erections has limited your involvement in nudism. I think the attitude most clubs have on this issue limits the involvement of many people and therefore limits the growth of nudism. Have you read the "Body Acceptance?" article here on INA's site? http://www.clothesfree.com/bodyacceptance.html
Errections should only be a problem if the persons BEHAVIOUR is a problem. If a persons behaviour is a problem it needs to be delt with whether there is an erection or NOT.

Nate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read the above mentioned article on body accepted on the INA site and I was puzzled by it. It doesn't come right out and say that erections should be hidden, in fact it implies they should not be, yet it is and has been the policy of the INA to delete pictures on the website that show erections when forum members have pointed them out to the staff. I can remember a specific case where a picture showed the erection of a little boy that was with his sister and family. It was promptly deleted. It would be helpful if the naturist philosophy was consistent with the policies of the INA website, otherwise it is hypocritical. Just my opinion. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

David77

08-23-2002, 07:34 PM

I,likewise, swam nude at the YMCA for a period of over 20 years when I was young. I also took a course in (water) lifesaving, in the nude, which made it necessary to practice rescueing each other nude, and "wrestling" in the water nude, to try to break the "deathgrip" of a person who might grab the rescuer around the neck to keep from drowning.

Then I became a lifegard at the YMCA, nude.

On the roof of this tall YMCA building, they provided a very nice sundeck to sunbath nude (or semi-nude if they so choose).

Swimming nude now at resorts seems so usual and ordinary. I still love the water and swimming. I still swim laps about four times a week at a new Y, but it is a "Family Y" and no more nude swimming as both genders always swim together.

mel

08-24-2002, 02:54 AM

Isn't it funny how times have changed. When I was young all the boys swam nude together and showered together. Now when I go to the heath center, alot of the men and boys will wear their underware to and from the private showers. Heaven help them if someone was to see them nude! Some of these men are the same ones who swam nude in school when they were young. I'm glad I didn't change.

David77

08-24-2002, 06:57 AM

Mel,
At the Family Y that I go to now, the men have no priate showers but very nice group type showers. No one wears their underwear to and from the shower, but occasionally, but not often, someone may wear a towel around their waist. They more often may carry their towel over their left wrist and casually let it hang down in front of them to and from the locker room and shower. So much for "body acceptance"!

Nate Dekan

08-24-2002, 07:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by desertdude:

I read the above mentioned article on body accepted on the INA site and I was puzzled by it.
http://www.clothesfree.com/bodyacceptance.html

It doesn't come right out and say that erections should be hidden, in fact it implies they should not be, yet it is and has been the policy of the INA to delete pictures on the website that show erections when forum members have pointed them out to the staff. I can remember a specific case where a picture showed the erection of a little boy that was with his sister and family. It was promptly deleted. It would be helpful if the naturist philosophy was consistent with the policies of the INA website, otherwise it is hypocritical. Just my opinion. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my expereince, it really doesn't seem hypocritical to me, it seems smart. If public nudity doesn't get many people upset enuogh, public erections will, including many nudists. Oftentimes it is best to talk about things before getting visibly in peoples face about them. When it comes to kids especially, with many people thinking any picture of children without clothes is porn (I wont even go into how dangerious I think that kind of programing is) taking the picture you mentioned off is very smart.

When it comes to issues that upset a lot of people I think the article at the following link is right on the money.
http://www.experiencegrace.com/Stumbling_Block.html

INA is talking about AND showing nudity in a positive way, with the above article they are also presenting a positive perspective on erections (thats more than any other naturist organization I know of is doing) with the way many people feel about both subjects that's probably about as far as they should stretch the envelope at this time. When a far larger percentage of people become more openly accepting of nudity, perhaps they could push the envelope a bit further regarding erections.

Nate

Trailscout

08-24-2002, 09:34 AM

Nate,
Thanks to you and the other admins for deleting photos that could be interpreted as erotica. We should go out of our way not to give cause for criticism. Nudists have plenty of enemies in the textile world; let's not give them any ammunition.

I believe that some of the men who are so eager for erection acceptance in nudist camps are doing so not because they are afraid of being punished for "perking up" during a nap by the pool, but because they feel constrained by platonic naturism and their agenda is to reinvent the nudist camp as a hotbed of public sex with everything that moves.

As long as textile society persists in it's warped view of the body, sexual predators, peodophiles, exhibitionists, flashers, S&M types, voyeurs, gays and swingers will seek sanctuary in nudist camps and nude beaches. We will have to remain vigilent to make them feel unwelcome in our midst and to kick them out the minute they get out of line, coordinating our efforts with local law enforcement as needed.

SirronD

08-24-2002, 11:07 AM

I am gay. It is not some perversion or afectation, or afliction. It simply is.

I absolutely resent that being gay is publically placed in the same category as "sexual predators, peodophiles....."

Trailscout, I have very much respected your ideas and beliefs (as you have shared them within these fourms), even if I have not shared those same beliefs. But that was because you always spoke with respect and consideration.

But I have lost that respect today to see such a bigotry. And to see that not only do you hold a belief that I (as a gay man) am a sexual predator (simply because I am gay), but that you also actively and vigilently (by your own words) work to make me unwelcome.

Well, your work is done.

Gary Naturist

08-24-2002, 11:54 AM

Trailscout, I too am appalled at your categorizing gays with sexual predators, pedophiles, etc. At best, your comment is ignorant, at worst it's bigoted.

I also take issue with your comments about those who have discussed erections in these forums. You are inputing motives with no basis at sll for doing so.

Gary

Nate Dekan

08-24-2002, 12:02 PM

Trailscout,

I know personally several younger men, and know of many, many others that have absolutely no interest in turning nudist clubs or beaches into hotbeds of public sex. They would like to go to such clubs and beaches but don't due to concern of getting an erection, and fear of how people they don't know may react to that. Many are comfortable nude (with or without erections) with like-minded friends or family with nothing sexual going on at all. Concern of unwanted erections is far more prevalent among younger males than older ones and interestingly most of the males I see at nudist clubs are quite a bit older! (Most clubs I've seen would make great retirement communities!)

I also feel it is bad policy, immoral, and un-Christian to pre-judge people or make people feel unwelcome UNLESS and until they get out of line, then, if people do get out of line and say are doing something sexual in public (having an erection is not DOING something sexual, playing with it is) then we must step in to maintain the high standards of the beach or club.

Nate

Bartamus

08-24-2002, 01:08 PM

DesertDude: I'm sure you know the difference
between exhibitionism and naturism. Good!
We do too. That basically explains our
philosophy in deleting photos that seem only
to serve one purpose..that being to show off
the physical attributes of the sender
That's our policy.

