Sex and nudity

[Eric6420]

While most people understand that a nudist resort is not a sexual playground, I think that the anti-sex attitude of many nudists is not helping the promotion of nudism.

Let me give you an example, a lot of the freedom that Europe enjoy come from rock music. Now in many places in Europe, you have gay marriage and plenty of nudist beaches.

It is not a surprise that religious fundamentalists are against rock music, they are just against freedom, and when people are free they do not let others to control their lives.

To be against sexual display whataver in magazines or movies is also to be against freedom. And thoses who are opposed to sexual display are also against nudity because for them, it is the same thing.

If you look at Cap d'Agde, the biggest naturist center of the world, it is also a place that is very open about sex. There are a lot of very sexual people and things in Cap d'Agde. You have a liberal and freedom attitude.

Some of the nudists campings in Quebec do not accept male singles or male gay couples, and they have rules that you can't even put oil on the back of your partner.

A lot a naturists are asking themselves why there is so few young people in naturism.

Here is my explanation. Young people are very open about sex, more than 80% of them have watched porn videos on the internet or on dvds, they had their first sexual experience at 15 years old, and at age 20, they often had more than 10 sexual parters.

So the young people are not afraid of sex. They enjoy it much and they are very open about it.

So when the young people go on a naturist site and they hear the mantra "this is not about sex, this is not about sex..." they just think that theses people are weardos. If they go to see the rules and they see things like "two naked body cannot touch on the campground", they just think that there is no fun to have there.

[simonsebs]

Honestly, I think it would do more harm than good.

Right now we're trying to gain mainstream acceptance and fight against all the stigmas and stereotypes. The main one being that all it is is sex and that nudist campgrounds and beaches are just huge orgies.

I think nudists are more open about sex than you think. We just understand, that like anything else, there's a certain time and place for it.

[TheNorm]

Sex and nudity both suffer from the same ailment...they've been sensationalized by the media. Personally, I believe that both are healthy and natural, but I have some very strong cultural biases againt sexual behavior in public. (Not saying it's wrong, merely stating the results of my up-bringing.)

The line gets very fuzzy when couples are "busted" for outdoor sex. Typically, the couples are NOT nudists, they just happen to get caught naked. However, law-enforcement's reaction will inevitably throw in "nudity" as one of the offenses. For this reason alone, I think it's a good idea to keep the line between nudity and sex clearly drawn...at least for now.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
So when the young people go on a naturist site and they hear the mantra "this is not about sex, this is not about sex..." they just think that theses people are weardos. If they go to see the rules and they see things like "two naked body cannot touch on the campground", they just think that there is no fun to have there.
My opinion is that it should be no more restrictive than what you would find at a major resort hotel where people are wearing really skimpy swimwear. I am talking strictly about the major hotel chains that have resort hotels with large pools and that are often located next to the ocean.

To make it more restrictive will just make young adults want to avoid the hassle and head to the nude beach.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
While most people understand that a nudist resort is not a sexual playground, I think that the anti-sex attitude of many nudists is not helping the promotion of nudism.
{snip}
So when the young people go on a naturist site and they hear the mantra "this is not about sex, this is not about sex..." they just think that theses people are weardos. If they go to see the rules and they see things like "two naked body cannot touch on the campground", they just think that there is no fun to have there.

I agree with you entirely Eric.

There is a psychological need for people who have taken a big step outside the "standard" cultural norms to wrap the whole rest of the culture around themselves even closer than they otherwise would. Having taken the big step to be naked, they are "exposed" psychologically as well as physically. Many of the older nudists grab and hold tight to the anti-sex cultural norms because of their psychological nudity. Besides the anti-sex Puritanism we also see continual assertions that nudists are "just like everyone else" in jobs, houses, families, etc. They wrap the towel of conformity around themselves tighter to cover the "naked" psyche.

Younger people have a different culture. They don’t have the same cultural norms about sex, or gays, or music, or a lot of things. They don’t understand the psychological needs of old fogies to be so asexual in public. Young people just think its weird, and they are right. It is a weird psychological reaction to being out beyond the cultural norms of my generation, being naked.

I read recently that the average age for young Americans to start doing sex is 14 years and some months. That means that HALF of young people are doing sex before that age. Before age 20 virtually all have watched sex on film/CD/Internet or in person or both. In my opinion human bodies are beautiful and two human bodies giving and receiving physical pleasure is very beautiful. But it violates the cultural norms of an older generation who keep those norm towels wrapped tightly around themselves.

We are seeing something of the beginning of a trend for a few nudist resorts to become open to sexuality on their grounds. The conservative nudists immediately call them “Not Nudists!” They become shunned, condemned, criticized, and kicked out of more conservative older “nudist“ organizations like AANR. But the rebel resorts seem to be getting far more than their share of younger nudists who don’t have the same sexual hang-ups as their parents.

My ex-wife found that one AANR club she belonged to had a “secret” sub-club which was openly both naked and sexual. The officers of the club didn’t know of the sub-club operating within their umbrella. The official policy is still that which you cite, no bodies touching in naked space.

It is always said by the older nudists that they are trying to be a “family” organization. But as you point out, Eric, it is often the younger generation, the teenagers, who are wanting to be more sexual and open about their bodies than the old fogey adults.

The usual Puritan nudists will undoubtedly disagree with you and me, Eric, but don’t let them get to you.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
We are seeing something of the beginning of a trend for a few nudist resorts to become open to sexuality on their grounds. The conservative nudists immediately call them “Not Nudists!” They become shunned, condemned, criticized, and kicked out of more conservative older “nudist“ organizations like AANR. But the rebel resorts seem to be getting far more than their share of younger nudists who don’t have the same sexual hang-ups as their parents.

Some of the most progressive resorts/clubs have been let back into the fold by AANR because of the large number of members. Doesn't make any sense to take too hard of a stance if it cuts out so much in funds that it causes major problems meeting operating expenses.

AANR can still work to moderate what is allowed, but they won't be able to do anything if they don't collect enough membership dues to remain operating.

[Rabid_Clam]

Not to bring religion into this but it is written there is a time and place for everything and that being so, and I do beleive that is very true, those who respect the correct time and correct place for sex and the other places for simple nudity all will be hunky dory.

That is not part of the 'supposed to' rule made up by a person or a small gathering but is by nations of people over several millenium.

One should be nude to have sex, but one does not have to have sex to be nude. And if the two are not mixed in appropriately we will all be so much better off in the nudist world.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobx23456:
We are seeing something of the beginning of a trend for a few nudist resorts to become open to sexuality on their grounds. The conservative nudists immediately call them “Not Nudists!” They become shunned, condemned, criticized, and kicked out of more conservative older “nudist“ organizations like AANR. But the rebel resorts seem to be getting far more than their share of younger nudists who don’t have the same sexual hang-ups as their parents.

Some of the most progressive resorts/clubs have been let back into the fold by AANR because of the large number of members. Doesn't make any sense to take too hard of a stance if it cuts out so much in funds that it causes major problems meeting operating expenses.

AANR can still work to moderate what is allowed, but they won't be able to do anything if they don't collect enough membership dues to remain operating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, the USA is still quite conservative, and on the other hand if you are a young progressive, you do not necessarly like to pay for the rigt to swimm and sun in the nude, a thing that you should have the right to do in your own backyard, particularly if your backyard is in a discret place.

I think that innovation will be important if naturists centers want to have a future. For example, in a nudist resort I visit in the Quebec City area, you can pay the time you go there by the hour. That's interesting, because if you live in the area and all you want is a little sun and swimm, then you can pass a few hours and it will cost you less than if you pay the price for the day.

In gay campings, many are clothing optional, others have a naturist section, some are doing some activities like naked dances or naked runnung races...

Eventually, the campgrounds will have to be innovative in order to survive. They won't be able to live only for AANR nudists unless they really want to be old clubs, some will have to be innovative.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
Not to bring religion into this but it is written there is a time and place for everything and that being so, and I do beleive that is very true, those who respect the correct time and correct place for sex and the other places for simple nudity all will be hunky dory.

That is not part of the 'supposed to' rule made up by a person or a small gathering but is by nations of people over several millenium.

One should be nude to have sex, but one does not have to have sex to be nude. And if the two are not mixed in appropriately we will all be so much better off in the nudist world.


Basically, the people who have a religious monotheism (Jew, Christian, Islamic)view on sex, have the tendency to be both against public sex and public nudity.

And when you talks about "several millenium", only the jewish faith is older than 2 millenium, and that represent far less than 1% of the global population.

Christianity was very slow to spread in Europe. A thousand year ago, more than half of Europe was still pagan... and even when Europe was mostly christian, it did not become prude until the 19th century even though it became homophobic and religious fanatic well before that time.

Basically thoses 3 religions are quite against both sex and nudity, and you can see them at work in Irak, Iran and Palestine where people murder each other quite a bit.

I think that more openess with sex and nudity is what we need among other things. The body shame, the homophobia, the hypocrisy, the manipulation and the irrationality that bring thoses three religions is nothing to be proud of.

I think also that freedom is very important. If you want to recognise a country or a nation that is not free, just look at the attitudes towards sex, gays and nudists.

A country that is not free will be against sex, against gays and against public nudity. In a country that tends to be free, you will have gay marriage, nude beaches and people will generally be open about sex. There is a very strong connection between sex, nudity, homosexuality and freedom.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
Basically, the people who have a religious monotheism (Jew, Christian, Islamic)view on sex, have the tendency to be both against public sex and public nudity.

Tight "moral" control is inherrent in monotheism. It's not coincidental that the big monotheist religions share opposition to bodily pleasures.

And when you talks about "several millenium", only the jewish faith is older than 2 millenium, and that represent far less than 1% of the global population.

Well, only the Jewish faith is older than 2 millenia if you leave out Buddhaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and numerous other lesser faiths totalling about 2/3 of the human race.

It might also be noted that some Orthadox Jews don't believe that you should be naked even during sex, suggsting a hole in a sheet. The anti-nudity rules aren't easy to break in some monotheistic faiths.

A country that is not free will be against sex, against gays and against public nudity. In a country that tends to be free, you will have gay marriage, nude beaches and people will generally be open about sex. There is a very strong connection between sex, nudity, homosexuality and freedom.


I'm not convinced that homosexuality belongs in the same topic as religious or moral opposition to nudity. The mating of male and female is natural biological beauty, the creation of life. Quite a different thing entirely.

Blessings
Bob

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
Basically, the people who have a religious monotheism (Jew, Christian, Islamic)view on sex, have the tendency to be both against public sex and public nudity.

Tight "moral" control is inherrent in monotheism. It's not coincidental that the big monotheist religions share opposition to bodily pleasures.

And when you talks about "several millenium", only the jewish faith is older than 2 millenium, and that represent far less than 1% of the global population.

Well, only the Jewish faith is older than 2 millenia if you leave out Buddhaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and numerous other lesser faiths totalling about 2/3 of the human race.

What I mean is that the other traditions are mosltly not prude, contrary to the three monotheisms.


It might also be noted that some Orthadox Jews don't believe that you should be naked even during sex, suggsting a hole in a sheet. The anti-nudity rules aren't easy to break in some monotheistic faiths.

A country that is not free will be against sex, against gays and against public nudity. In a country that tends to be free, you will have gay marriage, nude beaches and people will generally be open about sex. There is a very strong connection between sex, nudity, homosexuality and freedom.


I'm not convinced that homosexuality belongs in the same topic as religious or moral opposition to nudity. The mating of male and female is natural biological beauty, the creation of life. Quite a different thing entirely.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it is, because homosexuality exists naturally in both humans and many animals.

Basically, you do not choose to be gay, you are just born that way, the same thing for heterosexuality.

But the thing is a bit complicated, because some men say they are bisexual, some heterosexual men can sleep with other men for differents reasons, some gay men have slept with women, and son on.

But basically, a gay man can only sexualy love another man (or men) like a heterosexual man can only sexualily love a woman (or women).

That's why that all totalitarian regimes were very anti-gay. It is easy to bring to fanatism a portion of the people when they cannot be themselves, because then, life means very little to them.

Not to mention, about "the creation of life" that we are now six billions persons on this planet, more than one billion is in total misery, and the ecology system is about to callapse.

Maybe we would not be in that nightmare if religions did not push for procreation at all cost and forcing heterosexuality and invisibility to homosexuals.

[David77]

Eric,
I wonder how far you would foster sex at a nudist resort. Copulation on the club house floor or pool table? Very few persons, mainly extreme exhibitionists want to perform that way, but as is now the case, nudists happily go to their resort room or tent and have sex. Naturally, there is a lot of sex at nudist resorts in their tent or resort room. There is probably more sex at resorts than back home at their home residence, as they are more worry free from daily chores and having a good time throughout the day.

I see nothing wrong with light kissing, hold hands, touching each others body but not heavy "petting' or kissing creating a great scene. If this causes a momentary erection, so what - Isaac Newton said "What goes up must come down). I believe that homosexual couples should have these same privleges as hetrosexual couples. I think that homosexual couples would want to wait to get to their room or tent for private deep love making, just as the hetrosexual couples would, creating no public problem, and thereby being able to concentrate on their love making without distraction from the public.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by David77:
Eric,
I wonder how far you would foster sex at a nudist resort. Copulation on the club house floor or pool table? Very few persons, mainly extreme exhibitionists want to perform that way, but as is now the case, nudists happily go to their resort room or tent and have sex. Naturally, there is a lot of sex at nudist resorts in their tent or resort room. There is probably more sex at resorts than back home at their home residence, as they are more worry free from daily chores and having a good time throughout the day.

I see nothing wrong with light kissing, hold hands, touching each others body but not heavy "petting' or kissing creating a great scene. If this causes a momentary erection, so what - Isaac Newton said "What goes up must come down). I believe that homosexual couples should have these same privleges as hetrosexual couples. I think that homosexual couples would want to wait to get to their room or tent for private deep love making, just as the hetrosexual couples would, creating no public problem, and thereby being able to concentrate on their love making without distraction from the public.

Essentially, I agree with you David. I am a liberal, but I do respect the laws and customs of society.

What I say is more philosophical than to apply directly in a club.

What I say is that sex and nudity have their place in society, (just think of the Moulin Rouge) but of course, we do not need to masturbate on the main boulvard in Paris.

What you say makes perfect sense.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by David77:
I see nothing wrong with light kissing, hold hands, touching each others body but not heavy "petting' or kissing creating a great scene.
This is my basic thought. If it would be OK if you were at a Hilton resort pool, there is no reason for it to not be OK at a nudist resort.

[Eric6420]

But "heavy kissing" is far more acceptable in european and latin cultures than in the USA.

But of course, what is acceptable for one person may not be acceptable for another. And the appreciation of what is heavy is also very relative.

In Cap d'Agde, you probably can to give a nude massage on the beach to your partner and nobody would rise an eyebrow, but you could not do the same thing in public in the USA unless you are in a sex club.

[usmc1]

Hey, wait a minute. Maybe Eric is on to something here. Maybe, just maybe if weren't for the "anti-sex attitude" of nudists, they would have procreated more and there would be a nudist majority. THINK ABOUT IT! (Oh damn I've always wanted to do that) THINK ABOUT IT!

And also major league baseball and hockey games. Sure they're not sexual playgrounds but if people would go ahead and have sex at the games, (adds a whole new meaning to 7th inning stretch) attendance would go up. And there'd be more young people coming (yep) to the games.

Eric's on to something here, church attendance is down and young people aren't coming (yep-can't help it) on Sundays. Just have a little sex in the nave between hymns and sermon.

THINK ABOUT IT!

[Rabid_Clam]

These are all great points and I for sure accept and abide by these 'supposed to' rules of society. As in any rule case, things can be bent but there is also a time and place for that also. One such is kissing the bride by the new groom at a wedding. That is one acceptable 'bend' of the rules, and there may be some others out there but they are not abundant and for a good reason.

But then we hit a rock when we come to same sex ralationships. In my opinion such male is totally their own business but here we have society that somewhat frowns on a man kissing another man. Maybe that should be kept to their own private space to accomodate the masses.

In Viet Nam men holding hands is totally acceptable, is not sexual by any means but in this society it is viewed in a different tense.

Other than that all seems to be in good order here.

[Naturist Mark]

I've often thought a more open attitude about sex would liven up those long rounds of golf ...

[David77]

In Viet Nam men holding hands is totally acceptable, is not sexual by any means but in this society it is viewed in a different tense.
Soviet soldiers, when not on duty, would hold hands as they walked down city streets.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
In Cap d'Agde, you probably can to give a nude massage on the beach to your partner and nobody would rise an eyebrow, but you could not do the same thing in public in the USA unless you are in a sex club.

Cap d'Agde has an international reputation for offensive public gay sex in the dunes. Before I ever went to Cap d'Agde I was warned of the offensive public gay sex even while relaxing in the western USA. I don't think that Cap d'Agde is a very good example for other places to copy.

Blessings
Bob

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
In Cap d'Agde, you probably can to give a nude massage on the beach to your partner and nobody would rise an eyebrow, but you could not do the same thing in public in the USA unless you are in a sex club.

Cap d'Agde has an international reputation for offensive public gay sex in the dunes. Before I ever went to Cap d'Agde I was warned of the offensive public gay sex even while relaxing in the western USA. I don't think that Cap d'Agde is a very good example for other places to copy.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sex do not offend anyone there! It is rather you who is being offensive here!

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
In Cap d'Agde, you probably can to give a nude massage on the beach to your partner and nobody would rise an eyebrow, but you could not do the same thing in public in the USA unless you are in a sex club.

Cap d'Agde has an international reputation for offensive public gay sex in the dunes. Before I ever went to Cap d'Agde I was warned of the offensive public gay sex even while relaxing in the western USA. I don't think that Cap d'Agde is a very good example for other places to copy.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sex do not offend anyone there! It is rather you who is being offensive here! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, wrong. Gay public sex at Cap d'Agde offends many nudists who visit there for vacations. Many are so offended by the gay public sex that they still describing how offended they were months later after returning home. I heard several such stories in the Western USA before I ever visited Cap d'Agde. Its not a good example that other nudist areas should copy, and in fact should be eradicated from their dunes area.

Blessings
Bob

[Eric6420]

What allows us, as human beings, to psychologically survive life on earth, with all of its pain, drama, and challenges, is a sense of purpose and meaning.

But that sense of purpose and meaning have to be based on reality. I do not think that the morality of the catholic church is really helping.

We are living on a planet where most people live in poverty, where the ecology is in deep trouble, and the catholic church has nothing better to do than to speak against the pleasures of the flesh. What a meaning...

One of the only thing that could really help humanity right now is a strong dose of rationality to solve the problems.

[Eric6420]

Uh, wrong. Gay public sex at Cap d'Agde offends many nudists who visit there for vacations. Many are so offended by the gay public sex that they still describing how offended they were months later after returning home. I heard several such stories in the Western USA before I ever visited Cap d'Agde. Its not a good example that other nudist areas should copy, and in fact should be eradicated from their dunes area.

Americans who are going at Cap d'agde and are offended by the gay sex there are really STUPID!

If you do not want to see gay sex, do not go at Cap d'Agde!


For your information, a lot of Europeans like to have sex outside. Cap d'Agde is not the only place in Europe where such activity is taking place, but it is the most well known for it.

There are hundreds of places where sex is taking place outdoors both hetero and gay in Europe. That is a fact of life that very few complains about.

[Bob S.]

Eric:"That sex do not offend anyone there! It is rather you who is being offensive here!"

Eric, calm down. Public sex can offend others no matter the genders of the participants. Cap D'Agde is a tourist town so tourists are important to its survival. Bobx has mentioned that he and other tourists have been offended by the sex so yes, it does offend some people over there.

As for the legality of the public sex, that is another aspect. If it is allowed, then it is allowed despite the offense it causes other people.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Eric:"While most people understand that a nudist resort is not a sexual playground, I think that the anti-sex attitude of many nudists is not helping the promotion of nudism."

When the rules get out of proportion, then I agree with you. I am against rules that say no contact or kissing but I agree with the parks wanting to take a strong stance against public sexual encounters.