David77

08-24-2002, 03:18 PM

SirronD,
I am so sorry that, in essence, your personal worthy and inherent dignity was so viciously attacked for being your fundamental self.

David77

08-24-2002, 09:51 PM

SirronD,
I am very sorry about the vicious attack which, in effect, denied your personal worth and inherent dignity - because of your being your fundamental, natural self.

Bob S.

08-24-2002, 10:59 PM

Trailscout,

I, too, take issue with your statement,
"As long as textile society persists in it's warped view of the body, sexual predators,
peodophiles, exhibitionists, flashers, S&M types, voyeurs, gays and swingers will seek
sanctuary in nudist camps and nude beaches."

Now, understanding Sirron's rightful objections, I want to touch on another aspect of it. I don't believe any of these groups necessarily seeks sanctuary at nudist venues. Far from it, especially at nudist clubs. Exhibitionists and flashers use the element of shock and surprise with their nudity. At these places, nudity is common and expected. No one would be shocked to see a naked body at a NUDIST park or beach.

A voyeur simply enjoys looking at naked people, usually getting a sexual thrill from it. The aforementioned groups would more than likely have behavior that would be seen as inappropriate and illicit at such places and would show in their "excitement level".

They would probably be thrown out soon after gaining entrance.

S&M is a sexual activity that is usually practiced behind closed doors. There is nothing illegal about it as long as both partners are consensual and no one is severly injured. As long as this is kept private, there is no reason why it shouldn't happen.

Sexual predators and pedophiles are special cases as they will look like any one of us. It would be hard to banish them from anywhere just by their looks. These men (yes, there are women, but mostly it is men) know how to gain the trust of someone in order to get them in private with them (I am not going to talk about violent offenders). In dealing with them, one has to be on the alert for their own safety and/or the safety of their children. If something does not feel right, it probably isn't right. And children do not have their sense of danger set up completely, yet. They trust virtually anyone who is nice to them.

You cannot go anywhere and be absolutely sure there is not any pedophiles or sexual predators around. But at nudist parks, there is the sense of protection that one has where if one of them is found there, and he is in his predatory mode, there (should be) a group of policing members of the park to show him the door and tell him not to come back. The only problem with these guys, however, is that they can only be caught and in legal trouble after they have committed their crime.

And remember that the people whom you have described also have their own beliefs. Most of them, probably about the same as those in general society, wouldn't think about attending a nudist park or beach. After all, they were raised in the same society as you were, that you shouldn't just go around naked in front of other people.

Bob S.

Nate Dekan

08-25-2002, 01:32 AM

Great post Bob S., thanks.

Regarding the safety of kids, I have a book called "real solutions for abuse proofing your child" which is for the most part totally excellent. (the problem I have with it is that while on one page Dr. Ketterman says "be careful to avoid making your kids feel ashamed" on another she says if children are found playing nude they should be told that certain body parts should be covered and curiosity can get you into trouble. I'm thinking what does saying that do but make kids feel ashamed and drive that type of activity into secret where it can't be openly monitored to assure that it in fact doesn't lead to trouble! That contradiction aside most of the book is excellent.) In it Dr. Ketterman says: "But what happens when baby discovers his or her genitalia? I've seen parents slap a baby's hand for exploring this area of the body. This tells the child, 'this part of you is bad, Don't touch. Deny that you have sexual parts.' This increases the possibility that your toddler will grow to explore his penis (or her clitoris) secretly and perhaps excessively or will try to repress normal, healthy sexuality. Such children may be vulnerable to 'exploring parties' with more overt kids. ALMOST ALWAYS THEY WILL BE AFRAID TO ASK OR TALK ABOUT SEXUAL MATTERS WITH THEIR FORBBING PARENTS." (caps mine) She says that if parents are ashamed to discus sexual issues openly they need an attitude adjustment or they'll slam the door shut against further communication about sex. "Use any means you can, but do develop a wholesome comfort zone about sexual matters. It is important to develop a healthy attitude toward sex in order to teach your child about it and HELP PREVENT HIM OR HER FROM BECOMING A VICTEM OF ABUSE." (again caps mine) "If you act horrified, ashamed, and embarrassed, your child will not feel comfortable talking with you about these issues" Given most of the outstanding things she says in this book her attitude about kids playing nude seems very strange and contradictory, especially if it is in the open under a parents watchful eye.

Okay, so what's my point? Bob said "Sexual predators and pedophiles are special cases as they will look like any one of us. It would be hard to banish them from anywhere just by their looks." He is exactly right and unfortunately there have been cases of pedophiles at nudist clubs, but I believe that nudist kids have a HUGE advantage protecting them that kids from most homes don't have, that is openness, and acceptance of the body (hopefully including spontaneous erections), being taught that the body is good rather than shameful and bad, and hopefully positive open communication on sexual matters as well.

I recently saw a post on an alternative, natural parenting list where the parents son had been sexually abused by an older boy who lived next door in a very repressive home. Because they are open and positive about nudity and sexual matters in their family they found out immediately what had happened from their son and where able to comfort and help their son, plus put a quick, quiet stop to it without any further tramatization or legal/court/police involvement. I've heard of other similar cases where child abuse was either stopped quickly or prevented altogether because the child had been taught open communication and positive attitudes about the body and sex, while children who are abused from more repressive homes often suffer in silence for a lifetime.

No, we can't tell who are pedophiles just by looking, BUT we can raise kids in such a way that they won't be helpless, silent, shamed victims!

Nate

gamblefish

08-25-2002, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> As long as textile society persists in it's warped view of the body, sexual predators, peodophiles, exhibitionists, flashers, S&M types, voyeurs, gays and swingers will seek sanctuary in nudist camps and nude beaches. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may be incurring great wrath upon myself but I'm with Trailscout on this one. None of these listed behaviors are natural or healthy. All may not agree but that's the way of the world. If this stance offends some then so be it. We all get offended...get over it. If your self-worth comes from what people say about you then you're gonna be low on self-worth.

Gary Naturist

08-25-2002, 03:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nate Dekan:
...
I recently saw a post on an alternative, natural parenting list where the parents son had been sexually abused by an older boy who lived next door in a very repressive home. Because they are open and positive about nudity and sexual matters in their family they found out immediately what had happened from their son and where able to comfort and help their son, plus put a quick, quiet stop to it without any further tramatization or legal/court/police involvement. I've heard of other similar cases where child abuse was either stopped quickly or prevented altogether because the child had been taught open communication and positive attitudes about the body and sex, while children who are abused from more repressive homes often suffer in silence for a lifetime.