Eric:"Young people are very open about sex, more than 80% of them have watched porn videos on the internet or on dvds, they had their first sexual experience at 15 years old, and at age 20, they often had more than 10 sexual parters."

That means nothing as they probably watched the porn alone or with a few of their close friends behind closed doors and had sex in a private room. The no contact rules will not only put the younger people off, but most of the middle and older aged people as well.

Nudism is not about sex. It is about having fun and doing normal things without clothes. Sex comes in private times when no one else is watching. Even the younger generation knows that.

Bob S.

[Croydon]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
In Cap d'Agde, you probably can to give a nude massage on the beach to your partner and nobody would rise an eyebrow, but you could not do the same thing in public in the USA unless you are in a sex club.

Cap d'Agde has an international reputation for offensive public gay sex in the dunes. Before I ever went to Cap d'Agde I was warned of the offensive public gay sex even while relaxing in the western USA. I don't think that Cap d'Agde is a very good example for other places to copy.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Like EVERYTHING you say, your above comment is baseless. It seems like you form your opinions on what you have heard or read but never actually doing your own investigation.

To bring some knowledge Cap D'Adge is NOT a gay beach, gay resort or gay hang out.

Cap D'Adge is frequented by heterosexuals and it is well known for the sex. It is a hang out for many STRAIGHT couples and STRAIGHT single men. The public sex on beach is the norm and accepted.

I have read plenty about Cap, esp. in N magazine and the conclusion has always been the same...a beach and haven for the swingers and exhibitionist. I have yet to hear anyone mention gays at Cap. In addition, I am friends with a couple I met at Cypress Cove who have been to Cap and they reported the same thing I have heard from many. Gays and gay sex isn't one of them.

I am sure there are gays at Cap and may even have sex on the beach but don't sit there and blame everything on gays. Sex and exhibitionism is the norm at Cap and it is something EVERYONE, mostly heterosexuals, participate in.

[Croydon]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Uh, wrong. Gay public sex at Cap d'Agde offends many nudists who visit there for vacations. Many are so offended by the gay public sex that they still describing how offended they were months later after returning home. I heard several such stories in the Western USA before I ever visited Cap d'Agde. Its not a good example that other nudist areas should copy, and in fact should be eradicated from their dunes area.

Americans who are going at Cap d'agde and are offended by the gay sex there are really STUPID!

If you do not want to see gay sex, do not go at Cap d'Agde!


For your information, a lot of Europeans like to have sex outside. Cap d'Agde is not the only place in Europe where such activity is taking place, but it is the most well known for it.

There are hundreds of places where sex is taking place outdoors both hetero and gay in Europe. That is a fact of life that very few complains about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Calling Americans who are offended by public sex stupid is quite extreme and uncalled for. I am American and gay and I am offended by public sex on beach, gay or straight.

I am a believer in there being a time and place for everything. On a nude beach is not the time nor place. Respect of other people and their space is important.

[Agde]

This discussion thread demonstrates a very simple fact. Nudity basically has very little to do with sexuality. There are all sorts of sexual behaviour that may or may not be considered normal and acceptable, depending on context and proximity, by different individuals, age groups, religious groups, social groups or communities. It's not that nudists are any more or less sexual. It's just that nudity as a state-of-being and sexuality as human behavior can only be sensibly discussed and regulated separately.

It seems obvious that is quite possible for very sexual people to love certain clothes and for nudists to be totally shocked by certain sexual behaviour. In a public context, it is simply unhelpful to double the complexity and confusion by talking about nudity and sexuality in the same breath. In any case, merely being nudist doesn't really make us more knowledgeable about or more qualified to judge sexual behaviour.

So let's continue to focus on promoting naturist values such as interpersonal and gender respect, and leave sexual mores and conventions to be debated as a separate matter of concern within our various communities.

[RichNH]

Wow, As we used to yell in school...

FIGHT! FIGHT!

All this and in less than 12 hours, I think we may have set a record.

I would like to make one correction that was made earlier. Someone commented that the average age of teens first having sex was 15 and therefore half of all teens having sex are below 15. Not so...

Person # / Age of 1st sex
1 / 16
2 / 16
3 / 16
4 / 16
5 / 16
6 / 10
========
6 / 90

90/6 = 15 years average age first sex.
Clearly the majority are over 15 in having first sex. Now I'm not saying that its impossible for half the population to have first sex under 15, but its not mathematically certain that that is what's happening, not for just the average age. You'd have to look at other factors which I know exist but which have long since fled my brain.

ANYWAY.... Now that I've gotten that out of my geek system, ON WITH THE INSULTS AND CONDEMNATIONS!

Rich

[Eric6420]

Calling Americans who are offended by public sex stupid is quite extreme and uncalled for. I am American and gay and I am offended by public sex on beach, gay or straight.

I am a believer in there being a time and place for everything. On a nude beach is not the time nor place. Respect of other people and their space is important.



I was talking about CAP D'AGDE! CAP D'AGDE is a place where sex on the beach is the norm, mostly heterosexual by the way. That Cap d'Agde is basically a sex club should be known by all naturists. That is why it is stupid to go there and to complain about the sex.

[Croydon]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Calling Americans who are offended by public sex stupid is quite extreme and uncalled for. I am American and gay and I am offended by public sex on beach, gay or straight.

I am a believer in there being a time and place for everything. On a nude beach is not the time nor place. Respect of other people and their space is important.



I was talking about CAP D'AGDE! CAP D'AGDE is a place where sex on the beach is the norm, mostly heterosexual by the way. That Cap d'Agde is basically a sex club should be known by all naturists. That is why it is stupid to go there and to complain about the sex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks Eric for clarification. I misunderstood your comment.

You are right, for one to go to Cap and be offended by the open sex is to be naive. Cap is known for that and no one should be surprised or shocked by what they see.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
Americans who are going at Cap d'agde and are offended by the gay sex there are really STUPID!



Well, it's plain to see what your agenda is, Eric.

Americans who vacation in Europe and have gone to Cap d'Agde are not "STUPID." But we do get offended by the gay public sex that is so pervasive there and other places. We get offended by the public gay sex that drives families and children out of our parks at home too. I don't share your agenda, Eric.

Blessings
Bob

[eaglepeakpete]

I first went to The Cap d'Agde when it was just a farmers field, it growth has been enormous, with 100's of apartmnets and a massive campsite.
I believe it now caters for more than 60000 people at once.
Its a mistake to think that nudists abandon all their sexuality when they arrive at a naturist complex, sex is normal, it goes on at the golf club and even among church members.its just that with nudists its more noticable.
At the cap mostly in the evenings, open sex on the beach is normal not just gay sex but all sorts.
The lack of inhibitions among nudists, the romance of a sun drenched holiday and the sexual vibes often make people do things they might not normally do, like have sex openly on the beach.
However it has become such a problem there are now wardens touring the beach to control it.
There are nude night clubs,Discos,restaurants, supermarkets and everything you would find in a 60000 plus holiday resort.
Cap d Adge is know all over the world as a liberal place and people that tend to there know what they might see so generally they are not offended.

At my own complex which is not a swingers place but a normal naturist complex, its not unusual to see an erection, no body minds as long as its not threatening anyone. Our rule is if you get an erection be careful not to get it sunburnt, dont feel guilty or ashamed over it as it a normal function.

[Eric6420]

Thank You Eaglepeakpete to bring us fresh air from Spain.

[Eric6420]

By the way, Cap d'Agde is not the only place where there is public outdoors sex.

Ibiza and Canaries Island are two others places among many others.

So, Americans, before going to Europe, you should know the rules and the customs and DO NOT EXPECT AMERICAN DEMONISATION OF SEX AND BIGOTERY THERE!

[nudebushwalker]

And when you talks about "several millenium", only the jewish faith is older than 2 millenium, and that represent far less than 1% of the global population.

Christianity was very slow to spread in Europe. A thousand year ago, more than half of Europe was still pagan... and even when Europe was mostly christian, it did not become prude until the 19th century even though it became homophobic and religious fanatic well before that time.

Basically thoses 3 religions are quite against both sex and nudity, and you can see them at work in Irak, Iran and Palestine where people murder each other quite a bit.

If the above rubbish is anything to go by, I don't see how anyone can believe half of what Eric is pushing here...

Fact: Jews make up just over 2% of the world population;
Fact: Christianity covers nearly 25% of the population, with around 80% of these being in some part of the Catholic church;
Fact: The Hindu religion is over 7,000 years old, and with nearly 1 billion followers has just over 15%;
Fact: there are over 1 billion Muslims as well, so they probably have over 16% of the World's peoples [- fortunately the more extreme sects and groups are only around 30% of the total, or near 5% of the world -> still a long way to go with their plans to breed up to take over the universe, especially with their history of killing each other off..];
Fact: Buddhists make up near 2% of the population, and their religion is probably growing faster than the Jews, so they will catch up to them eventually;
Fact: Pagan and "animistic"/native (indigenous..) religions have around 2 billion followers, or just over 30% - the biggest single sector when religions are grouped together... And many of these beliefs would be nearly as old as civilisation itself..

If Eric' can't be bothered either checking his facts, or his grammar and spelling, how can anyone take any of this crap that passes as his opinions seriously?

[Eric6420]

You simply do not understood what I mean, nudebushwalker. When I said that only the Jewish faith is older than two millenium, i was talking about monotheism.

About my grammar, well, English is not my fisrt language.

About the facts, anyone can do research, and nothing proves that your numbers are better than mine.

My opinions are sincere, and if you do not like them, it is your problem, not mine.

[walter05]

Eric;

Your statement, "Basically thoses 3 religions are quite against both sex and nudity, and you can see them at work in Irak, Iran and Palestine where people murder each other quite a bit" is incorrect.

The first commandment in the Bible is to be fruitful and multiply. This has always meant to have sex. Judaism has always believed that we are commanded to have sex.

However, I will tell you that the commandment is for sex between a married man and a married woman. The possibility of creating children is one of the expected outcomes. Other sexual experiences are not commanded.

I will also admit that the in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the Bible is very much against homosexual sex. It is referred to with very harsh language. If you want a discussion on Orthodox Jewish views of homosexual sex, I am not opposed but I think that is a different topic from the one you started.

The issues in Palestine as you put are different. You could not even say "Israel". Are you unable to admit that there is a sovereign state called Israel? I wonder why.

Despite Orthodox opposition, there was even a gay rights parade in Jerusalem this year. This is because the Israeli Supreme Court said that the City of Jerusalem had to allow it and protect it. This is because the State of Israel is a free country run according to law, but not religious law.

Bob;

No normative Orthodox Jewish group believes that a married couple should have sex with sheets with holes. In fact, most Orthodox Jews believe that being naked is required to fulfill the commandment.

Eric;

It is clear though that you have two agendas at work here. One is the infusion of more sexuality into the "Nudist" experience and one is the gay rights issue.

Perhaps there should be two threads here. One thread could be used to discuss sexuality at nudist venues. One thread could be used to discuss gay rights. Intertwining them prevents either from being fully discussed.

[Eric6420]

The issues in Palestine as you put are different. You could not even say "Israel". Are you unable to admit that there is a sovereign state called Israel? I wonder why.

Palestine and Israel are two differents contries. I never said that I did not recognised Israel as a nation.

[Eric6420]

However, I will tell you that the commandment is for sex between a married man and a married woman. The possibility of creating children is one of the expected outcomes. Other sexual experiences are not commanded.


We are now over six billions persons, and the ecology is in big trouble because of it. So maybe this is the time to change the rules and becomming more rational.

[EricNY]

Let's stick with facts and have civil discussion here.

I have deleted and edited posts on this thread that were totally uncalled for.

If you can not control what you write, it will be controlled for you by banning you from the site...

....Is that clear enough?

[labrat93562]

I'm all for sex. love it very much but... I don't have sex in front of children and when I take the family to a nude resort I don't want them watching others have sex. Do I hide sex from them? No We are raising our 3 grandkids and have had very frank and open discussions with themabout the sublect. We also teach them according to our religious beliefs wich is our right and responsibility. As they mature they will have to reach thier own conclusions and they will have our love regardless. My point is To open up nudist areas to open sexual behavior would only reinforce that all nudists are some sort of sexual deviants in the minds of the people who are trying to limit our beach and public parks use. Though we'll probably never change thier closed minds, there are many who may be sitting on the fence or indifferent who can be swayed to one side or the other depending on our actions. There are many familys out there who do not want thier children exposed to sex. Every parent has the right to raise thier child with thier set of moral values and it's not for us to judge no matter how we disagree with thier points of view. I will say with the exception of if thier practices at home do harm to the children or others.
To some up my long post; sex is good. Sex in public not good for those with children or helpful in convincing people (especially public officals) that simple nudity is harmless.
Anyone who calls someone bigoted and other fowl names and then bashes thier nationality isn't worth my time to argue with. The rest of you have a great nude day.

[walter05]

Eric;

I am glad you don't have an issue with the existence of the State of Israel.

According to Orthodox Judaism, that commandment is from the creator and king of the world. Orthodox Judaism believes that creator will have to be the one to change the commandment if necessary.

You may or may not choose to be Jewish much less Orthodox Jewish. However, I am stating what the Orthodox Jewish faith believes.

I will point out that there are many underdeveloped places in the world and religious groups that are procreating in large numbers. Most of the groups increasing the most oppose freedom and show no regard for the health of our planet.

Jews, Christians, and other free thinking individuals in western countries are not procreating in large numbers. In fact, in most western countries, these groups are not procreating sufficiently to replace members of the groups who die. These western groups are the ones that support freedom for all and show concern for the environment. A very strong argument can be made that if these groups to procreate enough to have a strong enough percentage of the growing human population, the world will be in more peril rather than less.

[Eric6420]

To Walter,

I would simply say, that I think that the irrationality that religion promotes is part of the problem, not of the solution.

And I hope that this is not considered as a lack of respect.

[Rabid_Clam]

Yes, we have 6 billion plus people on this planet now. But is not the number of people that is killing ecology, it is how we manage our resources. We as a species are ignorant as a whole and that ignorance is killing ecology in how we handle it.

There are a good number of individuals that know how to handle it but they have little or no power to install and enforce adequate ecological protocol.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
Yes, we have 6 billion plus people on this planet now. But is not the number of people that is killing ecology, it is how we manage our resources. We as a species are ignorant as a whole and that ignorance is killing ecology in how we handle it.

There are a good number of individuals that know how to handle it but they have little or no power to install and enforce adequate ecological protocol.


That is right Rabid, but six billions people cannot live on this planet if they consume as much energy as Americans, Canadians or Europeeans.

The changes we have to make in order to protect the ecology and the people are quite big and challenging.

[EricNY]

You are free to speak your mind, but name calling and personal attacks are not tolerated, you have been here long enough to know that.

And that pertains to everyone, and is not soley directed at you....

...Fair enough?

As far as family values and any secondary meaning to that....I think you need to know me a wee bit better, before passing judgement on me.

[Eric6420]

ErcNY,

Well, I will try not to make personal attacks...

About "family values" in the USA, it is since more than 25 years that evangelists have use this expression to demonize gays on a daily basis.

The expression "family values" cannot be separated from its anti-gay meaning, particularly when gays are banned from the military and many US states have anti-gay marriage laws in their constitution.

In Canada, it would normaly be Bobx to receive this kind of warning, after calling gay sex "offensive" many times.

[Bobx23456]

ROFLMAO!! Not only are name calling and personal attacks tolerated, the MOD even repeats them. Nactman and a couple of his cronies continually do an all out flame war against any member who disagrees with them, and their name calling and personal attacks are tolereated every day. Erick's name calling even gets repeated by the MOD.

CIF has some TOS rules which prohibit name calling and personal attacks, but day after day they are openly encouraged by those who run this forum. DUH!

Blessings
Bob

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:

Americans who vacation in Europe and have gone to Cap d'Agde are not "STUPID." But we do get offended by the gay public sex that is so pervasive there and other places. We get offended by the public gay sex that drives families and children out of our parks at home too. I don't share your agenda, Eric.

Blessings
Bob

Help. I'm a bit confused. Are you finding offense with only gay sex on the beaches at Cap D'Agde? I am quoting you in full so that it can't be said that I parsed your words. But, I don't see anyplace that you said you are offended by seeing heterosexual sex on the beach. Does that mean seeing, watching, and hearing heterosexual sex while enjoying your day at the beach is non-offensive?

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by walter05:



However, I will tell you that the commandment is for sex between a married man and a married woman. The possibility of creating children is one of the expected outcomes. Other sexual experiences are not commanded.



Walter, if reproduction is the only commandment for sex (between a married couple) then those couples in which the female is post-menopause or in which either partner was unable to parent for some reason would be prohibited from marriage.

How can you say that when it comes to homosexuals they can't marry because their union can't proudce children; yet, heterosexuals that can't produce children may marry? Something just doesn't follow in this logic.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bobx23456:

Americans who vacation in Europe and have gone to Cap d'Agde are not "STUPID." But we do get offended by the gay public sex that is so pervasive there and other places. We get offended by the public gay sex that drives families and children out of our parks at home too. I don't share your agenda, Eric.

Blessings
Bob

Help. I'm a bit confused. Are you finding offense with only gay sex on the beaches at Cap D'Agde? I am quoting you in full so that it can't be said that I parsed your words. But, I don't see anyplace that you said you are offended by seeing heterosexual sex on the beach. Does that mean seeing, watching, and hearing heterosexual sex while enjoying your day at the beach is non-offensive? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He has repeted many times how "offended" he is by gay sex.

The comment I would have to make, is that Americans in general, think that there are universal values.

The problem with sex is that it is viewed from a very different perspective in europeans countries, particularly France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, where public display of sex is not seen as scandalous as in the USA.

In other words, in many many places in Europe, people do have sex outdoors, there is even a book in french that does the promotion of sex outdoors. It is just a part of a european subculture that must be respected for what it is. Europeans have the right to set their own standards on their own teritory.

I was at the Goethe institute in Montreal a few years ago, and when I went to their german bookstore, the responsable of the store was deeply kissing a woman, they were almost having sex, and they did not stop when I entered the store. I was there half an hour, and they had a very sexual posture all the time I was there. By the way, I was not "offended"at all. Most of Europe is far more liberal in term of sex.

Do not assume that other people of other cultures have the same criteria as you concerning sex in public.

[EricNY]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
ROFLMAO!! Not only are name calling and personal attacks tolerated, the MOD even repeats them. Nactman and a couple of his cronies continually do an all out flame war against any member who disagrees with them, and their name calling and personal attacks are tolereated every day. Erick's name calling even gets repeated by the MOD.

CIF has some TOS rules which prohibit name calling and personal attacks, but day after day they are openly encouraged by those who run this forum. DUH!

Blessings
Bob


That is your opinion Bob, but we will not discuss that here.

[David77]

Let us remember that Orthodox Judism is one of three main branches of Judism in the USA.

<center>Synagogue Denominations (%0)

Year - 1990

Conservative 51
Orthodox 10
Reform 35

Year 2001

Conservative 33.1
Orthodox 20.8
Reform 38.5</center>

[Rabid_Clam]

Eric6420, you are totally correct. We just recently are beginnng to create alternate renewable energy sources. We may be late on this but having oil was easy, cheap, readily available, and instant energy. So we bit tooth, claw and hook on that one. We will pay the ultimate price very soon.

Is estimated that in half a century we will be critically low on crude oil. Those prices will sky rocket beyond reach. That will force an issue.

Will roads and interstates become obsolete? Dunno, the factory that makes crystal balls went out of business before I got one.

Is a real issue you and I will not have to deal with as much as our grand children and their children.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
Eric6420, you are totally correct. We just recently are beginnng to create alternate renewable energy sources. We may be late on this but having oil was easy, cheap, readily available, and instant energy. So we bit tooth, claw and hook on that one. We will pay the ultimate price very soon.

Is estimated that in half a century we will be critically low on crude oil. Those prices will sky rocket beyond reach. That will force an issue.

Will roads and interstates become obsolete? Dunno, the factory that makes crystal balls went out of business before I got one.

Is a real issue you and I will not have to deal with as much as our grand children and their children.

Yes, but we can face other problems a lot sooner than that. According to Claude Bourgignon, a french agronome, 90% of the soil is dead because of pesticides, fungicides and other chemical products. A lot of animals are dying, and ecologists asked themseves at what persentage of deadly soil the human race may collapse or dying in very large numbers.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by David77:
Let us remember that Orthodox Juidism is one of three main branches of Judism in the USA.

<center>Synagogue Denominations (%0)

Year - 1990

Conservative 51
Orthodox 10
Reform 35

Year 2001

Conservative 33.1
Orthodox 20.8
Reform 38.5</center>

Yes David, you are quite correct. We also must remember that the Orthodox (including the Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidim)are really no different then other fundies in either Islam or Christianity.

For those not aware the "Conservatives" are actually the moderates. The "Reform"(and NOT Reformed :-)) are the most progressive.

[Naturist Mark]

Eric6420, you are totally correct. We just recently are beginnng to create alternate renewable energy sources. We may be late on this but having oil was easy, cheap, readily available, and instant energy. So we bit tooth, claw and hook on that one. We will pay the ultimate price very soon.
Sadly the US was a pioneer in commercially developing large scale alternative energy - Jimmy Carter set up a massive Federal program 30 years ago to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and eliminate the importation of fuels by 1990. But he lost the 1980 election and all those efforts were immediately shut down - as an act of symbolism even the solar panels on the White House roof were torn down.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
- as an act of symbolism even the solar panels on the White House roof were torn down.

And for good reason. With the current White House Residents it would be mighty useless. The sun won't grace the White House until after the next election.

[Bobx23456]

It's the curse of CFI forums. When the topic degrades into Bush bashing, it's time to move on.

Blessings
Bob

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
It's the curse of CFI forums. When the topic degrades into Bush bashing, it's time to move on.

Blessings
Bob

You may find gay sex offensive, and that is your right. I personally find your homophobia offensive and that is my right.

Since you find so much to complain about regarding CFF I wonder why you remain. Might you like to constantly complain? Might you be a troll? D*mn if I know.

[sdson]

Hey NudeTopher,

I couldn't agree more. It's too bad that choosing ignorance isn't painful. Hey, can we also add bigotry and intolerance to that? What do you say?

SD

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by sdson:
Hey NudeTopher,

I couldn't agree more. It's too bad that choosing ignorance isn't painful. Hey, can we also add bigotry and intolerance to that? What do you say?

SD

Whatever you wish although I'd think that bigotry and intolerance are indicitive of ignorance.

[simonsebs]

Originally posted by simonsebs:
Honestly, I think it would do more harm than good.

Right now we're trying to gain mainstream acceptance and fight against all the stigmas and stereotypes. The main one being that all it is is sex and that nudist campgrounds and beaches are just huge orgies.

I think nudists are more open about sex than you think. We just understand, that like anything else, there's a certain time and place for it.

I'll just go ahead and repeat what I said earlier in an attempt to get us back on topic.

[Agde]

Thanks for the reminder, Simon! I'd gotten the impression we were discussing whether gay jewish Bush bashers having sex while tearing solar panels off Jimmy Carter's roof in Cap d'Agde should be condemned for bigotry or just ignorance!
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[MJ_KC]

To me it is not about forcing ones own preference into a situation you encounter, especially when you are in a foreign country that has their own way of doing things.

When a person is going to travel somewhere, it is their responsibility to find out what they should expect to encounter and not expect everyone else to change just because you showed up.

Just because there might be a need to adopt a more puritan approach in the U.S. does not mean that the rest of the world has to or would even want to do things our way.

[Sanslines]

When a person is going to travel somewhere, it is their responsibility to find out what they should expect to encounter and not expect everyone else to change just because you showed up.


Very true and I have experienced many Americans overseas who demand, while in a foreign country, that the country treat them as if they were still in America. Case in point: Because I speak French, every time that I travel to France, 99 percent of the French people assume that I am Canadian because of their assumption that Americans do not speak foreign languages or understand foreign values and cultures.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
You may find gay sex offensive, and that is your right. I personally find your homophobia offensive and that is my right.

Some things I do find offensive. Name calling aggression on discussion forums is offensive. I have nothing against gays, per-se, but the usual angry, aggressive, gay “in your face” name calling attempts to shout down any disagreements I find very offensive.

Dishonesty is offensive. Eric started this topic with a dishonest advocacy of some general principle. It became apparent after a while that Eric was dishonestly attempting to engage unsuspecting people in order to push a gay public sex agenda. I find that offensive.

Eric’s tactics are not unique. In some other men’s on-line discussion groups recently gay advocates have been dishonestly pretending to be psychology researchers asking men to participate in a psychology study. It turns out to be a fraud to find normal men who might be vulnerable to push a gay political agenda. When someone objects to their dishonesty they return to the all too common name calling. I find their dishonesty and aggression offensive.

Gay public sex became so common in my local public park that families and children were driven out, and the filth left behind became a problem for the maintenance people. When families and children can’t use public parks because gay perverts think that their random public sex is more important than the families and community standards. I find that public gay obscenity very offensive.

Gay public sex became so common and so offensive in the men’s restroom at my local shopping mall that the management took down all the stall partitions and hired a security guard. I was shopping and needed to use the facility, but found that the normal quiet place to do my business had been destroyed by aggressive gays who have no respect for decent people or community standards. I ended my visits to the mall because it was no longer a suitable place for normal men. I find that kind of obscene gay behavior very offensive.

At a nearby hot spring on government land that has been traditionally clothing optional for hundreds of years gay public sex became so much of a problem for the public and got so many complaints to police that it invited a much higher level of police enforcement of clothing laws. Gays public sex had destroyed another wonderful location. I find it very offensive.

At Cap d’Agde gay public sex has an international reputation. Many people who have visited there have been highly offended by the very public open gay sex. The gay public sex at Cap d’Agde has become a topic of conversation and complaint at nudist gathering places half a world away. You can call people names for being offended by the obscene gay behavior in public but that doesn’t change the obscene nature of the gay public sex.

It’s not just one or two gays doing all the obscene public sex. There are gay books and groups who advocate gay public sex in parks, malls, beaches, and elsewhere. I recently posted a link to a behavioral study by an Ivy League university but the mods took it off. Obscene public behavior is taught in “how to” books and groups. If find that offensive.

When any decent person objects to gays pushing their obscene agendas on-line numerous gays gang up on the objector and begin a what has become a typical round of name calling aimed at shouting down any objections. I find that kind of dishonest, rude, aggressive pushing to be offensive too.

So go ahead, do all your obscene name calling. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that on-line name calling is largely ineffective, its just very offensive to decent people.

Blessings
Bob

[Rabid_Clam]

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Is their right. But also is the right of any other to have and maintain an opposing opinion.

Neither side has right to put the other down or to belittle the other. But they can share opposing thoughts without having to force them on any other.

Yes, gays and their sex openly has ruined many places. There are several places very near me where gays have ruined visits with gay sex acts in the open. Again, there is a time and place for everything, and some people simply cannot figure that out so we all suffer for it.

Always one in every group. I have gone to a park area where there are trails in the woods, following those trails I have come across gay folk having totally nude penetration sex in the wide open. I did not complain but for sure that is not what nudism is about nor is that the time and place for that.

Is those things that ruin it for everyone else. Very selfish. But is how it is in the existance of this humanity we call intelligent life.

[EricNY]

I am just wondering......

The title to this topic is Sex and Nudity.....

....When did it become specific to homosexual sex? Are we implying that hetro sex in public is ok? Sure seems it.

Let's not make this gay specific!

[simonsebs]

Originally posted by ercNY:


....When did it become specific to homosexual sex? Are we implying that hetro sex in public is ok? Sure seems it.



I can only speak for myself, but I don't think its ok. I'm cool with public displays of affection(kissing, hand holding, light caressing) but anything beyond that should be done in private, regardless of sexual orientation.

[labrat93562]

Originally posted by ercNY:
I am just wondering......

The title to this topic is Sex and Nudity.....

....When did it become specific to homosexual sex? Are we implying that hetro sex in public is ok? Sure seems it.

Let's not make this gay specific!

I agree. I'm happily hetro and I disagree with any sex in public where someone might be taking thier children. Thier are clubs, locations and of course private homes where you can find any kind of sex you wish. To do so in areas trditionally used for simple nudity is damaging and not at all helpfull to the naturist movement. If I wanted to watch someone have sex I'd buy some porn or invite someone who's into being watched over. I don't believe we as nudists have the right to just go nude anyplace we wish because people have the right to raise thier children that social nudity is wrong no matter how we may disagree with that point of view. Likewise I have the right to take my kids to a public park or beach wether c/o or textile without them being exposed to public sex of any type. I agree the "no sex" rule can be carried too far like anything else. I have no problem with public affection like hugging and kissing but oral copulation and full penetration or masturbating is a bit much.

[Walt Iliff]

Wow!! Another "where to start" post. First of all, I really don't think that listening to the fantasies of a few "wannabee" nudists about how nudism could be improved if we turned a blind eye to public displays of sexual activities is in any way shape or form a productive activity. There are a few posters on this board whose views and opinions I basically skip over because it's an absolute waste of time even reading them not to mention replying to them. Suffice it to say that there is plenty of empirical evidence to prove that whenever any nudist venue becomes the kind of place where sexual activity is accepted by those who frequent such a location, the place ceases to be "family friendly" and as such places the rest of us in a position where we have to defend ALL beaches, lakes, parks, etc from those textiled individuals who believe that that is what nudism is all about. If someone believes that the way to attract younger people to nudism is to make it more sexual, then they have identified themselves as nudist fantasy junkies with no real clue about how the real world works.

Walt Iliff

[walter05]

NudeTopher;

You said, "Walter, if reproduction is the only commandment for sex (between a married couple) then those couples in which the female is post-menopause or in which either partner was unable to parent for some reason would be prohibited from marriage."

That is an interesting question. The Talmud deals with that question. The commandment for Adam and his descendants is often translated as "Be Fruitful and Multiply". However, the original Hebrew is "Peru Urevu". {I tried to transliterate it here.} This is the same word in and different form for grammatical reasons repeated.

The Talmud asks why is the word repeated and there are two reasons offered.

One reason is that ideally a married couple will participate in the creation of a male and a female. This means that the commandment is fulfilled to the highest level when the couple has participated in the creation of two children, one male, and one female.

Another reason answers your question. It is really two commandments. Have sex and have children. However, they are linked.

A married couple where one of them or both of them are sterile are still commanded to have sex. Even though they will not produce children, the closeness that the sex will promote is important enough for the commandment.

It is even possible that some forms of birth control are used by married Orthodox Jewish couples. At times, a competent Rav will instruct the couple to use birth control pills, IUDs, ets. This can be done if the pregnancy would be a danger to the woman’s health so that the married couple can still fulfill the commandment to have sex.

When a married man and woman have intercourse, Orthodox Judaism considers it a time of tremendous holiness. It is a fulfillment of a major commandment. It is not just that they are permitted to have sex. They are commanded to do so because of the holiness of the act.

However, your assertion NudeTopher; “We also must remember that the Orthodox (including the Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidim)are really no different then other fundies in either Islam or Christianity.”

Orthodox Judaism does not attempt to convert others. It does not attempt to kill others who don’t practice it. Orthodox Judaism asserts that good and kind non-Jews have a share in the world to come. This is a fundamental difference. Orthodox Judaism does not attempt to convert anyone else or kill anyone else who does not share the Orthodox Jewish view.

[Eric6420]

It is the first time I hear that gay men are having public sex in so much public places in the USA.

However, not to insult anyone, the way Bobx talks about gays remember me of some past history about other people.

But I will not say what it is, because Bobx would be insulted and I would be to blame.

In the other hand, when we hear all the homophobia that there is on radio, both talk and religious, maybe public sex is a good way to protest.

Maybe a deal can be made. You allow gay marriage, you forbids public homophobia and in exchange, no more gay public sex in parks and where children may be. That's about the deal we have in Canada.

Have a nice day!

[walter05]

Eric;

Since you raise the marriage issue and discuss the public sex issue, I want to provide my opinion.

Sex should promote closeness and be a form of special communication. As such, it should be private to promote that closeness. I find all public sex to be degrading of human beings and object to all of it.

As far as marriage, I think the government should stay out of the issue. If a couple of people want to form a contract, which enables them to share a lifetime of expenses and financial responsibilities that is fine. If they want a form of power of attorney over each other if one can't speak, that is fine. If they want to inherit each other, that is fine.

Those contracts should be promoted. They could then be recorded at the courthouse and enforced just as any contracts are.

Sexuality is none of the government's business. The government should not even know about it. Therefore, if two men, two women, or one of each want to form those contracts, that is fine.

If someone wants to be married for religious reasons, then a Synagogue, Church, Mosque, etc. should be able to permit the marriage per the rules of that faith.

In short, I think that marriage is a religious matter and the government should stay out and no longer sanction marriage at all. However, the general legal protections and privileges that are currently enjoyed by married couples could be enjoyed by anyone that enters in the correct contracts.

[sdson]

Originally posted by ercNY:
I am just wondering......

The title to this topic is Sex and Nudity.....

....When did it become specific to homosexual sex? Are we implying that hetro sex in public is ok? Sure seems it.

Let's not make this gay specific!


Thanks for stepping in. I think there's enough of examples of inappropriate behavior that can be assigned to every, race, age, ethnicity, regligous afflication, political affiliation, sexual preference, gender, etc. There is more than enough of blame to go around and eligible targets for all of it.


I agree, Let's not make this gay (or any other group)specific!

[RichNH]

Originally posted by Walt Iliff:
why should White Tail be apparently immune from this, where other parks are experiencing what you've described at your club.
Walt

In a word, "management", meaning the specific people and the policies they have put in place over the years. (And this from a guy who's never been to any club at all.)

Rich

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
You may find gay sex offensive, and that is your right. I personally find your homophobia offensive and that is my right.

Some things I do find offensive. Name calling aggression on discussion forums is offensive. I have nothing against gays, per-se, but the usual angry, aggressive, gay “in your face” name calling attempts to shout down any disagreements I find very offensive.

Dishonesty is offensive. Eric started this topic with a dishonest advocacy of some general principle. It became apparent after a while that Eric was dishonestly attempting to engage unsuspecting people in order to push a gay public sex agenda. I find that offensive.

Eric’s tactics are not unique. In some other men’s on-line discussion groups recently gay advocates have been dishonestly pretending to be psychology researchers asking men to participate in a psychology study. It turns out to be a fraud to find normal men who might be vulnerable to push a gay political agenda. When someone objects to their dishonesty they return to the all too common name calling. I find their dishonesty and aggression offensive.

Gay public sex became so common in my local public park that families and children were driven out, and the filth left behind became a problem for the maintenance people. When families and children can’t use public parks because gay perverts think that their random public sex is more important than the families and community standards. I find that public gay obscenity very offensive.

Gay public sex became so common and so offensive in the men’s restroom at my local shopping mall that the management took down all the stall partitions and hired a security guard. I was shopping and needed to use the facility, but found that the normal quiet place to do my business had been destroyed by aggressive gays who have no respect for decent people or community standards. I ended my visits to the mall because it was no longer a suitable place for normal men. I find that kind of obscene gay behavior very offensive.

At a nearby hot spring on government land that has been traditionally clothing optional for hundreds of years gay public sex became so much of a problem for the public and got so many complaints to police that it invited a much higher level of police enforcement of clothing laws. Gays public sex had destroyed another wonderful location. I find it very offensive.

At Cap d’Agde gay public sex has an international reputation. Many people who have visited there have been highly offended by the very public open gay sex. The gay public sex at Cap d’Agde has become a topic of conversation and complaint at nudist gathering places half a world away. You can call people names for being offended by the obscene gay behavior in public but that doesn’t change the obscene nature of the gay public sex.

It’s not just one or two gays doing all the obscene public sex. There are gay books and groups who advocate gay public sex in parks, malls, beaches, and elsewhere. I recently posted a link to a behavioral study by an Ivy League university but the mods took it off. Obscene public behavior is taught in “how to” books and groups. If find that offensive.

When any decent person objects to gays pushing their obscene agendas on-line numerous gays gang up on the objector and begin a what has become a typical round of name calling aimed at shouting down any objections. I find that kind of dishonest, rude, aggressive pushing to be offensive too.

So go ahead, do all your obscene name calling. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that on-line name calling is largely ineffective, its just very offensive to decent people.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, you totally avoided answering the question that I asked. Please scroll up and reply to my post of August 12th at 4:8pm.

To save you the work, I will restate it for you here:
Help. I'm a bit confused. Are you finding offense with only gay sex on the beaches at Cap D'Agde? I am quoting you in full so that it can't be said that I parsed your words. But, I don't see anyplace that you said you are offended by seeing heterosexual sex on the beach. Does that mean seeing, watching, and hearing heterosexual sex while enjoying your day at the beach is non-offensive?

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by walter05:
NudeTopher;


However, your assertion NudeTopher; “We also must remember that the Orthodox (including the Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidim)are really no different then other fundies in either Islam or Christianity.”

Orthodox Judaism does not attempt to convert others. It does not attempt to kill others who don’t practice it. Orthodox Judaism asserts that good and kind non-Jews have a share in the world to come. This is a fundamental difference. Orthodox Judaism does not attempt to convert anyone else or kill anyone else who does not share the Orthodox Jewish view.

When I stated that fundies are all the same regardless of their religion I was thinking of the way in which they view their scriptures. Reform Jews believe that while the bible/Torah has the essence of God's influence it was written by human scribes and therefore has been influenced by humans. The Orthodox on the otherhand believe it to be God's exact words. When you flip to Christianity you see the same things. The fundies claim the bible is infallable and is God's exact words. More progressive brands of Christianity don't take things quite that literally.

My observations lead me to believe that between progressives you can find areas of agreement and compromise. The fundies are so wrapped up in their dogma that peace and co-existance in the world is impossible.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
To save you the work, I will restate it for you here:
Help. I'm a bit confused. Are you finding offense with only gay sex on the beaches at Cap D'Agde?

It has only been the rampant gay public sex at Cap d'Agde that I've heard people complaining about six thousand miles away. It is also only gay public sex that is driving children and familes out of my local parks, causing problems in the men's restroom at the local mall, or inviting police surveliance at the nearby hot spring. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Blessings
Bob

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
To save you the work, I will restate it for you here:
Help. I'm a bit confused. Are you finding offense with only gay sex on the beaches at Cap D'Agde?

It has only been the rampant gay public sex at Cap d'Agde that I've heard people complaining about six thousand miles away. It is also only gay public sex that is driving children and familes out of my local parks, causing problems in the men's restroom at the local mall, or inviting police surveliance at the nearby hot spring. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Twice i asked you if you have found or would find heterosexual sex on the beach offensive.

Twice you refused to answer that question and had cases of verbal diarrea about gay sex.

You condone heterosexual sex on the beach but find gay sex offensive!

I can tell you that at our local nude beach, between the regulars, the park police and the county police sexual behavior is kept to the bare minimum (no pun intneded). When there is sexual activity it is more then likely among heterosexual couples as gay couples. This I know from being there - not from listening to rumors from 6,000 miles away.

Perhaps it is time for you to find that rock from who's underside you slithered.

[walter05]

NudeTopher;

Your pointing out that fundies believe their holy scriptures to be divine and infallible is accurate and fair.

I will not claim that all Orthodox Jews are open and welcoming. As in all groups, there are different personalities.

However, since Orthodox Jews don't want to impose doctrine on anyone else, that is a significant difference.

It is okay to disagree with someone. It is not okay to attempt to force them to conform to your ideas.

Once you are not attempting to force others to conform, then you can admire a lot about them. This is a fundamental, pun intended, difference.

[Lilwilly]

Amen Walter05. If more people took note of your last 2 statements this would be a better place for nudists and everyone else.

[David77]

To point out the great contrast between the Orthodox and Reform, the Orthodox consider homosexuality a sin, but the Reform group is liberal and will have ceremonies to bless same sex couples. The Reform permit gay and lesbian rabbi and cantors. The Reform temple in St. Louis has a wonderful females rabbi, much respected and appreciated by her congregation.