No, we can't tell who are pedophiles just by looking, BUT we can raise kids in such a way that they won't be helpless, silent, shamed victims!

Nate

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nate Dekan ][/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nate, this never occurred to me before, but the approach you describe can be a real, significant benefit of nudism in the home, or at least casual nudity. It seems to me that if kids are more comfortable with their bodies in total and more able to talk about anything to do with their bodies, it will be more possible to avoid or minimize the effects of any inappropriate action by an adult.

Gary

raven

08-25-2002, 06:45 PM

gamblefish, I hope you are not the type to consider male homosexuality as wrong and un-natural yet love to see two women sexually involved. There should be no double standards, even in one's own mind. And my belief is that being gay is not taught, learned, or chosen. It is simply the way a person is meant to be. And yes I am gay and a woman.

Nate Dekan

08-25-2002, 07:46 PM

Gamblefish,

The main problem I have, since nudists are supposed to (and should) be so friendly, considering how singles (and in fact anyone at many clubs) are automaticly treated with suspicion (and one wonders why nudist clubs aren't more populer!)is the way Trailscout said: "We will have to remain vigilent to make them feel unwelcome in our midst and to kick them out the minute they get out of line" The "make them feel unwelcome" came before the "minute they get out of line"! I feel everyone should be made to feel WELCOME unless AND untill they DO something that is out of line!

I will put a caveat on that:

I feel that nudist clubs should be a family friendly enviornmemt. Many of the types Trailscout mentioned simply would not feel comefortable in a TRUE family friendly enviornment. Unfortionatly many nudist clubs have very few familys, lots of couples (especially over 40 or 55) lingerie shows, and late night parties with drinking so a lot of families feel uncomfortable and exhibitionists, voyeurs, swingers, etc. feel right at home!

Who feels comfortable depends on the enviornment, is it family friendly or adult freindly, I think you'll find most nudist club tend toward the later with many adding party and couples only to adult. When this society equates nudity with sex and "adult" with sexual entertianment, does one really need to wonder why perverts are attracted to places like nudust clubs that are almost totally adult focused with lingerie shows, and late night parties?

Nate

Nate Dekan

08-25-2002, 08:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:

Nate, this never occurred to me before, but the approach you describe can be a real, significant benefit of nudism in the home, or at least casual nudity. It seems to me that if kids are more comfortable with their bodies in total and more able to talk about anything to do with their bodies, it will be more possible to avoid or minimize the effects of any inappropriate action by an adult.

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EXACTLY! This is a major benifit of naturism for children. Although I have found that being comfortble with nudity does not equate to being comfortable with sexuality in some nudists homes, and in this case, if children feel parents are uncomefortable with sexual topics even if they are comfortable with nudity, abuse can still esaily remain hidden and not talked about.

I do want to emphasise one thing, being comefortable with sexuality in NO WAY means open sex. It means being comfortable with sexual questions and legitimate, helpful, positive discussion of sexual topics. Children should not be exposed to adult sexual acts and nudity should never be sexualized around children, EVER! This is a big problem I have with things like lingerie at nudist clubs.

Nate

David77

08-25-2002, 09:26 PM

I agree with those resorts who have the policy, "Your behavior is your passport".

Years ago I was taught in college courses that the reason a minority of the population was gay was because of environmental factors; specifically, the child's relationship with his parents when growing up. In more recent years, scientific studies have shown that effectual gender prefence orientation is formed "en utero", - in a developmental stage in the womb. This scientific information modifies older ethical and social precepts for persons who are willing to accept the advancing scientific "age of enlightenment".

As an aside, biologists have found that there are a large number of sea gulls who are lesbians, so this NATURE endowed phenomenon is not limited to humans.

Hooked

08-26-2002, 10:13 AM

ok, I guess I'm on a roll today, I usually don't jump in on threads like this. 1st thing: Bob S. said that children's sense of danger is not completly formed yet. I beg to differ. It is my belief that children are much more attuned to danger. Have you ever been around someone that you never noticed as being threatening only to have your young son, daughter, nephew, niece, etc.. recoil from only to find out later that the person in question is a real creep or even worse. I have experienced this. The reason that children are victimized is because they can't really defend themselves and also sometimes they are afraid to defy an adult no matter who it is or what that adult plans on doing. Basically, give kids more credit than that, they are so much more in tune with things than we are sometimes, we could learn alot from them. Anyway, that wasn't a big deal, just something I thought I would comment on.

As far as Trailscout and Gamble, I find it hateful that you include gays and S&M in with sexual predators etc. I am neither gay nor do I participate in S&M activities but if that is someone's prerogative, than let them be, they aren't hurting anyone.(Unless of course they do these things in public and expose people to it against their will) I have known people who have suffered needlessly over being conflicted because they were gay no matter how hard they tried to deny it. They try to deny because they are shamed for no reason, in much the same way people are felt to feel shame about being naked around other people. It's rediculous. It is very UN-Christian to ostracize people especially when they are not hurting you or your loved ones. To put it in terms you may like better, Jesus and Heavenly Father love all His children, even the gay ones and you should too! I am not saying you have to agree with any particular theory about what causes homosexuality and you don't have to go march in the Pride Parade, just have common decency and respect, gays deserve it like anyone else unless they do something to warrant your disrespect. Someone you love is probably gay so keep that in mind.

And as far as S&M, who are you to say what is right or wrong in the bedroom? There was probably a time when the woman on top position was considered evil. The way people get their freak on is their business. How would you like it if someone came around and told you that the way you make love is wrong and you should be ashamed of it?? I'm sorry, but I find that way too judgemental for my tastes.

Peace---

Rik

08-26-2002, 11:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hooked:
...nor do I participate in S&M activities but if that is someone's prerogative, than let them be, they aren't hurting anyone... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Eh? I thought that was the whole point of S&M.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

gamblefish

08-26-2002, 04:12 PM

Original post by raven:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> gamblefish, I hope you are not the type to consider male homosexuality as wrong and un-natural yet love to see two women sexually involved. There should be no double standards, even in one's own mind. And my belief is that being gay is not taught, learned, or chosen. It is simply the way a person is meant to be. And yes I am gay and a woman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, raven...I don't have much of an interest in pornography anymore. There was a time when I did but even then I didn't much care for the girl on girl stuff. IMHO...I don't believe that anyone is born gay anymore than I believe anyone is born a murderer or a pedofile or what have you, although there may be tendencies toward such behavior.