P.S. The Reform group is close to the ethical approach of the Unitarian Universalists, of which I am a member.

[nudebushwalker]

I usually take a left-leaning or more liberal position on most topics in these forums, but this is is one area where I would be more inclined to side with the more conservative writers here...

Open and explicit sexual displays in popular areas - beaches, parks, public spaces - simply isn't acceptable, no matter the inclinations of the participants - hetero', gay, foot-lickers, dogs, horses or whatever. There are plenty of more-or-less remote, rugged and otherwise private, or semi-private, beaches, forests and similarly suitable places, where people should be able to discretely bonk or wank to their hearts content without offending anyone else; irregardless of their personal religious, philosophical or political bent(s)..

Since when has walking an extra kilometre or two, to find that more discrete spot, hurt anyone?

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Walt Iliff:
I understand what you're saying, but why should White Tail be apparently immune from this, where other parks are experiencing what you've described at your club. We are drawing from the same "pool" so to speak, but we seem to have avoided many of the problems you describe. Luck? Evolution? Intelligent Design?? I don't know, but we just had a terrific weekend the beginning of the month with over 1,000 nudists on the grounds with an age range from infants to octogenarians.
Walt

Good question Walt. For one thing, WTP has a long history of being less uptight as some other parks. On my one visit to WTP some years ago now there was a party with nude dancing, bodies rubbing bodies in public and feeling good about it. I found the locals all friendly and inviting visitors, my wife and I to dance. I had a great time. Most everyone else seemed to also. I wouldn't call it "public sex" but neither was it "no two bodies shall touch."

Maybe there is a middle ground between uptight and public sex that WTP has found over the years. I think that some of it might be that the people are friendly and actually do invite visitors to participate. Having a good time is contageious.

Blessings
Bob

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by NudeTopher I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Twice i asked you if you have found or would find heterosexual sex on the beach offensive.



I don't know, never seen any. I've never seen men and women openly screwing at the local hot spring and inviting police enforcemnt of nudity laws. I've never had my local mall management posting security guards in the restrooms because men and women were getting it together. Sex between men and women has never gotten so open and flagrant that families and children are afraid to go to the park and police have had to become involved to recapure the park for picnicers. I've never seen shelves of books at my local bookstore advocating "public sex" between men and women. I've never seen web sites listing the "best places for public sex" between straight men and women. I've never had offended nudists bending my ear about flagrant public sex between men and women. I've never been to a beach were there was a "dunes" area that people were advised to stay away from because of flagrant notorious public sex between men and women.

The gay population is a small percentage of the total population, but somehow it always seems to be the small number of gays making trouble in public places, at least in areas near where I have lived. Several beaches now have "gay areas" where people who don't want to watch public sex are advised to stay away. But I've never been to a beach that had a notorisous straight public sex area.

If I ever see open and offensive public sex by straight couples day after day driving children out of public parks and people off the beach, If I ever see that, I very well might be offended, but so far, I haven't seen any. It's really never been an issue. If I ever see any I'll try to remember to let you know if I become offended.

And you can save your pathetic 3rd grade name calling. It only demonstrates that you have nothing of any substance to add to a conversation. Your efforts would be much better spent suggesting to your gay friends that their public sex behavior is unwelcome and spoils the image for all gays.

Blessings
Bob

[P.J.]

There are and probabaly always be some views which Eric and I will never share.

Although some of his observations are based on hard facts (and I think that although we may not share opinions, we all tend to agree with established fact), I also notice that some of his comments are still are filled with the typical old stereotypes which he uses to back up his side of the argument along with labels used to attack those who disagree.

As a man who is straight, conservative, a religious fundamentalist right, a musician (whose musical styles includes rock) and a nudist, I take offense to his (and anyone elses) allegations that people like me are all the same: against freedom.

If you have a gripe with any social, political or religious people, please specify by use of names and refrain from using blanket accusations to attack groups.

As far as sexual activity and nudism are concerned, there are plenty of appropriate times and places to put the two together. In public and in any family-friendly enviroment are never appropriate.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the opposition that so many single males encounter at nude resorts originated from the blatant and ignorant overt sexual misbehavior of a few who just don't get it???

Why do you think that single females are so rarely found at any nude beaches, parks and resorts???

[David77]

No one posting on this forum is advocating visable, public sex, or public sex exhibitions. So we must be in agreement on that point.

[Journeyman]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
... I've never seen men and women openly screwing at the local hot spring and inviting police enforcemnt of nudity laws. I've never had my local mall management posting security guards in the restrooms because men and women were getting it together. Sex between men and women has never gotten so open and flagrant that families and children are afraid to go to the park and police have had to become involved to recapure the park for picnicers. I've never seen shelves of books at my local bookstore advocating "public sex" between men and women. I've never seen web sites listing the "best places for public sex" between straight men and women. I've never had offended nudists bending my ear about flagrant public sex between men and women. I've never been to a beach were there was a "dunes" area that people were advised to stay away from because of flagrant notorious public sex between men and women.


Bobx23456, it must be very time consuming to experience or have experienced all of the above with homosexuals or about homosexuality. But I guess you're on a mission or something?

Your antigay posts are interesting in that I wondered about your motivation. This is an excerpt from Dr. Gregory Herek and his "Sexual Orientation: Science, Education and Policy":

'A variety of motivations underlie sexual prejudice. One way to understand those motives is to ask how a particular heterosexual's antigay attitudes benefit her or him psychologically. ...

...Sexual prejudice can only serve an experiential function when the heterosexual has had personal contact with gay men or lesbians. For those who have not had such contact, homosexuality and gay people are primarily symbols.

Whereas attitudes toward people with whom one has direct experience function primarily to organize and make sense of those experiences, attitudes toward symbols serve a different kind of function.

Such attitudes help people to increase their self-esteem by expressing important aspects of themselves – by declaring (to themselves and to others) what sort of people they are. Affirming who one is often is accomplished by distancing oneself from or even attacking people who represent the sort of person one is not (or does not want to be).'

[Eric6420]

As a man who is straight, conservative, a religious fundamentalist right, a musician (whose musical styles includes rock) and a nudist, I take offense to his (and anyone elses) allegations that people like me are all the same: against freedom.

Are you against gay marriage? Because if you oppose gay marriage, you do not believe in freedom.

[Eric6420]

No one posting on this forum is advocating visable, public sex, or public sex exhibitions. So we must be in agreement on that point.

It depends on what you are talking about. In the arts, sex may be very important.

In the Netherlands and some cities in Germany, you have sex shops and protitution agencies on main street.

And does sex in a forest is public sex?

[Eric6420]

Such attitudes help people to increase their self-esteem by expressing important aspects of themselves – by declaring (to themselves and to others) what sort of people they are. Affirming who one is often is accomplished by distancing oneself from or even attacking people who represent the sort of person one is not (or does not want to be).'

That is true.

However, there is another point to bring in that discussion. We have to differenciate men who have sex with men and gay men.

A man who have sex with a man is not necesarly a homosexual. A lot of heterosexual men simply want a partner to have sex, and men also tends to like sex more than women and more often and do not care if the sex is casual. It is not all men, but it is a big part.

So when a man wants to have sex and that he does not have a wife or a girlfriend, it is a lot easier and cheapper to find another man than a woman.

Men having sex with other men, in places like woods for example, is probably old as humanity itself.

Bobx is at least right on one point, is that most of the sex outdoors, in woods, in restrooms, and so on, is mostly between men, but that does not mean that they are gay men.

To point out that fact is not homophobic. And we have to stop to think the the reality of men having sex in the woods is bad in itself. We should not forget that man is part of nature and sex also.

On the other hand, in big cities, bathouses or saunas are very interesting places for men who want to have sex with other men.

In Montreal, you have more than 10 of theses establshments open 24/24 and that are able to accomodate hundreds of men at a time.

So a good way to lessen sex between men in public places is to build saunas where they can meet and have sex.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Journeyman:
Your antigay posts are interesting in that I wondered about your motivation. This is an excerpt from Dr. Gregory Herek and his "Sexual Orientation: Science, Education and Policy":


Ahh, the classic "you need a shirnk" flame. That was old on-line 20 years ago. The details vary, but the basic flame gets repeated over and over. Not even any imagination. It's sooooo old and sooooo booooring.

Your pathetic flameing only demonstrates your own mental state.

Blessings
Bob

[David77]

And does sex in a forest is public sex?
No, sex in a forest is not public sex, if there is no "public" around, but is in a private location.

[Eric6420]

About public sex in France, the movie Cote d'Azur, is quite good.

In the film, there is a wood near the beach where men meet to have sex.

Of course, the sex there bothers no one in the movie, they did not think of americans tourists like Bobx who say "I am offended by theses perverts" and do not think that other countries have other standards to judge what is moral.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by David77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And does sex in a forest is public sex?
No, sex in a forest is not public sex, if there is no "public" around, but is in a private location. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the notion of public sex is complicated, because when you live in a culture where sex is everywhere, it is not easy to determine what would be public sex. The german movie Regular Guys (Echte Kerle), is quite good to show how sex is very visible in Germany.

For example, if there is 20 guys in the woods, is that still not public sex?

The people (mostly males) who have sex on the outdoors, usually do it at night in relatively remote places. They do not do that to offend anyone, and in France and other liberal countries, very few people complain about it (except tourists from America who tell it to Bobx).

[David77]

Some men and women enjoy being watched as they are having sex, as it adds to their sexual arousal, but this is rare - I suppose that this is as rare as those who have a fetish for spanking or masochistic pain to make their sexual experience feel more intense.

Most people seek privacy, as public sex is a great turn-off, taking away the ability to have sex. They find it a distraction and takes away their consentration and enjoyment.

Therefore I do not think that, in Europe and elsewhere, is there much public sex that is visable nor that it is a custom. In other words, rare.

[David77]

For example, if there is 20 guys in the woods, is that still not public sex?

No, not if 20 consenting persons are well out of sight of the public and it is completely private. The trouble come when unethical persons, or careless persons, don't give a damn about the public's sensibilities.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by David77:
Some men and women enjoy being watched as they are having sex, as it adds to their sexual arousal, but this is rare - I suppose that this is as rare as those who have a fetish for spanking or masochistic pain to make their sexual experience feel more intense.

Most people seek privacy, as public sex is a great turn-off, taking away the ability to have sex. They find it a distraction and takes away their consentration and enjoyment.

Therefore I do not think that, in Europe and elsewhere, is there much public sex that is visable nor that it is a custom. In other words, rare.

I understand what you mean, but I think that the mindset is quite different in Europe than in the USA, that's true for religion as well as sex.

Of course, people in Europe do not have sex on the street, but the culture is quite far from America in some ways. It depends where you are in Europe.

Also, if you see some episodes of Que*r as Folk,
you will see that in gay culture, sex is very important and is not always very private.

Another example, in latin countries of Europe, a man can look at a woman in public in a way that shows that he is interested in her sexually. The same thing would be considered sexual harrasment in the USA. So the gap is big and quite real.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by David77:
Therefore I do not think that, in Europe and elsewhere, is there much public sex that is visable nor that it is a custom. In other words, rare.

I tend to agree with you David. I'm pretty widely read, and I correspond frequently with many Europeans. Until Eric I've never heard much mention of public sex in Europe, other than the same kind of gay public sex that goes on so frequently in the US as well as Europe. My mind is open to learn new information about different customs in different countries, and Europe certainly is not homogenious in customs. But until I learn some more from independent sources, I'm not ready to take Eric's word about wide spread open public sex all over Europe.

Blessings
Bob

[Eric6420]

It all depends of what you call "public sex".

But I do not like the notion of public sex, because the criteria is not so clear.

A sex shop that advertise on public telivision and is located on main steet looks quite as a public place to me.

A dance club with erotic nude dancers that is located on a big city main street looks quite public to me.

Even the internet is a place where pratically anyone can go and has a lot of sex.

Even in Montreal, on Ste-Catherine street (main commercial street), you can see sex advertised in very big red letters.

When I watch french TV (TV5) and I see the dancers from Moulin Rouge, the program originally broadcast on France 2 (Public French tv), in an official event such as the 14 July (French national day), and the French president is there applauding with the public, the almost nude female dancers, with a dance that is very erotic, I think that describes quite well what is the french attitude towards sex.

[David77]

It all depends of what you call "public sex".
Yes, we have in some cities and towns in the USA, that which you describe in your last post, but that is not "having sex, which we are talking about.

When I went to Paris France three years ago I went to one of the famous cabarets called Crazy Horse which specialized in a large group of lovely tall female dancers who were nude except for having a black patch over their vulva. I think that Paris law required this small amount of modesty. The show was in good taste and not pornographic, eventhough it was all about the nude form, as advertised. The show specialized in using various colored lights to make various patterns on the female form. It was akin to body painting but only with various colored lights instead of paint.

You state that there is no sex on the street in Europe and I can affirm that I saw no sex on the street in Europe.

[Eric6420]

Hi David,

You seem to me far more tolerant than most Americans, when it comes to sexuality.

To give you an example, one of my french literature teacher know another french literature teacher in the university of California in L.A.

He said to us, that the teacher at the university of California in L.A. had a problem because she show to her students a french movie called Ridicule, in which, in the beginig of the movie, we can see a man urinate. It was the only thing remotly sexual in the movie and the students complained to the director that the movie was obsene.

In our university, they show us a movie that is ten times more sexual than "Ridicule" with no problems at all. The movie they show at our university is "l'auberge espagnole". It is for people who want to participate in the exchange student program with other countries. It is a very popular movie (l'auberge espagnole) that I have at home.

Do you think that the reaction at the L.A. students was extreme, or representative of Californians?

l'auberge espagnole (trailer) (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=CCs6AzLeNQI)

[David77]

Eric,
Yes, I saw the movie "l'auberge espagnole" on my cable TV screen. It did not show much that was risque.

As for those students who objected to the movie "Ridicule."

First let me say that I have relatives in California and some are liberals who would not have objected to the movie and some of my relatives are conservative Baptists and maybe some might have objected.

It seems that the class you mention in California happened to have some persuasive conservatives in class to register such a complaint. Many movies in movie houses and on cable TV have much stronger material, so I think that the incident you mention may have been a fluke event and probably, generally uncharacteristic of USA at large. Many persons can see soft porn on regular cable TV at night across the USA, but not in every state - such as seen in the state of Illinois, but not in the state of Missouri. The court in Illinois was presented with a survey of cable subscribers that showed that the majority of cable subscribers had no issue with it being shown at night.

[Eric6420]

For thoses interested, here is the trailer of a french movie called Le Libertin.

It is about the life of Denis Diderot, one of the greatest french writer and philosopher of the 18th century. He was also the creator with his friend d'Alembert, of one of the first encyclopedia in the western world.

A lot of what we have of liberal and free thinking comes from the philosophers of this period who were about enlightement and inspiration for the french revolution.

The movie is funny, quite sexual, but I think the dvd is only in french with no english subtitles. See the trailer.

Le libertin (trailer) (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=jF4Ud09BF14)

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by walter05:
NudeTopher;

Your pointing out that fundies believe their holy scriptures to be divine and infallible is accurate and fair.

I will not claim that all Orthodox Jews are open and welcoming. As in all groups, there are different personalities.

However, since Orthodox Jews don't want to impose doctrine on anyone else, that is a significant difference.

It is okay to disagree with someone. It is not okay to attempt to force them to conform to your ideas.

Once you are not attempting to force others to conform, then you can admire a lot about them. This is a fundamental, pun intended, difference.

Yet, they are quite intolerant. When my cousin was doing his internship some of the hospital's department heads were Orthodox. Since my cousin was brought up in a Reform environment they told him that (1) he wasn't Jewish and (2) he was treated significantly different from med students they considered "their own."

*While you shouldn't generalizefrom anecdotal evidence; in this care I believe it to be true.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Twice i asked you if you have found or would find heterosexual sex on the beach offensive.



I don't know, never seen any. I've never seen men and women openly screwing at the local hot spring and inviting police enforcemnt of nudity laws.... But I've never been to a beach that had a notorisous straight public sex area. ...if I ever see that, I very well might be offended, but so far, I haven't seen any. It's really never been an issue. If I ever see any I'll try to remember to let you know if I become offended.

Blessings
Bob </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as I supsected. When you shovel all the manure in your post to the side what remains is that you can't and won't state that you would find hetersexual sexual activity on the beach offensive. While I don't want ANY sexual conduct on the beach; you are willing to give heterosexual sexual activity on the beach a free pass. Hmm. It's ok in your atrophied mind to have heterosexual sex in a public space but not ok if the participants are homosexual. That is unequal treatment under the law; which aside from being repugnant - it's illegal. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Oh that's right; I can't speak of goose and gander rights since in prior posts you have stated your support for "men's rights" thinking women have too many rights. Sheesh - you are an equal opportunity bigot - women and gays so far. I can only imagine your views on blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and those from the Middle East. On second thought, I'd prefer not thinking in such neanderthal terms!

FYI - I have read quite a bit about Cap D'agde and spoken to some people who have visited there. Each and every one of them has reported that heterosexual activities are quite common on the beach particularly during the evening hours.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by P.J.:


Did it ever occur to anyone that the opposition that so many single males encounter at nude resorts originated from the blatant and ignorant overt sexual misbehavior of a few who just don't get it???

Why do you think that single females are so rarely found at any nude beaches, parks and resorts???

Since your profile states that you are a "single nudist" since your wife won't join you it begs asking <span class="ev_code_BLUE">is that the reason your wife won't go to nude venues?</span>

[P.J.]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:


Did it ever occur to anyone that the opposition that so many single males encounter at nude resorts originated from the blatant and ignorant overt sexual misbehavior of a few who just don't get it???

Why do you think that single females are so rarely found at any nude beaches, parks and resorts???

Since your profile states that you are a "single nudist" since your wife won't join you it begs asking <span class="ev_code_BLUE">is that the reason your wife won't go to nude venues?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good Morning!
Good question...
I'm married, but as far as my social nudism activities go, I'm a "single nudist."
The reason(s) that my wife won't join me is(are) the typical of probably most women.

[P.J.]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a man who is straight, conservative, a religious fundamentalist right, a musician (whose musical styles includes rock) and a nudist, I take offense to his (and anyone elses) allegations that people like me are all the same: against freedom.

Are you against gay marriage? Because if you oppose gay marriage, you do not believe in freedom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good morning Eric,

I'm sure that you already know the answer!

I do not believe in same sex marriage. I do, however, believe in freedom. There are limits which must be imposed on certain freedoms.

Even though perfect harmony can't be achieved, we all still need to live together.

I believe in free speech, but that doesn't give either one of us the right to scream "Fire!" in a movie theater.

By the way, the subject is "sex and nudity." Let's not digress too far into other controversial subjects.

We should all agree that we do not have to agree. (Of course, there should we should refrain from insulting others and pinning label on those who disagree.) Is that too much to ask?

Instead of bringing up the subject gay marriage into this discussion, I cordially and with respect to your views, suggest initiating the topic of same-sex marriage, with perhaps a poll.

[jon71]

How is letting two people of the same gender signify their love and commitment to each other by being married and having legal rights and responsibilities something that they should not be allowed to do? How is that akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater? I see no reason for not permitting it other than some people just don't want gay people to have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.
Switching topics I saw the trailer for "Le libertine". There is a movie from 2004 starring John Malkovich called "The libertine" and as near as I can tell (I didn't see either film and I speak no French) it seems to be the same story. I have no idea if that one has any nudity or not but it's rated R.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:


Did it ever occur to anyone that the opposition that so many single males encounter at nude resorts originated from the blatant and ignorant overt sexual misbehavior of a few who just don't get it???

Why do you think that single females are so rarely found at any nude beaches, parks and resorts???

Since your profile states that you are a "single nudist" since your wife won't join you it begs asking <span class="ev_code_BLUE">is that the reason your wife won't go to nude venues?</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good Morning!
Good question...
I'm married, but as far as my social nudism activities go, I'm a "single nudist."
The reason(s) that my wife won't join me is(are) the typical of probably most women. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was what might be called a "non-answer."