Original post by David77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>As an aside, biologists have found that there are a large number of sea gulls who are lesbians, so this NATURE endowed phenomenon is not limited to humans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. That's a good one. Assuming that evolutionary theory is a fact how does this help guarantee the survival of the species?

Hooked: I don't hate anyone...I just don't agree with everyone's opinions.

Bob S.

08-26-2002, 09:07 PM

Hooked,

When I said that children's sense of danger is not complete, I was really trying to say something else like that, but couldn't find the right words.

A couple of weeks ago there was a story on the tube about how children respond to strangers. In two set-ups conducted with the permission of the parents, a man set out to see how many children he could get to follow him. In all of his attempts, which were many, only twice did the children do the right thing. And the older they were, the more likely they were to do the right thing.

This is how it is with children. Simply telling your child not to talk to strangers is not enough. You have to know what your child's idea of a stranger is. For many children, a nice man is not a stranger, especially if he is giving them candy or asking them to help find his dog.

This is what I meant about their sense of danger. They cannot perceive that a nice man would do something to harm them until they are older and can think through the situation. After all, they are naive to the evils of the real world.

Bob S.

gamblefish

08-27-2002, 03:16 AM

I agree BobS.
I saw a similar story on the news about a week ago. A community center held a class where instructors (police) worked with small children (ages 3-6 or so) to teach them what to do when confronted by a stranger. They were explicitly told not to listen to or follow strangers even if they were nice and friendly. They were told to shout and run and alert adults in the area. The next day they set up a situation to test the kids. They were all at a playground and a man came up and told the kids he had lost his puppy and would they like to help him find it. Every kid but one anxiously followed this man. Of course, all the parents were shocked.

Even though a child may be too young to understand the danger parents must constantly teach and warn children about strangers.

beavis

08-29-2002, 03:32 PM

Wait, wait, wait just a minute here...lesbian sea gulls? Did I read that right? OK, then, how can you tell? Who spends their time watching sea gulls have sex, and then can tell if it is or isn't hetero sex...and now for the good one, what in heavens name do lesbian do? I got a big LOL going on here, how about you all???

David77

08-29-2002, 06:08 PM

DNAT928,
I understand that the details you ask are in the book by Bruce Bagemihi, whose field is biology and genetics. The book is entitled, "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity". Time magazine has an article about the book in their issue of 4/26/99, entitled "The Gay Side of Nature".

Nate Dekan

08-31-2002, 06:54 AM

Bob and Gamblefish,

I'd sure like to know what show or shows this was on, where you saw the story about kids not responding to what seemed (to the kids) to be non-threatening strangers the way they should. Do you remember what show it was, there may be some info. Online. Thanks. It would be great to have a documented reference and more information on this.

This really reinforces my point, kids will respond openly to things they do not feel threatened by, EVEN if other adults tell them it's wrong, what they usually won't do is tell there parents something they feel will make them angry or mad. It would be interesting how many of these kids would have volunteered to their parents that they helped a man look for his puppy after they had been told not to do something like that.

THAT'S WHY it's critical to keep communication lines OPEN and positive with your kids about the body and sex. Most kids are curious about the body and sex, if parents act horrified, ashamed, upset, mad, and/or embarrassed about these things (including erections) their children will not feel comfortable talking with their parents about them and are far more likely to keep even things like sexual abuse secret.

Yes, kids are naive to the evils of the real world, but they are aware of how their parent's react to things, they'll much more enthusiastically and freely share things they think won't upset mom or dad, but those things they think mom or dad will get upset or mad about they will most likely keep quite about. Did you ever do something like play with matches as a kid after being sternly warned by parents and other adults not to? If like me, you did, when your mom asked what you'd been doing that day did you tell her that you'd been playing with matches? I bet NOT!!! That's a simple example of why it's so important for parents to try to keep communication lines open with their kids about the body and sex.

Nate

Trailscout

08-31-2002, 07:59 AM

Nate,

I have no doubt that most men who have momentary erections at nudist venues are innocent of ill-intent. I have been in that situation myself.

I was addressing the flurry of posts that seem to express outrage that a woman would be offended when a stranger parades glibly about with his "flag at full staff" or worse, when he walks right up to a woman with his penis stiff and expects her to act as if nothing is the matter. Most of us can tell the difference between sexual display and an incidental erection.

I have no problem with the nudist tradition of taking steps to calm down one's erection. I am sure that some clubs go too far in their policies against this natural function.
We can find some sort of balance here.

Trailscout

08-31-2002, 08:51 AM

Some on this forum feel that I was wrong to express opposition to homosexuality. There will always be sharp disagreement about this issue and there is no way to avoid offense. I would like to clarify my position.

I do believe in the intrisic worth of all souls, including those who describe themselves as gay. The "gay" life is a deep-seated and evil self-deception, but it is possible to be redeemed from it. Those who do escape from it are clean in God's eyes.

In our free society, we must put up with many groups and individuals with ideologies and lifestyles that offend us. In the public arena there is no way to avoid them entirely.

Within the sphere of a private nudist resort or a nudist club, members can set their own standards about admission. People who refuse to remove body piercing jewelry can be denied admission to a resort simply because most of the members or at least the ownership of the club finds it offensive. A club is likewise within its rights to deny admission to gays or lesbians with no explanation or apology. Others have pointed out that it is inherently difficult if not impossible to test the character of a prospective guest prior to admission. I agree.
I think we are all agreed that vigilence by club members and staff is our only way to maintain the family-friendly atmosphere.

My local clubs have wholesome atmospheres most of the time, even a strong Christian presence, but there are also troublemakers, who seem to get wild in their trailers at night and I have seen a few bawdy dances at late hours. I will be the first to admit that the homosexual lifestyle is only one of many things we want to protect our children from having to see.

I can honestly say that a family can easily avoid the evil and find wholesome activities in the resorts I know.

Some clubs are just too wild all the time. If your local nudist club resembles the Playboy mansion in it's decadence, then please don't go there. Be nude in nature or in the privacy of your home. Your children's upbringing is at stake.

Lastly, there may be some who don't like to hear that gay or homosexual or lesbianism is wrong, but if I am correct, and this behavior is perverted, evil, damages the human psyche, and incurrs the wrath of God, then we do them no favor by pretending that it is a "harmless alternate lifestyle" and we do well to shield our kids from it, keep it out of our nudist resorts as much as we can, and use this forum and any means available to warn those caught up in it and offer them a way of escape. God can help those who want to return to moral purity and normal heterosexual life.

nudistwheelchair

08-31-2002, 12:27 PM

Amen Trailscout, It even says it in the bible that men should not wear femine clothes and women should not wear men clothes. It is in Deuteronomy 22:5> "<A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a women's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the lard your God"<

08-31-2002, 09:03 PM

Trailscout, I'm with you on this one. God created one man and one woman. That's the way He meant for it to be--not two men or two women together.

Romans 1:25-27 says, "Who (mankind) changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For his cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompence of their error which was meet (or due them)."

When God changes His mind, and God NEVER changes, then I will change my mind and accept homosexuality as normal. Until then, it will remain unnatural, vile, wicked, and against what God intended.

Bob S.

08-31-2002, 10:45 PM

Nate,

"Dateline NBC" was the show where I saw the story about the kidnapping lures. See this website for the story: http://www.msnbc.com/news/785461.asp

"...what they usually won't do is tell there parents something they feel will make them angry or mad."

I also remember reading a story about a young preschool girl in a day care center who had the habit of rubbing herself during naptime. During this girl's bath one night, the mother saw some scratches around this girl's vaginal area and got upset not suspecting that her daughter was the one who did it. She interrogated her daughter while angry and the child, scared about what her mother would do to her if she told the truth, lied and said it was someone else.

Social services got involved and soon, the whole situation turned into a hysterical disaster; all because the child was too afraid of telling her angry mother the truth. This story I got from "Growing Up Without Shame".

Nate, I agree with everything you said in your last statement. I cannot add anything more right now.

Bob S.

Trojan

08-31-2002, 10:49 PM

I grew up as part of the YMCA "fraternity". A friend and I joined as prepubescent 11 year-olds to take swimming lessons. I heard from older boys that the rule was nude swimming, and my friend and I were nervous as we went for our first lesson. There were several boys in the class, and quite a bit of giggling as we congregated nude near the pool before class started. To us, a bunch of nude guys standing around was a funny sight. The group consisted boys ages 10-12. A few of them were into puberty, with larger genitals and some pubic hair, including one of the 10 year-olds! I found this to be highly interesting and was very curious about my developing classmates, but not at all self-conscious about my own lack of sexual development. I was just nervous about being nude in front of anybody, period! One does not go about naked in front of others! However, by the end of the period I was no longer nervous at all. I really liked the feeling of freedom and looked forward to the next class. I found out there were also scheduled free swimming times, and from then on enjoyed many years of nude swimming at the YMCA. Unfortunately, by my 30's, YMCA men's nude swimming was discontinued. I never worried about erections. Of course they occurred at times. Over the years I saw several, and experienced some myself. The YMCA seemed to treat them matter-of-factly, and so did the guy who had one. I never saw any embarrassment, or sudden moves to "cover up", or any intervention at all by the facility staff. Erections were treated appropriately, not as sexual come-ons: 1) they are normal and natural; 2) they often appear for reasons their owners cannot identify, resulting from environmental physical stimuli or from some spontaneous physiological process rather than from sexual thoughts; 3) every man has them, so there is no need to become embarrassed or ashamed to see one or to get one, and no need to "cover up" as if your erection were some highly disgusting and perverse display of rampant uncontrollable sexual aggression; 4) the unexpected erection will usually disappear, unexpectedly, reasonably soon. Therefore, the appropriate behavior for the owner and the observers of the erection is to notice it, and continue nude swimming, nude diving, nude resting at poolside in or out of the water, nude shower, nude shaving, nude drying, nude dressing, nude steam, nude sauna, nude jacuzzi, nude lounging, nude walking to the restroom area, nude etc., etc,, etc. In other words, NO BIG DEAL! Erection paranoia did not exist!

I started going to nude beaches in my 30's. The first time I got an erection at a nude beach I did feel a little self-conscious as I felt it happening, because I knew it was potentially visible to any women nearby. (Until I went to nude beaches, my group nudity experiences were all-male, and I was certainly aware of the sexual implications of mixed-sex nudity.) However, before I ever went to the beach I considered my possible responses to getting an erection there. I decided that in no way would I cover it up. If I was willing to be vulnerable enough to expose my nude body to the view of others, covering an erection seemed hypocritical. I am a man, men get erections. Case closed. My decision was that I would remain uncovered, and be discrete. I was comfortable with my body and its processes, so let nature take its course. Flaunting an erection would be inappropriate, and I felt no need or desire to do that. I had decided that I if I were walking on the beach, or otherwise away from my towel, I would either walk back to my towel and sit down or just sit down where I was and pull my knees up, with my feet flat on the sand. When the erection actually occurred, I was on my towel, lying on my back. It happened pretty quickly, and by the time I realized that yes, it really was happening, my penis was sticking straight up in the air. As I said, I did feel self-conscious, mostly because to me it looked so obvious and I figured it had probably already been noticed by others. I didn't sit up as I had thought I would, but turned on my right side since the people on my right were further away than the people on my left. My erection had not subsided at all, but now was not nearly as obvious as before. I felt much more comfortable and was able to relax again. After about 15 minutes my erection began to slowly subside. When it had decreased enough that I felt it was OK to get up, I stood up and walked down to the water to cool off. All in all, I was briefly nervous getting an erection in public that could be seen by whatever women might notice it, but my erections feel great and the experience was mostly pleasant. I knew my erection would soon subside on its own, so when I turned on my side I just lay there and enjoyed the sensation of it. The sky was clear and blue; the sun was beating down fiercely. Enveloped in the warmth that hung suspended in the air and that arose from the sand, I was intensely aware of the flow of heat that washed over my entire body, including my genitals. I felt calm and unashamed, more relaxed than aroused, even though so far my erection showed no sign of abating. Infused with male energy, and highly aware of my masculinity, I thought, "Well, if I was seen by some women, it's OK. I was not flaunting myself. I am comfortable with myself and not ashamed of my body." Many times since then, I have had erections on the beach and I have dealt with them the same way: I don't flaunt it, and I don't cover it up. I recently joined a very nice nudist resort (Glen Eden). The list of rules I was given states "Absolutely NO OVERT SEXUAL ACTIVITY is allowed." Nowhere do the rules address erections per se. Single males (me, for example) are admitted, following an interview, if they are joining for appropriate reasons. I did not ask about erections, but assume that brief ones are tolerated as long as there is no blatant display. So far, I haven't gotten one or seen one there, but my plan, if I do get one, is to not cover it up, but to be discrete and not flaunt it.

Bob S.