But if your wife won't join you in nudism around the house then saying that the reason women won't go to nude venues is because of single males, sexually charged environments, and unwanted advances is just intellectually dishonest isn't it?

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by P.J.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As a man who is straight, conservative, a religious fundamentalist right, a musician (whose musical styles includes rock) and a nudist, I take offense to his (and anyone elses) allegations that people like me are all the same: against freedom.

Are you against gay marriage? Because if you oppose gay marriage, you do not believe in freedom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good morning Eric,

I'm sure that you already know the answer!

I do not believe in same sex marriage. I do, however, believe in freedom. There are limits which must be imposed on certain freedoms.

Even though perfect harmony can't be achieved, we all still need to live together.

I believe in free speech, but that doesn't give either one of us the right to scream "Fire!" in a movie theater.

By the way, the subject is "sex and nudity." Let's not digress too far into other controversial subjects.

We should all agree that we do not have to agree. (Of course, there should we should refrain from insulting others and pinning label on those who disagree.) Is that too much to ask?

Instead of bringing up the subject gay marriage into this discussion, I cordially and with respect to your views, suggest initiating the topic of same-sex marriage, with perhaps a poll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eric, I too would like to see a poll and thread on that topic. I think it will be <cough cough> enlightening and entertaining to see how those who oppose gay marriage defend "seperate but not equal" when court after court has ruled that individuals can't be treated different differently just because of their gender.

Oh yes, some will claim that their particular brand of religion opposed gay marriage. That's fine. Nobody is asking, or even suggesting, that those churches, temples, or mosques perform or bless these marriages. We are talking about the right to a "civil marriage" as licensed by the state.

A thread on this topic will be interesting. In this country the Republican/Conservatives claim that they want less laws, less government intrusion, and more individual freedoms. In short, they want the government out of their bedrooms. Yet, they seem to like intruding themselves into the bedrooms, lives, and love affiars of gay people. Interesting, isn't it?

[labrat93562]

We definately need a new thread in a different section. this one has rarely stayed on topic and is in "Fun of nude Recreation" the posts on here aren't fun. especially when one poster in particular is bent on letting us americans know how stupid and unenlightened we all are. From my point of view it's been much more political.

[Eric6420]

How is letting two people of the same gender signify their love and commitment to each other by being married and having legal rights and responsibilities something that they should not be allowed to do? How is that akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater? I see no reason for not permitting it other than some people just don't want gay people to have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.


Very well said Jon. By the way, people like P.J gives religion a very bad name.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by labrat93562:
We definately need a new thread in a different section. this one has rarely stayed on topic and is in "Fun of nude Recreation" the posts on here aren't fun. especially when one poster in particular is bent on letting us americans know how stupid and unenlightened we all are. From my point of view it's been much more political.

Maybe you just not like the subject. Religion, nudity and sex are all related. Christainity had put to death homosexuals, but now gay people have the right to live in most civilised places, and we will not let people like P.J. to destroy our lives again!

[walter05]

NudeTopher, on August 14, 2007 10:42 PM you said, "Yet, they are quite intolerant. When my cousin was doing his internship some of the hospital's department heads were Orthodox. Since my cousin was brought up in a Reform environment they told him that (1) he wasn't Jewish and (2) he was treated significantly different from med students they considered "their own."

I never said that Orthodox Jews are intolerant. I said some individuals might be because there are intolerant people in all groups.

I don't know the specifics of your friend. However, if he was converted, or his mother was by a reformed Rabbi, or his mother was not converted, or a reformed Rabbi converted his mother’s mother, Orthodox Judaism will not recognize the person as Jewish.

Orthodox Judaism, based on a verse in Deuteronomy, believes that the Torah says that who is Jewish by birth is determined by the mother. If she is Jewish, then the child is Jewish.

According to Orthodox Judaism, in order to convert, one must accept the commandments in the Torah. One must appear before a rabbinical court that is composed of Sabbath observant Jews, following all of the laws in the Torah, and testify to that effect. Since Reformed Rabbis reject the requirement to be Sabbath observant, Orthodox Jews believe they are not qualified to accept the testimony. Therefore, Orthodox Jews will not accept them for conversion.

The last issue could involve if your friend is a male. A male Jewish child must have a Bris. This includes a circumcision that is performed for the purpose of joining in the covenant of Abraham. If the child is circumcised but not for religious purposes, this is not sufficient. A male growing up reformed is not assumed to have had a Bris according to Jewish law.

It is unfortunate, but as David77 stated, there is a fundamental difference in religious views between Orthodox Judaism and Reformed Judaism. Orthodox Judaism believes that the Torah is the word of our creator and lord. Reformed Judaism does not. Orthodox Jews don’t believe that a Jew has a duty to fulfill the word of the creator and lord. Reformed Judaism believes that we can reinterpret and accept what we want. These are fundamental differences.

Because of those differences, someone growing up in a Reformed Jewish family will not automatically be considered Jewish by many Orthodox Jews. Growing up reformed, the person may have had a conversion considered invalid by Orthodox Jews, have a mother not considered Jewish by Orthodox Jews, or if a male, not have had a Bris recognized by Orthodox Jews.

If we want to have tolerance for the right of Reformed Jews to believe what they will, we should accept the same right for Orthodox Jews. 3,319 years ago, the Jews were at Mount Sinai and received the Torah. Ever since then, Orthodox Jews have believed in the divine origin of the Torah. If we want to give Reformed Jews the right to reject that the Torah is divine, we can’t we give Orthodox Jews the right to believe the Torah is divine. If the Torah is divine, it is reasonable for Orthodox Jews attempting to serve their creator to follow that word.

You have asked PJ to answer your question. I posed a possible solution to the marriage question posted on August 13, 2007 12:59 PM. You have not answered me providing your view on my suggestion. I would still like to see it.

[Eric6420]

Well, Forgive me for being a little rude Walter,
but I really think that monotheism is not a natural religion to man, like animism would be for example.

I also think that rationality should have a bigger influence than mythology.

And what to think of a religion that had said to put homosexuals to death for centuries, creating a lot of suffering and homophobia also duplicated in christianity and islam?

Scientifically, the human race will be dead in 50 years from now because of ecology collapse. I do not think that God will save us from men irresponsability, if he exists at all.

So maybe we should be a little more focussed on reality and rationality rather than to follow the laws of a god we have no proofs of.

[MoonShadow]

Good thread going here!

Personally, I would advocate for the removal of ALL organized religions. These so-called religions have done nothing but create havoc, hatred, and intolerance for centuries and still do. Get rid of them!

For me, there is no god that speaks to me. I learned good from bad without any religion or god. I learned to be caring, kind, and accepting of all races without any religion or god. We don't need organized religion to tell us what is good and bad; that we can do as a society which we learn fron our adult-authority figures.

To not believe in same-sex marriage is the same as not believing that all people are created equally. Homosexuality is as much a part of our existence as any other kind of sexuality. Many people need to wake up to this fact rather than stick their heads in the religious sand they claim to follow.

My posting will surely offend some of the posters here which is not the intent. It is just my personal opinion only.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
To not believe in same-sex marriage is the same as not believing that all people are created equally.

I don't want to disrespect your (non)religious beliefs, however that is far from true. To believe in so-called "same sex marriage" is to deny the age old meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage is not a list of government benefits given to promote "love." Marriage has always meant the biological union that produces children and the biological creation of children. For far more thousands of years than any of the modern religions, and across virtually all primitive tribes as well as civilized cultures, human societies have recognized and supported the sexual union that creates the next generation.

Every society has a very strong vested interest in creating, nurturing, and raising the next generation of itself. If children aren't produced and raised well the society will vanish, and over the history of our race many societies have vanished. There was a time when our whole species was down to a few thousand people. Right now, due to technology, our species is prospering, but we are never more than one generation away fron extinction.

Surrounding the ancient biological union that creates the next generation most societies provide encouragement and support for the man and woman who are bearing the monumental personal cost of doing so. The support is meant to offset huge costs of bearing and raising children, and to protect the families that are thus created. It has never been just a list of govenrment benefits to encourage "love." It's not about "a commitment to each other." It never has been. Marriage IS the creation of children, and the social support for the creation of children.

The more "progressive" European nations have birth rates well below survival. They have not been promoting and encouraging the age old custom and tradition of marriage and creation of the next generation of themselves. They are "progressing" themselves toward oblivion.

To oppose the fiction of "gay marriage" is to support the thousand millennia old social encouragement of and support for those who bear the next generation of our species. It is hugely expensive in time, money, and emotional effort to so so, and a little encouragement of the whole society is a small price to pay. Siphoning off social benefits intended for families with children to give to those who will not bear the costs and in fact turn their backs on the needs of society for it's next generation is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

Someone who bears no personal expense, gives up no working hours or lifestyle fun, and turns away from all the other costs of bearing children and raising a family does not need nor deserve the social support intended to partially offset those huge costs. And they never will be a family, joined by biology in the next generation.

It's got nothing to do with religoin, and transcends all ancient and modern religions. It has nothing to do with "hating gay." It's got nothing to do with being "created equal." It's about the meaning and purpose of marriage, the creation of children in supportive families, and caring about the next generation of our society.

To believe in so-called "same sex marriage" is the same as opposing marriage, families and children, and to oppose a secure future for the whole scoiety.

Blessnigs
Bob

[Eric6420]

What Bobx do not understand, is that the ecology is about to callapse because 6 billions humans beings is simply too much for mother Earth.

Over one billion people have no clean water to drink and they get sick. Bobx, with your creation values, how much more children do you want who do not have proper water to drink?

How much more children who have nothing to eat you want to add? How far will you push your creation agenda?

The human race will scientifically be dead in 50 years. How much humans you want to add to that tragedy? How fast you want to spead that tragedy?

By the way, western countries are the first responsables for that ecology desaster. One American polutes like 10 Indians.

[Sanslines]

Every society has a very strong vested interest in creating, nurturing, and raising the next generation of itself. If children aren't produced and raised well the society will vanish, and over the history of our race many societies have vanished. There was a time when our whole species was down to a few thousand people. Right now, due to technology, our species is prospering, but we are never more than one generation away fron extinction.

We currently have the exact opposite problem to extinction, with no end in sight to this tragedy in the making. We are in very real danger of destroying this planet due to overpopulation. The human population contines to increase at an exponential rate on a planet with finite resources. Unless we wake up and realize that certain problems are within our control to grasp and handle, there will be no hope for us and we will destroy this planet. Blaming and hiding behind God, when we refuse to accept that God gives man freedom and with that freedom comes intelligent responsibility, will doom us all.

The current societal attitudes towards marriage and children are also very wrong. Our society is set up to encourage marriage and child bearing at all costs. Our society does not seem to understand that some people are just better off not having children or getting married and there should be nothing wrong with that. Instead, we treat those who do not conform to the traditional man and woman marriage that bears children ( ie singles, gays, etc) as outcasts. You would think that based upon our high divorce rates and children who suffer during their formative years due to abusive and 'defective' parents that we would have opened our eyes and learned something by now.

[Pete Knight]

Get a grip on life you people, marriage is as false as religion, they are creations of the human race.

The sole function of any species is to procreate and improve its gene pool, we humans have completely a totally messed that up by thinking, we may be able make iron, we may be able to make contraptions, but we are destroying the planet in the process. The other down side of our increased intelligence is our beliefs, we believe in gods, we forget our purpose, and same sex relationships do not fulfil that purpose.

One day different sex relationships will be outlawed, then the human race will either become extinct or babies will be created within a laboratory in test tubes, I mean how outrageous does that sound!

Pete Knight

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
What Bobx do not understand, is that the ecology is about to callapse because 6 billions humans beings is simply too much for mother Earth.

So, how many missing generations would the human race survive?

Blessings
Bob

[Eric6420]

One day different sex relationships will be outlawed, then the human race will either become extinct or babies will be created within a laboratory in test tubes, I mean how outrageous does that sound!


I think that there is paranoia here. By the way, the Geek civilisation considered homosexuality normal, and the Greeks are still there today.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
The current societal attitudes towards marriage and children are also very wrong. Our society is set up to encourage marriage and child bearing at all costs. Our society does not seem to understand that some people are just better off not having children or getting married and there should be nothing wrong with that.

Yes, when the population gets too large, the society does not need to encourage so many marriages and/or so many children. In China they now encourage marriages to produce only 1 child, thus reducing the population in half every generation.

Other people should be encouraged not to marry, not to join together biologically to produce children. They should love all they like, whomever they want and have a nice, childless life. Choosing not to form a marriage and family is a good option in times of overpopulaiton.

Some children will always be needed because the species is never more than 1 generation away from extinction. Supporting the monumental biological, financial, and emotional costs of bearing those children is a basic social need for every human society.

Blessings
Bob

[Eric6420]

And I think that to recognise the value of gay people would not be a luxury, after centuries of oppression.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
Get a grip on life you people, marriage is as false as religion, they are creations of the human race.


After reading this thread over the last few days and resisting the tremendous urge to throttle a couple of nincompoops posting here I had to respond to the statement above.

It is short, sweet and ACCURATE.

Religion is nothing but a construct of man to control other men.
Marriage is nothing more than an economic union of two or more entities for the purpose of pooling resources for survival.

All other 'connotations' slapped on and over them do not change the facts as to what they are.

This entire thread is a joke and has been made so by the aforementioned nincompoops.
The already nebulous nature of the common thought that nudity equals sex has been further solidified by this ongoing repetitiveness here along with the innumerable 'penis', 'shaving', etc., threads as well as other 'sex' threads we have had to endure on these forums - none of which have done any service to nudism, mainly due to nincompoops (past and present), such as those posting here.

Any serious discussion on any of the aforementioned topics has been perverted into a series of incoherent ravings each time a topic has been breeched, to the point we 'grizzled veterans' simply go for the humor and/or ignore them as long as possible.
The need for open and frank discussions on these topics is there - to quell the misinformed idea(s) about nudism and nudists themselves - but the desire is evidently not. As a consequence the misinformed idea(s) will have further time to set and as it is said "some minds are like concrete, all mixed up and permanently set".
Do we really want to help the 'setting' process?

[jon71]

We're duplicating ourselves between here and the marriage poll. Oh well. What we are arguaing about is LEGAL marriage. This is not holy matrimony which could be considered a church matter. This is EXCLUSIVELY about legal rights given to people by the govt. It doesn't matter what the church thinks. It is not about finances, although that is a consideration in marriage. It is not about raising children. Lots of single people have kids (and the numbers are growing fast, mostly by people who want to be a single parent) and also plenty of married couples don't have kids. This is about the civil rights of America. The supreme court ruled that marriage is a civil right. As such there is no justifiable argument for denying that to someone becasue you don't like the demographic group they belong to.

[walter05]

Eric, MoonShadow, Sanslines, Pete Knight, Nacktman;

I am Jewish. I don't need your permission to believe anything. I have not stated what opinion is correct. I don't think you need my permission to believe anything either.

Eric, you said that the Greeks approved of homosexuality and that is true. However the Greek culture with the worship of many deities is dead. There are descendants of the Greeks and some aspects of that culture, but the Greek faith and culture is dead. Judaism continues to survive and thrive.

I am also the proud father of six children. I love them very much and am very proud of them. They are not destroying the planet. On the contrary, the kindness, tolerance and respect they show others is what our planet needs to survive.

Orthodox Jews don't advocate discrimination against anyone. We accept that people believe and do things we disagree with. Can those of you who claim to be liberal and tolerant accept people who believe things you don’t?

Eric;

You claim that homophobia is the problem. The intolerance and disrespect you loudly exhibit for anyone who disagrees with you is the problem. This is true whether religion is involved or not.

I don't care how you enjoy your sexuality as long as it is private.

I don't eat ham, shellfish, or accept Jesus as my savior. However, I respect and admire many people who do.

I don't ask you to approve of what I believe in because I don't care about your opinion of what I believe in.

I only ask you to respect me as a human being and to respect my right to believe as I wish. I resent it when the Christian Missionary knocks on my door to try and force his or her beliefs on me. I resent it just as much when an atheist does the same.

I judge people by their ability to be honest, respectful, reliable, and kind human beings. If they have those qualities, I think those human beings are great. If they have those qualities because they are Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, Jewish, etc., I respect and admire the religions that helped shape such wonderful human beings.

Many of you are extremely intolerant. If someone does not believe as you do, they believe in myth and want to burn people at the stake. The Soviet Union was and Communist China is atheist. Between them, estimates are that as many as fifty million people died cruel deaths in the last hundred years. Atheistic intolerance is just as dangerous as religious intolerance.

2,319 years ago, Alexander the Great conquered ancient Judea. While he was alive, he had a lot of respect for Judaism and there were no problems.

When he died, his empire was divided into three parts. Ptolemy, from Alexandria Egypt became the ruler of Judea as well. Antiochus of Syria won a war and capture ancient Judea. Starting 2,252 years ago, the Greeks started persecuting the Jews. During that time, the Greeks said that the faith of the Jews was mythology, intolerant, and enacted decrees against practicing it.

2,146 years ago, the Jews successfully revolted and we have the holiday of Chanukah as a result. The Romans, Byzantines, Holy Roman Empire, Moslem Empire, Inquisition, etc. all took the same position. All of them are on the ash heap of history while the Jews are still here. I am confident that despite the new attempts to be intolerant towards our following our faith, Judaism will be around when the current attempt has failed.

[Eric6420]

You claim that homophobia is the problem. The intolerance and disrespect you loudly exhibit for anyone who disagrees with you is the problem. This is true whether religion is involved or not.

I think that homophobia is simply not tolarable. It is not better than any other form of racism or prejudices.

[walter05]

Eric;

I think intolerance is the problem regardless of how it is expressed. You think only one kind of intolerance is the problem.

[Sanslines]

Eric,

Please do not confuse what I am saying here because I am most definitely not against gays. I personally know many gay men who are the nicest, most respectful, and most caring individuals that you could ever meet.

The problem today with homophobia is that many people do not really understand it and are fearful of what they do not understand. In so many cases, what makes news, is the inappropriate behavior of those individuals who just happen to also be gay. The focus automatically shifts to the gay aspect and becomes something to the effect that: "if they were not gay, then they would not be doing that". Inappropriate behavior is just plain inappropriate regardless of whether a person is single, married, tall, short, thin, heavy, straight, gay.

There are many fine gay men and women who chose to have a same sex partner. Upon closer inspection of their unions, open minded people would see two supportive and caring individuals who will care for each other within the confines of their meaningful relationship. Being gay is not exclusively about sex anymore then being straight is exclusively about sex.

[Eric6420]

The problem today with homophobia is that many people do not really understand it and are fearful of what they do not understand.


I do not believe that people do not understand it. Homophobia is the same as racism. The excuses are the same.

[Eric6420]

Being gay is not exclusively about sex anymore then being straight is exclusively about sex.


No, but sex is the reason why gays have been persecuted for centuries, and what you call "inapropriate behavior" is mysterious to me.

Is two men kissing or holding hands in public is inapropriate behavior according to you?

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by walter05:
Eric;

I think intolerance is the problem regardless of how it is expressed. You think only one kind of intolerance is the problem.

Because I should respect people who says that I am a pervert? Or people who compares gay sex to putting fire on a theater?

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Religion is nothing but a construct of man to control other men.
No argument there!
Marriage is nothing more than an economic union of two or more entities for the purpose of pooling resources for survival.
This I have to take issue with, the only reason why people have to pool resources, in what you call an economic union, is because the human race has created a situation that no other creature on this planet has done. Many creatures have a symbiotic relationship with other species, but humans are the only ones who trade for survival, in all other couplings the rearing of offspring is their sole purpose. The gathering of food is done in many ways, but humans are the only ones that use tokens to trade for goods and food to survive, marriage is a societal creation not a necessity.

Please don't anyone accuse me of being homophobic, nowhere in my statement did I say anything against gays, I merely pointed out the realities of life, I have many gay friends and despite admiring them for who they are I still can't accept that homosexuality is something they were born with, it is a creation of the human mind.