08-31-2002, 10:59 PM

Trailscout, nudistwheelchair (I wish you had a shorter name,) and Jon-Marc,

I respect your opinions concerning homosexuality but I find it very iffy (for lack of a better word at nearly 2 am) that you would use the Bible as your reasoning. This is the same Bible that others have used to condemn public nudity as sinful. The very verses that they use to deem nudism simful we have turned to show how it does not apply to our lifestyle. And now here you are quoting verses that you feel condemn homosexuality. Couldn't Christian homosexuals find a different meaning in these same verses?

And Trailscout, what part of the homosexual life do you want to keep your children from? If it the sexual part of it, don't you want to keep your children away from all public displays of sex? Is it the kissing of two men or two women? Some societies have no qualms about two men holding hands or kissing on the cheeks. And a quick lip kiss is nothing to be concerned about. Anything more than that would be considered rude even if it were a man and a woman.

It is simple, behavior is what everyone should rely on to judge other people. Not who they love, color of their skin, height, gender, etc. Behavior and behavior alone.

Bob S.

Trojan

09-01-2002, 12:31 AM

A REPLY TO TRAILSCOUT'S COMMENTS OF 8/24:

Trailscout: On 8/24 you were right to say that some men who seek erection acceptance in "nudist camps" are really seeking "a hotbed of public sex". You were also right to point out that textile society creates social problems through its "warped view of the body".

Unfortunately, what you said after that was so extreme, so inflammatory, so discriminatory, and so misinformed that you seriously eroded what started out as strong points, undermined your credibility, and presented yourself as a prize jackass.

"Nudist camps" is an antiquated term with sleazy connotations. I'm wondering what kind of nudist clubs you attend! I've never been to a "nudist camp" but I have been to some very nice nudist clubs, parks, and resorts.

I truly wonder if you've ever been to a nice nudist club. Do you mean to say that you could walk nude around the club and identify every low-key exhibitionist and/or voyeur? How do you define those terms? I believe that everyone there, myself included, is to some degree exhibitionistic and/or voyeuristic, in that they enjoy seeing others nude and being seen nude by others.
In an interview awhile back in a well-respected nudist journal, a long-time nudist woman (considered to behave appropriately) said that she loves to go to nudist parks partly because she loves to see others nude, and being seen nude by them. What are you going to do, Trailscout, deputize a corps of thought police?

And what about gays? To put gays in the same category as sexual predators and pedophiles is, quite frankly, just plain ignorant, and brilliantly illuminates your floridly sexist attitude. Furthermore, how can you identify them? Stand a nude gay guy next to a nude Trailscout: hmmm, let's see, who is who? They both have pubes, they both have a **** , they both have balls -- uh oh! Wait a minute! That's it! The gay guy has balls, you don't! Once again, Trailscout, it seems that you will be forced to rely on
the thought police to root out these dangerous perverts!

At this point, Trailscout, you blatantly exhibit yourself as the epitome of a raving fanatic, and your campaign will actively dissuade potential supporters!

By the way, how long have you lived in Atlanta? You sound like you just crawled out of the Georgia backwoods. LOL!!!

Trojan

09-01-2002, 12:44 AM

NOTE TO TRAILSCOUT (8/24) AND GAMBLEFISH (8/25):

You couldn't be more wrong about gays. Being gay is like having curly hair: it is naturally that way and no matter what you do to it, it will never be straight.

Being gay is not a sin or a crime. Gays were created by God, just like you were. So please, get off your self-righteous soap box. Clean up your own back yard, and stop looking for trash in somebody else's.

Trailscout

09-01-2002, 08:53 AM

Bob,

Let's take up the issue of sodomites in another topic, perhaps in the religion section.

My main goal in this thread is to say that nudist camps could and should and do build a community of like-minded people.

Your point is well-taken about behavior. If a resort does not have a male/female couples-only policy, (and most of us don't want to deny a nice straight single guy a chance to visit), then the behavior of the guests in the park is the only way to separate the sheep from the goats.

So a park manager may have to find some creative ways to discourage the swingers and other undesireables from attending in the first place. If someone slips in anyway, a vigilent community will be there to spot someone who needs to be taken aside and asked to leave. It's not a pleasant task, but in the long run you have a place that will attract more families and singles of good moral character.

Trojan

09-01-2002, 11:56 AM

Trailscout: You said (9/1) "most of us don't want to deny a nice straight single guy a chance to visit". Why are you so freaked out over gays? At a nudist park the probability is miniscule that a gay would do any of the following: come to the park with an agenda to "score", engage in open sexual behavior, engage in any sexual behavior at all anywhere in the park, attempt a subtle seduction of anyone, attempt to "convert" anyone to homosexuality, contaminate the area like a plague or virus that will spread to others, engage in any sexual or non-sexual offensive behavior. A question: Since you think it's ok for "a nice straight single guy" to visit the park, how will you tell the difference between "a nice straight single guy" and a nice gay single guy? I challenge you to go to a nudist park on a busy day, get all the men together, and correctly identify the gays that might be there. I agree that some gays and some non-gays could engage in inappropriate or offensive behavior and should be asked to leave. But a person's sexual orientation does not dictate or predict the appropriatness of the person's behavior. It is not valid to use sexual orientation to determine a person's eligibility for admission to a nudist park, unless the board has decided not to admit gays and "gays not admitted" is clearly stated in the rules. In such a case it is very unlikely that a gay would seek admission anyway. But many people find it uncomfortable to be honest enough to openly state or propose such a rule. So their unwritten rule ends up being "we don't want 'those kind' in here". This is a dilemma because there is no lab test to identify "those kind", and to identify them by sight, by observation of their behavior at the nudist park, or by radar is completely unreliable. I don't mean to frighten you more than you already are, but you need to know that there are gays all around you and you don't know who they are. But don't worry - you will not be attacked, molested, seduced, or infected with a spiritual or moral virus.

Nate Dekan

09-01-2002, 11:58 AM

Some Thanks

To Bob S.,
for the "Dateline NBC" link to the story about the kidnapping lures. http://www.msnbc.com/news/785461.asp It's excellent, I haven't explored them all yet, but it looks like there are several other excellent links on this important subject from the Dateline site as well. Thanks very much for posting the link to this important story.

To Trojan,
(an edited thanks after seeing another post of Trojan's) Unfortunately many nudists can't seem to separate spontaneous erections from sex any more than many textiles can separate nudity from sex. This was a good post about erections, sadly after seeing another of your posts I feel that we are not comming from the same perspective on this issue, (nudity and sponatious erections should be about acceptance and respect not excitment) still this was a good post in my opinion.

You said "I never worried about erections. Of course they occurred at times. Over the years I saw several, and experienced some myself." I want to emphasize the "at times" and "over the years", many people seem to feel that if there is a relaxed accepting atmosphere regarding erections in nudist situations that they will be popping up all the time, this is simply not true. The penis is flaccid most (but not all) of the time in a non-sexual environment (even for teens!) the main thing that would change if all nudists would lose their hang-ups about spontaneous erections that are NOT flaunted and NOT covered but simply treated as normal and no big deal, is more solid acceptance of the body by all and a more welcoming, comfortable, relaxed atmosphere for younger males who tend to have more frequent erections.

Much nudist promotional material that talks about erections says something along the line of "social nudity is non-sexual so erections just don't happen" I think this is one of those things most people say "ya right!" to and simply don't believe. I think if people were told "if an erection happens just continue what you where doing as normal, no need to cover or hide it because it is normal, but don?t flaunt it either, just simply continue as normal", then males will relax more about this fear in this new environment and situation and personally experience the truth that they wouldn't have believed beforehand. Namely, that while it may sometimes happen, erections don't in fact happen very much in a non-sexual nudist environment!

To Trailscout,
For taking the initiative to stop the discussion regarding the morality of homosexuality here. I know you and others (on both sides of the issue) have strong views on this subject, (myself included, I was tempted a bit to get into it myself) BUT this (or the religion section of this forum) is not the place for that discussion. It's the place to discuss naturism. Regarding naturism as David77 said Your behavior should be your passport, I may find someone else's personal sexual morality reprehensible (if I know what it is) BUT if their behavior at a nudist venue is not out of line, I have no valid place or reason to get them removed. I feel that to try and do so (again IF there has been no problem behavior) is very hateful, self-righteous, and if the person trying to get someone booted out in such a situation promotes themselves to be Christian, it is a very bad witness for Christianity. I know that Jesus didn't approve of the sins of his followers (including his apostles), but he won them over and transformed their lives with love, he didn't drive them away with self-righteous indignation AND he is the only person who ever lived who was without sin and therefore could correctly have claimed to be "self-righteous"!

The key is, as you said, to find creative ways to discourage undesirables from attending in the first place. I think that is in the atmosphere which is largely created by the activities and rules as to what is allowed. Simple, straight nudity is far less sexual and more modest than much clothing, so if sexually provocative clothing (such as lingerie and more) is allowed and there are parties with lot's of drinking going on at nudist club, there are things like "best boobs and buns" contests, etc., and if there are not an abundance of wholesome family oriented activities available don't be surprised that there are undesirable types around! (Just not having parties without drinking, etc. is not enough, people need and want things to do, if they're not available people will often create things to do and often not the type of things you want!)

Nate

gamblefish

09-02-2002, 01:57 PM

Original Quote by Trojan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>NOTE TO TRAILSCOUT (8/24) AND GAMBLEFISH (8/25):
You couldn't be more wrong about gays. Being gay is like having curly hair: it is naturally that way and no matter what you do to it, it will never be straight.

Being gay is not a sin or a crime. Gays were created by God, just like you were. So please, get off your self-righteous soap box. Clean up your own back yard, and stop looking for trash in somebody else's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trojan, I do not believe that people are born gay. I do not believe that people are born murderers or con artists either. I believe that people may be born with tendencies toward these types of behavior. I also believe that upbringing has much to do with the way we behave in later life. That does not mean it is right to practice such behaviors.

I am not blasting any particular individual. All I am saying is that homosexual behavior is neither right nor natural.

This is no different that someone making the statement that nudism is neither right nor natural. I do not agree with this statement but I am confident enough in my reasoning that I do not feel threatened or offended by this statement. If you do not agree with my stance on homosexuality then that's your choice. We will agree to disagree.

One question though...If homosexuals are created that way by God then why would He forbid homosexual behavior? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Nate Dekan

09-02-2002, 03:22 PM

Reminder

To all no matter what side of the issue you are on!!! The subject of these message boards is naturism. Discussion of sexual lifestyle, preference, attraction, or whatever is off topic here, please take it somewhere else.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Nate

gamblefish

09-02-2002, 04:16 PM

Nate, please don't be angry. I am sorry. I didn't realize these forums were so "restrictive" (for lack of a better word).

In my defense...these forums are kind of like a long-distance, time-delayed conversation between all of us. In my experience conversations start out on one subject and then take many twists and turns as new ideas are presented and debated. They seldom stay on any one subject for the duration.

I will do my best in the future to stick to the subject at hand...but I will remain flexible in my effort. If someone presents a new idea off-subject I may still answer with my two and a half cents. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nate Dekan

09-02-2002, 05:37 PM

Gamblfish

First, my reminder post was strictly personal, I did not consult with INA leadership before posting it, since my posts are automaticly tagged "Administrator" perhaps that is a bit unfair.

However, speaking personally again, I have two problems with such discussions of sexuality here.

First Christ came to save the would not condemn it, I felt several posts (on both sides) were rather mean spirited rather than Christ spirited. To paraphraise from a book I've been reading (A Way of Escape, Freedom from Sexual Strongholds) condemning people who are doing things we disaprove of is counterproductive. They don't need condemnation, condemnation and overbearing authoritarianism is what useually drove those people to those behaviours in the first place. What everyone needs is a new life in Christ, when people fall in love with Jesus and give their life to Him, HE is fully able to complete the good work HE begins in them. We are not called to dispel the darkness, WE are called to turn on the LIGHT and point people to a loving God who is more than able to meet all their needs!

(Ya, I know this is the wrong board for that kind of message too, but it helps make my point on why I feel this discussion that's been going on is wrong.)

Second, as I said in another post "The problem is that despite how most people have been programed (nudity=sex) we (nudists) know that nudity does not equal sex. People are just simply swimming at the swimming pool at the nudist club, they are not all over each other having sex! Nudity and sex are seperate and distinct, people can be nude together in mixed company and do tens of thousands (actually far more) of things that are completly non-sexual, and aren't even in the least sexually exciting. Yet, I think due to this societies programming most non-nudists wont get that nudity and sex are different and seperate issues unless a clear (and perhaps even exaggerated) distinction between them is maintianed by naturists."

I realize it's difficult, since we are sexual beings nude or clothed, so perhaps we should be able to talk about such things here. (and people do seem to talk about it on every other imaginable type of message board) But in my view a non-nudist seeing post after post talking about sex (condemningly OR positively) on a naturist message board does not present that their is a clear distinction distinction between nudity and sex, it reinforces the idea that they are really the same. Or am I just full of it?