I agree that homosexuals were oppressed in the past, but that is no longer, on the whole, true today, I tire of the gays with a chip on their shoulder who take offence at every little thing, and are unable to accept that it is indeed most often men engaging in s*x on the beaches that cause the problems, even my gay friends agree.
Being on the defensive just because gay men are mentioned as culprits does the gay or naturist movement any good.

Anyway as I've pointed out elsewhere, most of the men engaged in s*xual activity on the beaches are most often middle aged married men who are exploring their s*xuality and not gays as such, and their are web sites where they arrange meeting away from their married existence.

There is a beach support group in the UK that has many gay members, they too are horrified at the goings on in the dunes and are in the forefront of trying to save the beach from closure. This goings on in the dunes are the target of police action, but the perpetrators are labelled as naturists which alarms the gay nudists as they know its not true, we should all work together to stop the s*xual activity on the beach no matter who is at it. The gay community have a part to play in this as well as it is they are tarnished by this not just the nudists.

Now lets move away from the accusations and get on with promoting nudism, I believe that's what this forum is supposed to be about.

Pete Knight

[atalanta]

quote: I don't want to disrespect your (non)religious beliefs, however that is far from true. To believe in so-called "same sex marriage" is to deny the age old meaning and purpose of marriage. Marriage is not a list of government benefits given to promote "love." Marriage has always meant the biological union that produces children and the biological creation of children. For far more thousands of years than any of the modern religions, and across virtually all primitive tribes as well as civilized cultures, human societies have recognized and supported the sexual union that creates the next generation. unquote

It's not too often I agree with Bobx etc but on this topic he has generally been pretty sound.

[Sanslines]

No, but sex is the reason why gays have been persecuted for centuries, and what you call "inapropriate behavior" is mysterious to me.

Is two men kissing or holding hands in public is inapropriate behavior according to you?

Sex is not the only reason why gays have been persecuted for centuries. The primarily reason was that religions preached a traditional approach to marriage and procreation. This approach was simply that a man and a woman were to join in a union and out of this union were to come children. Any lifestyle that deviated from this resulted in persecutions.

It must also be understood that in pre renaissance and renaissance days, most people in Europe were illiterate. Education was considered a luxury for the rich and elite. As a result, many people could not read and write. The primary means of communication in those days was through visual means - ie drawings and paintings (the age of the great masters). As a result of this, many people's understanding of the world around them was very limited and the main form of education came from religion.

Inappropriate behavior to one person may be appropriate behavior to another. Hence the reasons for my use of a nebulous phrase. Cultural backgrounds play a very important role in defining inappropriate behavior. In the Middle East and parts of Europe, it is not uncommon to see men holding hands.

An example of inappropriate behavior in the USA would be for couples (gay or straight) to engage in sex in a public park or square in full view of anyone and eveyone in town. Most people would consider this to be inappropriate behavior.

I overheard a man talking to his g/f the other day. He was telling his g/f that it was his opinion that it is perfectly acceptable for two women to be kissing in public but it is not acceptable for men to be kissing in public. He also stated that it is acceptable for two women to be holding hands in public but not acceptable for two men to be holding hands. This is his opinion and it may or may not be in agreement with others.

Everyone has their own definition of what is acceptable and what is not.

What is fair is that all groups be held to the same standards and rules.

[Eric6420]

I still can't accept that homosexuality is something they were born with, it is a creation of the human mind.

Pete, a lot of the things that you say are simply homophobic or not true.

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still can't accept that homosexuality is something they were born with, it is a creation of the human mind.

Pete, a lot of the things that you say are simply homophobic or not true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How do you derive from that statement that I'm homophobic, please elucidate, I'm eager to know. There are many things I truly hate and can therefore be called phobic about, but not about gays I can assure you. Before you accuse me of anything else you really should get to know me first.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Unanswered question, trolls don't answer questions, they continually ask them.</span>

That is the kind of hysteria I was trying to point out, you have a huge chip on your shoulder and you're spoiling for a fight, well take it elsewhere.


Pete Knight

[Eric6420]

Pete, would you accept the idea that heterosexuality is just the creation of the human mind?

And do you support gay marriage? With all you gay friends you should.

[walter05]

Eric;

I did not say those things that you object to.

I think you want me to say that homosexual relations are as acceptable to me participate in as heterosexual relations. I am not prepared to state that. However since I am happily married, and only sexually interested in and active with my wife, it is an irrelevant question to me.

To answer your question about two men kissing or holding hands in public, it depends. If any two people, heterosexual or homosexual, are engaged in pubic sexually oriented behavior, I find it degrading to human beings.

These days there is far too much public sexual behavior. I wonder if the heterosexuals were not practicing so much openly whether or not the homosexuals would.

I never called you a pervert or compared gay sex to putting on a fire in a crowded theatre. I never would.

There are no documented cases of someone being put to death by any rabbinical court due to homosexual activity. Back in the times of ancient Judea or Israel, the use of capital punishment was quite rare. The Sanhedrin, the only court capable of sentencing someone to capital punishment was required to go to great lengths to avoid capital punishment.

I agree that the church’s history of putting to death those who did not follow its doctrines is shameful. I will point out though that more Orthodox Jews were put to death over the millennium than homosexuals. Please don’t only object to the unfair treatment of homosexuals and support the unfair treatment of another minority group.

Instead, I am saying that sex is personal, should be private, and no one else's business.

I believe as my ancestors have for over 3,000 years that the creator of the world presented us with a set of instructions. I don't understand all of those instructions. However, I do know that as I have studied them and followed them, I have been able to have a fulfilling, loving life. The more I observe and learn of them, the clearer it is to me that they are given from a loving individual superior to me.

If a human being could understand all of those laws a human being could have written them. All religions require some faith, and this is the part of religion that is as much emotional as logical. I have faith that the commandments provide the best way to live.

I don't insist that you agree with me. I only insist that you respect my right to believe what I will. I won't impose my views on you and ask the same of you.

If a man wants to have sex with another man, or a man have sex with someone other than his wife, or someone wants to do anything else forbidden in the Torah, I will not approve. On the other hand, I respect everyone’s right to make their own choices and don’t wish to impose my views on them.

I do think that the adulterous man who is violating his sacred oath to his wife and possibly causing great damage to his kids is the one I would think least of. I refused to work with someone who did that because I believe if his wife and creator could not trust him, then neither could I. I consider the current state of infidelity from those who claim to support and practice marriage to be the real serious threat to morality today. I would prefer we focus on that than peoples’ private sexual behavior.

[Pete Knight]

How do we define inappropriate behaviour, that too has been picked out by the chip on the shoulder gays, it has nothing to do with s*xual inclination, it has everything to do with s*xual acts, which doesn't include kissing, holding hands or walking arm in arm down the beach.

S*xual arousal and foreplay are more than you would subject children to, and that is the key, if its not right for children its not right for the beach.

Its like debating with Marvin the paranoid android sometimes. (Can anyone tell me which book that's from?)

Pete Knight

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
Pete, would you accept the idea that heterosexuality is just the creation of the human mind?

And do you support gay marriage? With all you gay friends you should.

Why are you trying to lead this thread into your paranoid little world?

Pete Knight

[Eric6420]

Walter,

I really respect what you are even though I do not share the same faith as you.

Your post is well written, respectfull and instructive.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
Pete, would you accept the idea that heterosexuality is just the creation of the human mind?

And do you support gay marriage? With all you gay friends you should.

Why are you trying to lead this thread into your paranoid little world?

Pete Knight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's look like an insult. And you do not answer my questions...

[walter05]

Eric;

That being the case then I think there are some things we can agree on.

You and I will not have sex.

We will not sit down and agree on all religious instruction.

We can enjoy a meal together or each other's company.

If I met you, we would shake hands. If we become close enough friends, I would even give you a hug when we meet. I am not afraid of you or consider you revolting.

We can even enjoy a day at a nude beach together. I am not afraid to be with you even if we are nude.

P.S. How do you feel about my question to NudeTopher about my solution to the marriage question.

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Knight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
Pete, would you accept the idea that heterosexuality is just the creation of the human mind?

And do you support gay marriage? With all you gay friends you should.


Why are you trying to lead this thread into your paranoid little world?

Pete Knight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's look like an insult. And you do not answer my questions... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its simply a case of not feeding the troll!

[nifocinphx]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
... Its like debating with Marvin the paranoid android sometimes. (Can anyone tell me which book that's from?)

Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

nifocinphx http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/user.gif

[Eric6420]

Walter,

I went to see your propositions about gay marriage. That's correct. I just think that marriage is just not only a religious thing and that it is important that the government recognised it.

But, you are very open mind, and if everybody was as tolerant as you, gay people would not have the problems that we have now.

[Pete Knight]

Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Spot on old chap, well done, you win first prize!

Collect only, sorry!

Pete Knight

[walter05]

Eric;

I think we have now come to a place where this forum was designed for. We have, heatedly at times, discussed a tough issue and come to a place where we can agree and agree to disagree respectfully.

I thank you for your thoughtful participation.

I wish you well. I will be in Canada in the next few weeks. Send me a Private Message and I will be happy to take you to dinner if practical. I meant what I said.

It is clear to me that you have been through a lot of pain. A lot of people have really hurt you. I am sorry for that.

Just as I said I don't need you to approve of my beliefs, I believe it works in reverse. If you are an honest, kind, trustworthy, respectful, and tolerant person, you have a lot to be proud of. I would focus on being proud of who you are.

[walter05]

Eric;

Rereading your post, I missed the marriage question. I really think government should not recognize marriage at all. I really think it is a religious matter and not appropriate for government.

Then any religous group can set whatever rules they want for marriage.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pete Knight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
Pete, would you accept the idea that heterosexuality is just the creation of the human mind?

And do you support gay marriage? With all you gay friends you should.


Why are you trying to lead this thread into your paranoid little world?

Pete Knight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's look like an insult. And you do not answer my questions... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its simply a case of not feeding the troll! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Peter what you wrote to me is completly irrational. You are insulted to be called a homophobe, but you do not want to say if you support gay marriage.

Even Bobx posts are more interesting than yours. What you do is personal attaks against me.

You say anything about homosexuality and then you wonder why I call you a homophobe and you do not answers my questions.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by walter05:
Eric;

Rereading your post, I missed the marriage question. I really think government should not recognize marriage at all. I really think it is a religious matter and not appropriate for government.

Then any religous group can set whatever rules they want for marriage.

You have the right to think that. But then, how people who are not religious get married?

[walter05]

They can enter whatever contracts they want.

If they want to call it marriage, that is okay.

If it is a religious matter, that does not mean that some organized religion has to sanction it. Some people are religious without participating in an organized religion.

If someone has no religious belief, then I wonder why that person needs to enter into a marriage and why the other contracts are not sufficient.

[MoonShadow]

Simple solution -- Get rid of all organized religions. Get rid of any church sanctioned marriages. Let there only be civil marriages by the local courts. Let those who want to marry another no matter what the combination is do so openly and freely.

I don't think churches should have any right as to who gets married or not. To JUDGE someone by their sexual preference and refuse to join them in matrimony is another hypocritical aspect of organized religion.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by walter05:
They can enter whatever contracts they want.

If they want to call it marriage, that is okay.

If it is a religious matter, that does not mean that some organized religion has to sanction it. Some people are religious without participating in an organized religion.

If someone has no religious belief, then I wonder why that person needs to enter into a marriage and why the other contracts are not sufficient.
I don't see any connection between religion and marriage, apart from most British couples want a traditional church wedding as it appears romantic.

Even a marriage in a church in the UK still has to be entered in a civil register to be legal, any marriage, no matter where it is performed, is a contract between two people.

Pete Knight

[Eric6420]

Walter,

The only problem is that we live in a world where government in most western countries has a role to play in the recognition of marriages.

If no one marriage was recognised by government, that would be fair, but for pratical reasons people who get married have a lot of rights that non married people do not have.

But your solution is moraly ecxellent, it is just that society is organised in a way in which goverment do a lot of things.

On the other hand, I do not understand why you want to keep the government out of the business of marriage?

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Simple solution -- Get rid of all organized religions. Get rid of any church sanctioned marriages. Let there only be civil marriages by the local courts. Let those who want to marry another no matter what the combination is do so openly and freely.

I don't think churches should have any right as to who gets married or not. To JUDGE someone by their sexual preference and refuse to join them in matrimony is another hypocritical aspect of organized religion.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif
I take quite the opposite position.

As long as there is a church willing to marry a couple, the Government MUST recognize the marriage and extend all the benefits it provides for any other marriage.

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church - government has absolutely no right to interfere with church sacraments. If government sees fit to recognize the union stemming from that sacrament, it must accept whomever the particular church in question allows or does not allow to receive that sacrament. The government should be absolutely prohibited from accepting and extending civil recognition and legal accommodations to one church's sacrament of marriage, yet reject that of another.

Therefore, if a church allows a couple of different races to marry, the government MUST recognize that as a legal marriage. If any particular church allows two women to marry, government MUST recognize that as a legal marriage.

Indeed the ONLY time government should have any role in qualifying who may and may not marry is when the Government itself it the only authority sanctioning the marriage - that is civil marriage absent a religious marriage sacrament.

Of course that means that polygamy and child marriage would also have to be recognized if performed by a church. I agree that is problematic, but I would argue that so long as there was no coercion on any party, and they are competent to make a choice, they SHOULD be recognized. But in the case of Child Marriage child protection laws would still apply. Assuming they can cross the hurdle of a young minor being competent to consent, 'marital relations' between an adult and minor would still be illegal, just as spousal battery is still illegal.

-Mark

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, but sex is the reason why gays have been persecuted for centuries, and what you call "inapropriate behavior" is mysterious to me.

Is two men kissing or holding hands in public is inapropriate behavior according to you?

Sex is not the only reason why gays have been persecuted for centuries. The primarily reason was that religions preached a traditional approach to marriage and procreation. This approach was simply that a man and a woman were to join in a union and out of this union were to come children. Any lifestyle that deviated from this resulted in persecutions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In ancient Babylon the oldest surviving code of law, The Code of Hamarabi, makes it a crime to own a field and allow it to lie fallow. Where a nation or culture is in need of all of its resources for survival, it criticizes or criminalizes those who fail to use their efforts to the benefit of the community, those who allow resources to lie fallow.

In similar manner many ancient civilizations criminalized or at least persecuted those who refused to participate in the bearing and raising of children, a valuable and needed resource for the society. Such tabboos and persecutions are rarely about who's kissing who, but rather they are about who is participating in the work of the community and who is turning his/her back on the needs of the community. In many civilizations from tribal villages to nation states every member was needed and expected to participate. Having a large percentage of non-participants is a luxury that (maybe) modern technological nations can afford, but it hasn't been that way very long.

Whatever criticism there was about gays over many centuries, it wasn't about prejudice, and it wasn't about religion. It was about people who failed to participate in the necissary work of the community, bearing and raising the children.

Blessings
Bob

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by MoonShadow:
Simple solution -- Get rid of all organized religions. Get rid of any church sanctioned marriages. Let there only be civil marriages by the local courts. Let those who want to marry another no matter what the combination is do so openly and freely.

I don't think churches should have any right as to who gets married or not. To JUDGE someone by their sexual preference and refuse to join them in matrimony is another hypocritical aspect of organized religion. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif


It's not about judging anyone. It's not about churches ruling the world. Marriage is about joining in the biological union to produce children. Anyone who chooses to join together to make children can be married. It's biology, not bigotry that creates a marriage.

Virtually all human religions, from primitive tribal medicine men to billions of Hindus, Buddhaists, Muhammidans, Christians, etc., have supported and approved the ages old biological unions that "Mother Nature" ordained for our species and every other species higher than slime mold.

Churches don't decide who marries, biology, or "mother nature" did that. Trashing marriage and won't make two gays have any more "love" for each other. Go in peace and have a good life.

Blessings
Bob

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
It's not about judging anyone. It's not about churches ruling the world.

Yes, it is.

Marriage is about joining in the biological union to produce children. Anyone who chooses to join together to make children can be married.

Really? Well then you better tell that to my 68 year old uncle who got married a couple of years ago. Or to my infertile cousin who got married at age 25. Sorry, but marriage isn't always about producing children. Children are an OPTION.

And just because a couple CAN'T produce children, whether gay or straight doesn't mean they are defective or inferior. Adoption is always an option and there are many happy children with same sex parents.

It's biology, not bigotry that creates a marriage.

It's bigotry that prevents legitimate marriages between loving couples. And I warn you.. I do not tolerate bigotry on this forum.

Churches don't decide who marries, biology, or "mother nature" did that.

Marriage is a human institution, not a natural one.

Trashing marriage and won't make two gays have any more "love" for each other. Go in peace and have a good life.

Your words are hollow. How can one have peace and a good life if they are denied the basic rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that everyone else is entitled to?

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
Marriage is a human institution, not a natural one.
Maybe yes, maybe no. In some ways it would be considered natural if it were viewed as two people wanting to make a long term commitment to mutual survival.

What we currently have sure doesn't look natural because the government is actively making this a religious issue when this shouldn't be allowed. Fat chance of getting the conservative Supreme Court to ever allow the problem to be fixed.

[Bobx23456]

Oh horrors. I seem to have political opinions not approved by the PC cops.

The leftist bias of CFF is well known. The "moderators" and their buddies flame anyone who disagrees with their left wing political agendas. We are not surprised.

There is no real discussion nor any freedom of thought when "PC" censorship "warns" anyone who disagrees with the established POV.

Sorry, Charlie, Bob has NEVER kowtowed to the PC censorship.

If you are so bigoted that you won't allow a real discussion then decent people don't want to participate on this bigoted board anyway.

[PascoDoug]

Oh horrors. I seem to have political opinions not approved by the PC cops.

Sorry, I hate politics. I much prefer common sense and rational thought.

The leftist bias of CFF is well known.

Perhaps to a handful of narrow-minded brethren who hide out on certain religious "naturist" forums.

The "moderators" and their buddies flame anyone who disagrees with their left wing political agendas. We are not surprised.

There is no agenda here and my "political" views are rather moderate.

And you apparently have no idea what a flame is. If my intention were to flame you, you would know it.

There is no real discussion nor any freedom of thought when "PC" censorship "warns" anyone who disagrees with the established POV.

Of course, you are OK with discriminating against groups who disagree with your own narrow established POV. Quite convenient.

Sorry, Charlie, Bob has NEVER kowtowed to the PC censorship.

Good for you. Neither have I

If you are so bigoted that you won't allow a real discussion then decent people don't want to participate on this bigoted board anyway.

Sir, this "board" is ripe with decent people. Being opposed to bigotry is not being bigoted - it's called decent people doing the right thing.

If you can't be decent as well then you know where the door is. Your predecessors found it easily enough.

Good day

[Eric6420]

Sir, this "board" is ripe with decent people. Being opposed to bigotry is not being bigoted - it's called decent people doing the right thing.


You are totally right. That is very true.

[Naturist Mark]

It's not about judging anyone. It's not about churches ruling the world. Marriage is about joining in the biological union to produce children. Anyone who chooses to join together to make children can be married. It's biology, not bigotry that creates a marriage.
In the United States of America, 27% of same sex couples between the ages of 22 and 55 are raising children. (http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=pressReleases&ext=samesexfamilies)
Virtually all human religions, from primitive tribal medicine men to billions of Hindus, Buddhaists, Muhammidans, Christians, etc., have supported and approved the ages old biological unions that "Mother Nature" ordained for our species and every other species higher than slime mold. Sorry, put pair bonding of parents to rear children is the exception in nearly all animals except birds (where 90% employ this biological strategy). Only 3% of mammals use this strategy. Homosexual bonding is pretty common in the Animal Kingdom, but ONLY occurs among those species that employ the pair bonding (or monogamy) biological strategy.