Nate

Bartamus

09-02-2002, 06:56 PM

All contributors: Nate is right. INA is
sponsoring this forum to discuss naturism.
It is NOT a forum for debate on sexual
preferences. There are a myriad of places
for that type of debate. This is not one of
them!

Trailscout

09-02-2002, 07:43 PM

I got a bit side-tracked on this thread, but there is an important naturist point to consider:
The owners of naturist parks, the senior members of that park, and the leadership of nudist travel clubs can and should set the agenda for what type of park or club they have.

I know of one club that has a wide open door, so theoretically anybody could go there, but they have so many children's activities, that young families are the overwhelming majority of their patronage at least during the day on Saturdays.
Some of them are old hippies, some of them are good old redneck country boys. Not everybody feels at home in that climate.

Another club down the road is more luxurious, costs more, and tends to attract a more upscale professional type. There are kids here too, but the patronage has more singles than the other resort.

I am at ease in either resort. In some ways I am a Georgia redneck, in others a man of the world.

Nobody is forcing anybody in or out of these places. People just naturally go where they feel at home.

Nudist society seems more egalitarian than the world at large, but one club still seems to have a different clientele than another.

GAR

09-05-2002, 06:04 PM

Why not accept people at face value? It is a great way to make friends.Try it you will like it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Trailscout

09-08-2002, 06:24 AM

I think you miss my point. I think we all agree that all people are due a certain courtesy and kindness. If that is what you mean by "acceptance", you will get no argument from me. If you mean that I must approve of and emulate everything you say and do, or everything anyone says and does, that would be a bit much to ask.

My last post, however, had nothing to do with acceptance. It was about "birds of a feather" flocking together.

I have been to some nudist resorts that tend to have more children than others. I have been to one that tends to have more retirees. That is not an issue of acceptance, it merely reflects the fact that some resorts have done such a good job appealing to a certain segment of the nudist community that their patronage reflects their efforts. Nothing exclusive is demonstrated by such efforts.

My favorite nudist club appeals to me most of the time, but on Saturday evenings, a crowd of mostly senior citizens gather in the lodge, smoke lots of cigarettes and listen to music that is not my taste. I was warmly welcomed at these functions, but I recognize that a resort cannot be expected at all times to be attractive to all nudists.

If we agree on that premise, then logically we would stop demanding that a resort try to be all things to all people.

I am a nudist who likes to play lots of volleyball and I have found resorts where many people share my enthusiasm for the game. I don't waste effort trying to get a game going in a resort where everyone seems content to bask in the sun and do nothing else.

Many AANR clubs are hostile to singles. AANR is applying pressure on them to open up, but has met with mixed results. I wonder how INA has fared in their efforts to open the door for singles. Perhaps we are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Maybe these clubs will never let singles in. It could be that singles will have to pool their resources and form a new singles-friendly resort. Where I live, there is the additional option of nude beaches, but not everyone can easily get to one.

09-08-2002, 10:57 PM

Hi....continuing with trailscouts train of thought....Do any of the naturist resorts have like special days set aside for different naturist interest groups?.....In other words....Sunday -families....Mon -Young adults....Tues-Seniors.... Wed -Husbands without partners ...Thursday -Ladies day...etc. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob S.

09-09-2002, 07:48 PM

I agree with what Trailscout is talking about. You can accept people while not accepting their opinions or actions. And no one should be expected to agree with everyone else. We have the inalienable right to form our own opinions.

The same goes with nudist parks. They are businesses with an owner with certain opinions/prejudices. He can make any rules that he wants. It is up to the visitors to either accept them and continue to frequent his establishment or reject them and stay away. There may be times when you thoroughly enjoy an activity that a nudist park has while other activities that you are not interested in. Same goes with the people who have made the park theirs, you can accept them or not.

As per outdoorbare's post, I'm not sure how many parks/resorts actually have certain days set aside for specific membership demographics. However at White Tail Park, every Saturday during the summer they have activities for children. There was also a singles group on that same day so there were some things planned for different types of people.

Bob S.

Trojan

09-19-2002, 12:57 AM

TO GAMBLEFISH:

Sorry it took me so long to respond to a question you posed.

On 9/2 you asked, "If homosexuals are created that way by God, then why would He forbid homosexual behavior?"

When I said homosexuals are created by God just as heterosexuals are, I meant that ALL human beings are created by God. God values each of His children equally. Humans sometimes forget this, and err in treating certain classes of their own species as subhuman beings as diminished in value, and unworthy of dignity and respect. People often misinterpret THEIR OWN value of another person as being GOD'S value of that person.

As a homosexual man or lesbian woman matures from childhood to adolesence and adulthood, he/she BECOMES AWARE of his/her sexual orientation. He/she DOES NOT CREATE his/her sexual orientation. He/she JUST IS gay or lesbian. When homosexuality was considered to be a psychiatric abnormality, various treatment regimens were developed and implemented, and individuals were at times forced into treatment. However, whether applied as voluntary or as mandatory, ALL OF THE TREATMENT OPTIONS FAILED IN THE LONG RUN.

A simple comparison of the differences between male and female sexual anatomy reveals by common sense that men and women were physically designed to have sexual intercourse with each other, not with a member of the opposite sex.

What, then, is the etiology of homosexuality? The homosexual individual does not invent it. Theories spawn research. Research generates more theories but produces no definitive conclusions regarding the origin of sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is a permanent state, beyond the control of the individual. It therefore lies in God's domain.

If God created and intended us to have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex only, then explain the existence of the homosexual state.

Is it an anamoly, a quirk of nature, a mutation that appears in a statiscally predictable sample of a population? No matter the trait measured, some of the population will lie outside the "norm". After awhile it becomes evident that for any trait you care to examine, "normal" lies on a continuum and is not a discrete measurement.

The question of sexual orientation being under the control of the individual is moot. The issue is the behavior of the person. The homosexual or lesbian has choices: 1. Remain celibate (no sexual activity of any kind); 2. Masturbate;
3. Engage in promiscuous same-sex sexual activity; 4. Develop a long-term monogamous same-sex relationship; 5. Develop a long-term monogamous opposite-sex relationship or marriage in which a male homosexual with a female partner would produce erections by injection or oral medication and a lesbian with a male partner would participate as a passive and disinterested sexual partner. (Problem: What heterosexual man or woman would want to be married to a gay or lesbian partner?)

Since it is obvious that God created sex drive as well as two sexes, that He intends men and women to have sex with each other and to experience sexual pleasure and joy with each other, and since sex drive exists with all sexual orientations, what is God's will for the homosexual or lesbian?

This post is directed to Gamblefish, but all are free to comment.