The sort of marriage 'supported' by Judeo-Christian scriptures is very different from the modern western norm of marriage. There are 8 kinds of Biblical marriages:

<LI> The 'standard' marriage of one man and one woman. Unlike modern western marriage this was almost invariably an arranged marriage - and may very well have involved the purchase of the woman from her father. An interfaith marriage was normally prohibited, and any children from one would be illegitimate. A bride who was presented in such a marriage as a virgin would be stoned to death if she 'proved' otherwise (no such penalty existed for men.)
<LI> Polygynous marriage - which is the norm, not the exception.
<LI> Levirate Marriage - when a woman is widowed without a child, she is required to marry her brother-in-law and beget children with him, the first born son of whom will be the legal heir of the late husband.
<LI> A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave
<LI> A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
<LI> A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
<LI> A male rapist and his victim
<LI> A male and female slave - normally arranged by the master. Women were often sold into permanent slavery by their fathers, but a man was usually only a slave for a period of time (no more than 7 years), when he left slavery his wife and children remained with the slave owner. Whenever anyone talks about "Biblical Marriage" or the type of marriage that God and the Bible ordain, these 8 types of marriages are what they are talking about.

The following is a proposed Constitutional Amendment designed to outlaw gay marriage and establish Biblical principals of marriage: A proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely
on biblical principles:

<LI> Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

<LI> Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

<LI> A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)

<LI> Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

<LI> Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

<LI> If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

<LI> In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Compared to That Olde Time Religion, gay marriage seems downright wholesome. The modern western notion of marriage is ethically a step (or a flight of steps) above 'traditional' marriage. Gay marriage is very much in the modern tradition, and in tune with the best of modern religious trends.

[Eric6420]

Thanks for that message, Naturist Mark, this is great information and reflexion.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no real discussion nor any freedom of thought when "PC" censorship "warns" anyone who disagrees with the established POV.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Of course, you are OK with discriminating against groups who disagree with your own narrow established POV. Quite convenient.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Egads! Great minds DO think alike! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif
I seem to recall posting virtually the same thing on another thread a couple of days ago. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif
O.K., my wording was a wee bit more 'colorful'. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sneaky.gif

[David77]

Natrist Mark.
Your last post on this thread listing the pathetic biblical guidance regarding marriage is a real eye opener, Thank you.

Also, The study of cultural anthropology reveals many variations of marriages of many cultures.

[nacktman]

Originally posted by David77:
... The study of cultural anthropology reveals many variations of marriages of many cultures.

Yes it does, and as one who has studied many of those variations I can tell you they all have one root basis in common - that being the joining of two or more entities for the purpose of 'economic' survival within the culture and era to which the 'joining' belongs.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by walter05:
NudeTopher, on August 14, 2007 10:42 PM you said, "Yet, they are quite intolerant. When my cousin was doing his internship some of the hospital's department heads were Orthodox. Since my cousin was brought up in a Reform environment they told him that (1) he wasn't Jewish and (2) he was treated significantly different from med students they considered "their own."

I never said that Orthodox Jews are intolerant. I said some individuals might be because there are intolerant people in all groups.

I don't know the specifics of your friend. However, if he was converted, or his mother was by a reformed Rabbi, or his mother was not converted, or a reformed Rabbi converted his mother’s mother, Orthodox Judaism will not recognize the person as Jewish.]
------------------------------------------------
In your first line you state the person I was talking about is my cousin and then you morphed him into being my friend.

My cousin IS Jewish not just on the maternal side of the family but the paternal as well.

The reason the Orthodox were giving him a hard time wasn't because of a lineage issue; but because he (and the rest of our family) isn't Orthodox. They (the Orthodox) don't recognize either Reform nor Conservatives as being fellow Jews. And, this made a work relationship both difficult and trying. In no place did I ever bring up conversions or anything else. I was just speaking about acceptance.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by walter05:
You have asked PJ to answer your question. I posed a possible solution to the marriage question posted on August 13, 2007 12:59 PM. You have not answered me providing your view on my suggestion. I would still like to see it.

There is a damn good reason I have not replied. I can't find ANY post by either of us posted on August 13th at 12:59 pm. Therefore, I don't know what you are talking about.

[walter05]

NudeTopher;

Here is the post again. I see that I originally posed the question to Eric.

>>>

Posted August 13, 2007 12:59 PM August 13, 2007 12:59 PM

Eric;

Since you raise the marriage issue and discuss the public sex issue, I want to provide my opinion.

Sex should promote closeness and be a form of special communication. As such, it should be private to promote that closeness. I find all public sex to be degrading of human beings and object to all of it.

As far as marriage, I think the government should stay out of the issue. If a couple of people want to form a contract, which enables them to share a lifetime of expenses and financial responsibilities that is fine. If they want a form of power of attorney over each other if one can't speak, that is fine. If they want to inherit each other, that is fine.

Those contracts should be promoted. They could then be recorded at the courthouse and enforced just as any contracts are.

Sexuality is none of the government's business. The government should not even know about it. Therefore, if two men, two women, or one of each want to form those contracts, that is fine.

If someone wants to be married for religious reasons, then a Synagogue, Church, Mosque, etc. should be able to permit the marriage per the rules of that faith.

In short, I think that marriage is a religious matter and the government should stay out and no longer sanction marriage at all. However, the general legal protections and privileges that are currently enjoyed by married couples could be enjoyed by anyone that enters in the correct contracts.

<<<

[walter05]

NudeTopher;

In your first line you state the person I was talking about is my cousin and then you morphed him into being my friend.

I apologize for that. Like many on this forum, I multitask. In this case I missed that detail. No offense intended. However, the points I made are still accurate.

You also said, “My cousin IS Jewish not just on the maternal side of the family but the paternal as well.

The reason the Orthodox were giving him a hard time wasn't because of a lineage issue; but because he (and the rest of our family) isn't Orthodox. They (the Orthodox) don't recognize either Reform nor Conservatives as being fellow Jews. And, this made a work relationship both difficult and trying. In no place did I ever bring up conversions or anything else. I was just speaking about acceptance.”

Whoever took that position was ignorant and was not representing the view of Jewish Law and the Torah. Please call the Orthodox Union and independently ask them the question. I am sure you will find that they agree with me.

I did raise the issue of the Bris and that is still in question. That would affect counting in a minyan, or quorum of ten Jewish men required for certain prayers and public Torah scroll reading. That would also affect who would get called up to read from the Torah Scroll. However the individual in question is still Jewish.

Anyone who says that reformed and conservative are not Jewish is not correctly reflecting the view of Jewish Law or the Torah.

Nacktman and I agree on an important point. If we were to take the opinions of one or two of the members of this forum and claim those views represent all nudists, that would be unfair.

There are people who are misinformed in all groups. There are also rude people in all groups. However, we should not judge those groups based on those people. Unfortunately, it sounds like your cousin was working with some rude people. If he is not working with them now, he should be thankful.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by walter05:
In short, I think that marriage is a religious matter and the government should stay out and no longer sanction marriage at all. However, the general legal protections and privileges that are currently enjoyed by married couples could be enjoyed by anyone that enters in the correct contracts.
<<<

Until about a century ago the government mostly stayed out of people's lives. Then they figured out that they could control and dominate the people by making everyday activity into a "priviledge" controlled by the government. They created a required license for driving, marriage, building your house, every normal part of living. Its all bureaucracy gone nuts.

Funny how the liberals always want MORE governemnt except when special classes of people are involved.

Blessings
Bob

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by walter05:
NudeTopher;

Here is the post again. I see that I originally posed the question to Eric.

>>>

Posted August 13, 2007 12:59 PM August 13, 2007 12:59 PM

Eric;

Since you raise the marriage issue and discuss the public sex issue, I want to provide my opinion.

Sex should promote closeness and be a form of special communication. As such, it should be private to promote that closeness. I find all public sex to be degrading of human beings and object to all of it.

As far as marriage, I think the government should stay out of the issue. If a couple of people want to form a contract, which enables them to share a lifetime of expenses and financial responsibilities that is fine. If they want a form of power of attorney over each other if one can't speak, that is fine. If they want to inherit each other, that is fine.

Those contracts should be promoted. They could then be recorded at the courthouse and enforced just as any contracts are.

Sexuality is none of the government's business. The government should not even know about it. Therefore, if two men, two women, or one of each want to form those contracts, that is fine.

If someone wants to be married for religious reasons, then a Synagogue, Church, Mosque, etc. should be able to permit the marriage per the rules of that faith.

In short, I think that marriage is a religious matter and the government should stay out and no longer sanction marriage at all. However, the general legal protections and privileges that are currently enjoyed by married couples could be enjoyed by anyone that enters in the correct contracts.

<<<

While I believe that no relgion should be told by the state that they need to bless and conduct weddings in which they don't believe; I don't believe that weddings should be the sole dominion of the religious.

How dare you take away marriage from those that can't have a religious wedding i.e. those from mixed religions, those who are agnostic or athiest, those who are don't qualify for a religious wedding for whatever other reasons.

By telling those people to "go into a contractual relationship" is telling those people that they are second class citizens.

Your suggestion is unacceptable!

[walter05]

Naturist Mark;

Your descriptions of the eight types of Biblical marriage are not accurate.

In the instance of number 1, it is true that an interfaith marriage is not recognized. However the child is not illegitimate. The Hebrew word “Mamzur” referring to a child of a forbidden union is not applicable. It applies to a child conceived through incest or some other forbidden sexual relationship. However, if the mother is Jewish, the child is Jewish. Since the father would not be Jewish, the child would not have had an inheritance of land from a tribe because the father had no tribe.

If the woman were not a virgin, there would be a financial penalty for her father and a voiding of the marriage contract. She would not be stoned.

In number 2, polygamous marriage was permitted. However, due to financial limitations it was not the norm.

For instance, in number 3, you failed to mention "Chalitzah" which was a process for getting out of it. The Leverite marriage served a different purpose. Should a man die without children, the man's family was still required to make sure that the widow was taken care of. Today, Chalitzah is the common practice. Prior to it being performed, financial arrangements for the widow are made.

Even today, when a Jewish man marries, his father and any brothers accept the responsibility to support the widow if the man dies.

Number 4 is reasonably close to being considered accurate.

Number 5 is accurate except that concubines also had a status as wives. The main difference was that children would not necessarily inherit from their fathers.

Number 6 is accurate. However, the Torah discourages this practice. There was a long process for the prisoner to go through designed to let his passions from war subside with the hope he would change his mind. If not and it was some true love, then it could go through.

Number 7 is not accurate at all. You would have to know the details of the law to know this.

Number 8 is not accurate because a male or female slave would not be able to marry since marriage is a contract that property could not enter into. Neither women nor men were sold into permanent slavery.

It would require study of the Talmudic tractate “Kesuvos” or marriage contracts to become knowledgeable on the subject. The laws involving marriage and divorce are very complex. I am certain that people on this forum would prefer we not turn this into a class on that subject.

The rabbinical courts also had another option. If someone was not acting in a proper manner, they could use various means of persuasion to get him or her to agree. Means could include forbidding people to do business with the person and even lashes. Therefore, a man would not be able to force his will on a woman because she would go to the court, which would intervene.

However, your post of August 15, 2007 03:50 PM is close to my opinion except one thing. The government should not recognize or impede any religious matter. I think this includes marriage. I often resent when Evangelists attempt to use the government to enforce their religious views on others. I think government should stay out of religion and vice versa. I think the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution got this right.

This is why it should be possible to bundle the contracts and legal privileges and protections to be provide to any two people. As I said before, the sexuality should not be a government matter at all.

[nunne]

Under our system of law in every State except Louisiana, definitions of marriage and its consequent legal implications are set out in the English common law.

Under this system, marriage raises profound issues of legal and property rights. Accordingly, it is imperative that the government be significantly involved in definitions and governing of marriage.

That does not mean, however, that the State has the right to be involved in the ceremony itself. In my state, no license from the state is required for those wihing to perform binding marriage ceremonies. Our law simply requires that the marriage be performed in accordance with a religious organization's established practices.

Once the marriage has then been entered into, all the rights, privileges and obligations provided by the powers of the state are brought into play. And the government is the source of all that. So, government has a major role in marriages, and cannot be eliminated as a significant player in the arrangement.

[walter05]

NudeTopher;

Jewish Marriages require a "Kesuvah" or marriage contract. The groom handing it to the bride signifying her acceptance of it is the essence of the wedding ceremony. I don't feel any less married because of it.

Your question was calmly and politely ask of me by Eric6420 on August 15, 2007 at 6:05 P.M.

I replied on August 15, 2007 06:09 PM "They can enter whatever contracts they want.

If they want to call it marriage, that is okay.

If it is a religious matter, that does not mean that some organized religion has to sanction it. Some people are religious without participating in an organized religion.

If someone has no religious belief, then I wonder why that person needs to enter into a marriage and why the other contracts are not sufficient."

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by walter05:
NudeTopher;

Unfortunately, it sounds like your cousin was working with some rude people. If he is not working with them now, he should be thankful.

Their intolerance of non-Orthodox Jews caused him to not continue his education at their hospital (which is one of the most prestigious in the region). He is now doing his residency at a large teaching hospital that's part of an ivy league school. You have to wonder who lost in this situation.

The attitude he encountered isn't unique. I've encounterd the same attitude from Hassidim. Thi all started with my comments on fundies. My opinion that all fudies regardless of religion are dangerous still stands.

[walter05]

NudeTopher;

Eric and I had a heated discussion. We read each other's words and worked to come to an accommodation. I grew as a result and believe he did. I have no objection to have a tough conversation with someone.

I learned a long time ago that whenever anyone says all of any group are dangerous, that person is ignorant and closed minded.

If I said all gays, or blacks, or women, or any group were dangerous, that would be wrong. So is your statement.

If you wish to have a conversation on points of logic we can. If you wish to say all of those people are dangerous, which is just plane bigoted, I have nothing further to say.

If your cousin is as bigoted as you, then I think there may be other reasons why those Orthodox Jews rejected him. After all, I am rejecting you due to your bigotry.

[nacktman]

Mark is entirely correct in his posting of the "eight" types of marriage in the judeo-christion tradition walter ... you are letting your particular "beliefs" cloud you perception. His assertion of what those "eight" types would be under modern constitutional law are pretty dead on as well ... the wording may be slightly different, but the intent would be the same.

nu'nne the roll of 'government' in the matter of marriage is that of the prevailing social center of our society and you are correct it can not be eliminated from the process.
However its only function should be to provide a centralized notification service to announce the contract between the marrying parties.
Religion has no part of the marriage process despite what some want to believe - as a ordained minister and historian who HAS performed many marriage rites, I know this.
The rite is naught save an announcement of the contract between the parties involved and is not a religious rite but a civil rite.
The fact that the "church" (in its various forms), in times past has been the prevailing social center of society and this is what has led and leads to the erroneous assumption that marriage is a religious thing.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by walter05:


If someone has no religious belief, then I wonder why that person needs to enter into a marriage and why the other contracts are not sufficient."

Because y o u believe that to be a wedding it must be religious. This is obviously not the accepted view or there would be no civil marriages. Most couples will tell you that the wedding is to declare the couple's love and committment to eachother. This declaration need not be religious.

[walter05]

NudeTopher;

As I stated, "If they want to call it marriage, that is okay".

Nacktman;

I have based my explanations on Talmudic sources that date back close to 2,000 years. I stand by my explanations.

The Talmud, following thireen principles taught by Moses for interpreting the Torah explains the ways that marriage would take place. In some cases the literal meaning without those thirteen rules leads to incorrect results.

I will choose to believe the 3,319 year tradition going back through the Talmud to Moses.

You may choose to believe other sources if you wish. All of us have to accept the sources we find most credible and reject the ones we find least credible.

We will simply agree to disagree on this one.

Walter

[David77]

<center>COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE</CENTER>

STATE-BY-STATE REQUIREMENTS TO FORM A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:

Alabama: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.

Colorado: A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.

Iowa: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.

Kansas: For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.
Montana: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.

Oklahoma: To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.

Pennsylvania: A common-law marriage may be established if a man and woman exchange words that indicate that they intend to be married at the present time.

Rhode Island: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.

South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.

Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.

Utah: For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.

Washington, D.C.: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to D.C. be married and (2) cohabitation.

[walter05]

David77;

You are incorrect. No marrige can take place in Alabama without a double wide trailer.

[David77]

Walter,
I think that you not only have a fine intellect and very good writing skills, but you must have a sense of humor with that last comment to me -Re. "double wide trailer".

[David77]

<center>IF YOU LIVE IN A STATE THAT DOES RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE</center>

"If you live in one of the above states and you "hold yourself out to be married" (by telling the community you are married, calling each other husband and wife, using the same last name, filing joint income tax returns, etc.), you can have a common law marriage.

Common law marriage makes you a legally married couple in every way, even though you never obtained a marriage license. If you choose to end your relationship, you must get a divorce, even though you never had a wedding. Legally, common law married couples must play by all the same rules as "regular" married couples.

If you live in one of the common law states and don't want your relationship to become a common law marriage, you must be clear that it is your intention not to marry. The attorneys who wrote Living Together recommend an agreement in writing that both partners sign and date: "Jane Smith and John Doe agree as follows: That they've been and plan to continue living together as two free, independent beings and that neither has ever intended to enter into any form of marriage, common law or otherwise."

[P.J.]

To some of those who aren't in agreement with my views (some, which I admit, are controversial), but have cordially asked for for me to explain, I apologize for not responding.

Sometimes I don't get around to checking out the Clothes Free Foodfights.

To those who vehemently disagree, but maintain the respect that I extend to you (especially when I reply to a specific post that is directed at me), I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you out of rudeness or ignorance.

As for those of you who specifically mention me in an insulting manner, to twist my words or to further your ignorant twist to any agenda, you really should step off of your soapbox. When I check out contrasting views, I do so with an open mind.

Insulting me (or others by name) does not further your cause.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by nunne:
Under our system of law in every State except Louisiana, definitions of marriage and its consequent legal implications are set out in the English common law.

Under this system, marriage raises profound issues of legal and property rights. Accordingly, it is imperative that the government be significantly involved in definitions and governing of marriage.


In my state the legislature affirmed the ages old meaning of marriage as creating and nurturing children, much to the displeasure of the gay agemda advocates.

Gays can live together, form mutual contracts, but marriage is about children and families, according to law hereabouts.

Blessings
Bob

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
Gays can live together, form mutual contracts, but marriage is about children and families, according to law hereabouts.
Bob

It is sometimes, which is why many gays get married and have families:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM

[nimrod]

Wow! I thought this thread was about sex and nudity. I think that for now because of the attitudes towards nudity it is important to keep the issues seperate. The misinformed think that nudity and sex are linked, and therefore nudity should be confined to the bedroom or bathroom. By seperating the two it will be easier to gain the acceptance we need.

[walter05]

Bob;

Do you think that the government should be affirming any kind of marriage at all?

Walter

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by P.J.:
To some of those who aren't in agreement with my views (some, which I admit, are controversial), but have cordially asked for for me to explain, I apologize for not responding.

Sometimes I don't get around to checking out the Clothes Free Foodfights.

To those who vehemently disagree, but maintain the respect that I extend to you (especially when I reply to a specific post that is directed at me), I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you out of rudeness or ignorance.

As for those of you who specifically mention me in an insulting manner, to twist my words or to further your ignorant twist to any agenda, you really should step off of your soapbox. When I check out contrasting views, I do so with an open mind.

Insulting me (or others by name) does not further your cause.

But PJ, you did return to the forums for you posted this message. Yet you once again never answered the outstanding question. It seems that whenever one of your statements is challanged you run away join other threads but never reply to fully explore and defend your positions.

So not only do you have me wondering if your wife doesn't join you at nudist venues because of the sexuality/single men, etc. If she also doesn't join you on nude on nature walks, at home, and on remote beaches then your theory just doesn't hold any water.

[BinCo]

FYI Walter and NudeTopher. Bobx has been banned from CFF. Look at the marriage poll to see why.

[David77]

Walter,
I greatly admire your statements concerning tolerance, such as your sentences I have snipped as follows. They are a great testimony for tolerance and respect for the thinking of both others and self.

Originally posted by walter05:
I am Jewish. I don't need your permission to believe anything. I have not stated what opinion is correct. I don't think you need my permission to believe anything either.

Orthodox Jews don't advocate discrimination against anyone. We accept that people believe and do things we disagree with. Can those of you who claim to be liberal and tolerant accept people who believe things you don’t.

I don't care how you enjoy your sexuality as long as it is private.

I don't eat ham, shellfish, or accept Jesus as my savior. However, I respect and admire many people who do.

I don't ask you to approve of what I believe in because I don't care about your opinion of what I believe in.

I only ask you to respect me as a human being and to respect my right to believe as I wish. I resent it when the Christian Missionary knocks on my door to try and force his or her beliefs on me. I resent it just as much when an atheist does the same.

I judge people by their ability to be honest, respectful, reliable, and kind human beings. If they have those qualities, I think those human beings are great. If they have those qualities because they are Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, Jewish, etc., I respect and admire the religions that helped shape such wonderful human beings.

[walter05]

David77;

Thank you for the kind words.

I like your adding the word respect. I think when we respect others it is easy to be tolerant.

Walter

[mjwolfman1981]

Interesting topic. I see several different views, and I agree to a degree with most of what is said. I am a Young man (25). I was raised in a very consevitive home, with strong Christian background. I admit that my views as a Young man, as a Nudist, and as a Christian are constantly conflicted.

Yeah, i think it would be cool and Ok for Open sexuality at resorts WITH some restriction towards decency. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but it can be done. I have had sexs in a room with other people, they were asleep, but still. I have also had sex outdoors. We made sure to find a secluded place. That's what I mean when i say some level of Decency.

As someone asked, "what about in the middle of a building or right on top of the Pool table" Well obviously not. I would not like to see that either. Plus i like playing pool, that would make a shot difficult. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif What I would propose is to take it to the edges of the ground, or maybe on the Beach. AS LONG AS you are not in peoples way. If you accidently get "Caught" Oh well, that's the price you pay. But that's it. The Price is a minor amount of potential embarressment.

OR at the VERY Least, a Designated area. Most Public theme Parks have a Designated Smoking area. It's something that not Everyone agrees with, so they put it in a "secluded spot".

I also 100% agree, that what is allowed in Normal public SHOULD be Allowed at a Resort. Why not have minor make out sesions with your mate. Yes, it could and probably would lead to an erection. If that is all a person is doing, then who cares. Which brings me to another point.

We are about our Natural bodies. The Society of Nudists don't care how you look, as long as you are there. So... Why is there such a big hang up on an erection. If it happens it happens. It's a Natural action. and as all of us Guys know, not always a reaction to something. It just happens with out warning. I've read a lot of things about, make sure to cover it up as soon as it happens, and make sure NO pictures displayed have that. If it is Intentional, Ok, I understand. If it wasn't, then oops. BUT going back to the Begining of this Topic. If We as a Nudist society break free of our sexual tie ups, then an Erection in Public Becomes REALLY Not A BIG DEAL!!

Thank you for listening to my little rant/ideas. Sorry if it is a bit graphic in places, BUT I guess that is The VERY Point of this Thread. Maybe this helped getting the opinion of a Young Nudist. Any further ideas? comments to my post?

I think we can ALL agree, it would be nice if these topics became pointless. The Rules of a Nudist resort were null and void, because there would be No need for Nudist resorts. Public Nudity becomes completly Legal, and Ok.

[Lilwilly]

I could live with your proposal.

[David77]

mjwolkman1981,
There are some resorts that are not affiliated with AANR or TNS that I understand are quit sexual, if that pleases you.

[Bob S.]

Since we are talking about marriages, let's see what good ol' Arkansas (http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/198812/) has done to it.

In trying to create a law regarding who is allow to get married, they have inadvertently allowed girls of any age to get married with parental consent while trying to make the law state that only a pregnant underage teen could do so.

Bob S.

[Rabid_Clam]

Here we go agian in the world of 'supposed to'.

There are a huge variety of views on any subject but then there are those who not only suggest but bring to rules we HAVE to follw and laws we must abide by that conincide with and follow their views but not those of the whole.

Rules and laws are ways for us to get along with each other. Such laws on marriage do not accomplish anything in that way.

So what do we do about the rule and law makers?

[nudebushwalker]

".. blessed are the cheese makers."

[Monty Python: The Life Of Brian ]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[Ren]

WOW! Go away for a week and look what happens! I mean this has it all: public gay sex, the Canary Islands, Orthodox Judaism, Carter's alternative energy plan, fights, threats, and pretty much anyone who is anyone on this site chiming in! And that's in the first four pages.

I haven't read the rest of these posts, but let me speak as a "younger" person. Yeah, I'm now 30, but my opinion hasn't changed with age. There is no need for exhibitionist public sex in a nudist context. As one who enjoys being naked, I have not had the temptation to jump people when I've been in a nudist environment. Perhaps it's because I have a healthy attitude about nudity and sex, and while those two things work hand-in-hand, they are not reciprocals, or else those would be some showers we take every day, wouldn't it?!

I was at the beach with my girlfriend and there was no temptation there. We even held hands and kissed lightly, but we also know what we learned as preschoolers --- there is a time and place for everything. Public sex is pretty lewd behavior - if it is accepted somewhere, then I would likely not go there. The key to nudism being accepted is the separation for those who ONLY equate nudity with sexual behavior. That is a dangerous equation that has been brought upon us through media exploitation and through religious interpretation. There are several mentions of decent nudity in the Bible, but those go ignored.

Yes, sexual repression is a problem in our society, as well, and we should not treat it as such a covert subject. There is a fragment of society that likes public sex and that is fine --- find a time and place where that is accepted. But just because nudists enjoy being naked, it doesn't mean that they are obsessed with or want to have sex the moment they are naked. I would suggest that one is not a nudist if titillation and the prospect of sex brings you to it. And that is the important division to make.

As for younger crowds and nudism, I would also suggest this. We are at a time where nudity is more repressed than ever - the age when my grandfather naturally skinny-dipped with buddies in the 30s is gone, as are school showers or public changing spaces. The clothing has grown skimpier than ever, which is meant to titillate and suggest sex, but younger people grow crazy at the mention of nakedness more than ever, because of all the judgment passing and worries about sex. I don't think adding sex to the nudist world would do anything but cripple it entirely. Sure, there are MTV exhibitionists out there, but I suspect they are actually a minority. Yes, we've all seen the graphic specials on that network (Real World has gone from valuable social experiment to sex-fest), but how many people do we know who act like that? Those who think it is trash outnumbers those who think it's cool, at least from personal experience.

ANYway, I am no more interested in public sex of any variety than I am in watching someone relieve themselves or vomit. Some things are best left to private and if people want to encroach their exhibitionist ways into the nudist world, then the cause is lost and it will forever be misunderstood.

[newton]

Ren:

Good summary and good perspective. Keep it up. It sounds like you enjoyed your trip as well.

Newton

[Pete Knight]

Ren

I wish you had been here a week ago, I'm sure your level headed approach and reasoned thinking would have saved the day, welcome back is all I add.

Pete Knight

[Ren]

Pete - as veterans of this site, we know my post will be either a blip on the radar and will be forgotten by page 23 or a thread-killer. In this case a mercy killing.

Still it is interesting how these posts morph into one thing or another. I was just trying to get back to basics.

Toph, though, I did enjoy the parsing of whether whoever would enjoy watching straight sex by their logic. Astute point in an otherwise crazy world of posts.

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Ren:
Pete - as veterans of this site, we know my post will be either a blip on the radar and will be forgotten by page 23 or a thread-killer. In this case a mercy killing.

Hey, I won't forget you and that inspirational post,...... honest.

Pete Knight



Who is this guy anyway, what has he done that's so special!!!

[Agde]

Isn't it amazing how this debate on sex and nudity rages on? As I've noted in a sketch over in the "Humor" (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/2700016152) section, sex is still a mystery to nudists ... being nudist hasn't helped me one bit to figure out who would be into morning sex on the kitchen counter!

The point is that -- beyond providing evidence that clothing is not essential to modesty and that removing clothing does not void obligations to treat fellow humans with dignity and respect -- naturism does not provide many pre-solved answers to sexuality puzzles. That's why we are careful not mix up nudity and sex. It's not that we as naturists are anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-Bush, anti-religion, or anti-rock'n'roll, or necessarily pro- any of them either -- these are just seperate issues. The insight of naturism is a simple one of cause and effect. Uncovering parts of the body does not in itself authorize or cause specific behavior. Uncovered feet do not sanction or induce people to kick each other. Uncovered faces and hands do not permit or provoke an outbreak of face slapping. Uncovered pubic hair does not imply consent or give license to sexual activity. Behavior rules are simply the same regardless of clothing. Beyond that, all thiings of course may be debated -- such as sexuality in resort settings -- which this discussion thread has amply demonstrated.

[Pete Knight]

Yet there are some people who insist that nudism is a sexual thing, we had a guy in one of our naturist magazines who said that we all do it for a sexual buzz, the letters in the following publication slammed his article and his understanding of nudism.

We have to bear in mind that some people come into nudism because they think that there is an increased chance of getting some action, and they can look at all the naked bodies they want without having to reach for the top shelf.

For me some of my best nude moments have been walking alone through woods, just me and the elements, no hint of sexual feelings.

Pete Knght

[P.J.]

With the common, and often erronious belief, that sex and nudity always go together, I ask those who subscribe to this view:

When actor Hugh Grant was caught getting serviced by that hooker in his car, I think that he was still wearing his clothes.

If I was a betting man, I'd be willing to bet that former President Bill Clinton didn't even take off his tie while he was entertained by Monica Lewinsky.

[finchick]

last week i was at a conference with a lot of PhD students and occasionally the conversation lead to nudist beaches. one guy said that they are often the most beautiful, but he doesn't fancy being naked, and another said he was once on Ibiza between gay and nudist beaches, and he stayed closer to the gay one because nudists are all old and ugly. i told right away that i go to nudist beaches all the time though i'm not old or ugly, lol. but what a stupid argument, and i heard this so many times!!!
but now i think that naturists maybe exaggerated really too much with body acceptance and overtried proving that nudity doesn't mean sex. it's good that naturists are often more confident about their bodies, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't care less to be healthy and sportive. i think it's nothing wrong, if instead, nudity stimulates us to try to be more attractive not by buying nice clothes, but by getting our body in good shape. and after all, there is nothing wrong to tell that naturism IS sexy. i don't mean literally, but u know, we like many singers not only because they sing great, but also beacuse they are sexy, we like watching sports also because sportsmen look sexy, we like many actors far not only because of their nice playing etc.
so what i'm trying to say is that it is of course important to explain that naturists are NOT swingers, but if we want more young crowd, maybe we shouldn't overemphasize that naked body is not sexy at all. to me what determines sexappeal is behavior, but not the mere fact of being naked of course. but i find naked body more beautiful, and term beautiful can include sexy, can't it?

[finchick]

sexy body standards. That is not what nudism is about.
yes, it is not all about this, but of course it is normal that it includes sexiness as many other aspects of life, and there is nothing to be ashamed of i think. to like someone/something sexy is normal. and naturism can be also sexy, why not?

[bernardc]

I wouldnt say sex and nudity always goes hand in hand,but sexuality awareness goes together.I think it creates,especially between parents and their kids,open oppertunities to discuss sexuality matters,eg.Pubic hair,why daddies look that that and mine not...why does mommy look different.I think it also gives a more honest approach between families.I have had first hand experience with my son and his questions,but when I asked advice from another site,I was ejected.I think being nudists,one should discuss sexcuality clearly and frankly,and one could,and most people,especially teens entering puberty ,associates the sexual organs with sex,and need to be guided wisely and sensitively.Especially in the case of my teen son who developes erections spontaniousely without any reason.I answred all his questions being naked,and he is comfortable with it now.

[feritim]

First time visitors of a naturist resort will naturally be sexually aroused by the sight of the naked people. But this won't last long.When you get used to see naked bodies there will be no difference between their genitals and their shoulders. Nudity itself can't promote sex alone without some other provacative actions.

On the other hand,as we all agree that nudists are open minded people,they should tolerate some sexual activities also.Because both nudism and sex are the part of natural life. Yes,nıdism is not equal to sex but this does not necessarily means that sex is disgusting.

[Bob S.]

feritim: "On the other hand,as we all agree that nudists are open minded people,they should tolerate some sexual activities also.Because both nudism and sex are the part of natural life. Yes,nıdism is not equal to sex but this does not necessarily means that sex is disgusting."

Nudists do tolerate sexual activities. We just prefer, just like in normal life, that they are in private. Nudists do not find sex to be disgusting, but we do find public sex and sexual activities (anything beyond normal kissing) to be rude and intrusive (and illegal).

Just like we don't want to see two people having sex in the produce section of the grocery store, so do we not want to find two people having sex on a public beach. Open sex is not necessarily a bad thing when the couple has found a rarely-used, hidden part of a wooded area or somewhere similarly unpeopled.

Bob S.

[feritim]

Dear Bob S.

On one hand you say “nudists do tolerate sexual activities” on the other hand you say you find public sex and sexual activities (anything beyond normal kissing) to be rude and intrusive).I dd not understand what kind of tolerance that is.

I did not mean people should be able to have sex everywhere such as produce section of a grosery store, but why not at the nudist resorts ,beaches or parks. I am sure people will get used to see it as they used to see naked people .

I know it is illegal and therefore I am also trying to say that authorities should not have right to intervene the living style (Especially sexual life) of the people.

[Nude and Tanned]

Feritim,
The ability to choose to compose ones self in certain situations is what separates humans from animals. We choose to keep our private sex lives private. Unlike dogs and other animals we can wait to share that part of our lives when we can be alone. Just as you say people could get used to seeing couples having sex but, where does the seeing end. Lets say you are enjoying sex with your spouse in public. What is to keep some other man from deciding to just join in and have a go at her as well? I am sure that is part of what changed to make people more private in these situations. If people can not control themselves where would that leave us as a society?
We are not saying nudist do not have sex or act sexual at times. No one checks their sexuality at the gate or the door or their car, when entering a resort or beach. We just believe in conducting our selves in a manner that we consider wholesome to all people, children and grandparents alike. So basically if you would not perform an act in front of your mother do not perform it in front of the rest of us.

[Noodlebug]

You have to balance the right of people to do what they want to do against the right of people not to have to witness or experience things they don't want to experience. Many things, not just sex and nudity, are allowed in private but cause great offence if done in public.

Who is to say which right is the more important? It's a matter of general consensus. At the moment our society has a consensus that public sex is wrong, on a qualitative scale it is more wrong than public nudity (which is gradually becoming more acceptable).

Any individual is entitled to believe the societal consensus is wrong, but any society is equally entitled to punish such individuals for actions they take in breach of that consensus. That is majority rule.

Incidentally I disagree that the ability to compose ourselves is what separates humans from animals. Humans are animals, it is cultural conditioning which causes our behaviour to differ, different cultural conditioning could conceivably produce very different behaviour, and almost certainly has done somewhere, someplace in the history of humanity. And some other animals have very sophisticated behaviours and cultures.

[Lord Drakkus]

Public sex and public nudity are definitely not the same thing. Actually, they are not even close to each other. The only similarities between public sex and public nudity, is the nudity.

With public sex, not only is it offensive to many people (the primary argument, which I don't agree should be a factor), but you leave also tend to leave behind traces of a potential bio-hazard. Seminal fluid happens to have some of the highest concentrations of disease compared to anything you could leave behind by sweat and/or small amounts of urine (leakage - the main reason I believe towels are used). Even if you put a towel beneath yourself during the act, the amount of fluid released during sexual intercourse is enough that it will be guaranteed to soak through the towel onto whatever surface is beneath it.

So public sex is not just an offense issue, it's also a health risk and potential bio-hazard. I don't want to have to worry about going to a beach and possibly getting an STD from falling down in the wrong spot, where some thoughtless couple decided to have sex a couple hours before.

[Noodlebug]

Actually public sex does not require nudity at all, I would hazard to guess (without any evidence whatsoever to back up my instinct!) that more public sex takes place clothed than nude!

The only thing public sex and public nudity have in common is that in general they are both considered unacceptable and immoral by a public majority. But while public sex remains illegal and totally forbidden outside the "free love" and swinger communities, public nudity still occupies a gray area of the law in most states, and in the proper context is increasingly being considered perfectly acceptable. Most fair minded people don't inherently object to the existence of nude beaches (as long as it is not in their backyard!), and protesters, artists and entertainers have used public nudity more frequently without any suggestion of immorality or criminality, except possibly from the most rabid conservative opinionators.

Perhaps the public health aspect is a reason that public sex is more seriously frowned upon, although that is not the basis for my own personal distaste of it, I think each of us has a responsibility to behave responsibly and within the law, and not to offend anyone where they have a reasonable expectation not to be offended. Obviously context is important, someone on a busy city street may not be expecting public nudity, and has every right to be offended, whereas on a designated nude beach clearly advertised as such, their offence would be outweighed by the fact they chose to be there knowing what to expect.

In the unlikely event I found myself at a music festival in a field full of stoned hippies, perhaps I would relax my views on public sex for that particular place at that particular time. I doubt I would be worried about any health hazards. However for the most part, I am not in favour of public sex at all, and I am particularly not in favour of it in a naturist setting, because as any Woodstock veteran will tell you, mud sticks...

[inudist]

Hey noodlebug, where is that music festival full of stoned hippies at anyway? Just kidding.

It is always strange for me to keep hearing all of these rationalizations to keep mixing simple nudity and sex in the same pot all of the time. Some people just don't get it I guess.

[Tom1991]

This discussion thread demonstrates a very simple fact. Nudity basically has very little to do with sexuality. There are all sorts of sexual behaviour that may or may not be considered normal and acceptable, depending on context and proximity, by different individuals, age groups, religious groups, social groups or communities. It's not that nudists are any more or less sexual. It's just that nudity as a state-of-being and sexuality as human behavior can only be sensibly discussed and regulated separately.

It seems obvious that is quite possible for very sexual people to love certain clothes and for nudists to be totally shocked by certain sexual behaviour. In a public context, it is simply unhelpful to double the complexity and confusion by talking about nudity and sexuality in the same breath. In any case, merely being nudist doesn't really make us more knowledgeable about or more qualified to judge sexual behaviour.

So let's continue to focus on promoting naturist values such as interpersonal and gender respect, and leave sexual mores and conventions to be debated as a separate matter of concern within our various communities.

nothing less to say -.- :D good job :)

[Bob S.]

ferntim: "On one hand you say “nudists do tolerate sexual activities” on the other hand you say you find public sex and sexual activities (anything beyond normal kissing) to be rude and intrusive).I dd not understand what kind of tolerance that is."

We tolerate private sexual activities. We do not tolerate public sexual activities. If two people (or more :eek: ) decided to find very little used patch of dirt where they have a reasonable expectation that they would not be seen, than I have no problem with them having sex.

Sexual activity is much different than simple nudity. What public nudity, we are talking about allowing people to do naked what they would do clothed normally; ie a dress code. Sex is not a normal public activity. But open sex, when done in hidden areas, should be allowed.

Bob S.

[Running Bear]

ferntim:
...We tolerate private sexual activities. We do not tolerate public sexual activities. If two people (or more :eek: ) decided to find very little used patch of dirt where they have a reasonable expectation that they would not be seen, than I have no problem with them having sex....
Bob S.
I like this. Like naturism, that which is done in private or in clubs should not cause offence to anybody and should be accepted. When naturism or sex is intrusive then consideration needs to be made whether it is appropriate. We should not actively seek out the sexual tourist to persecute them any more than they should seek us out. Tolerance of adults right to be themselves providing they do no harm to others.

[walter05]

I would word it differently.

We don't object to private sexual activity at all.

If we tolerate something, it may indicate we don't like it but accept it.

I personally think that there is nothing holier or more wonderful than a married couple having private sexual activities.

[richinoregon]

Actually public sex does not require nudity at all, I would hazard to guess (without any evidence whatsoever to back up my instinct!) that more public sex takes place clothed than nude!



There is support for law enforcement for that observation. When a couple tried to shut down the nude beach on Sauvies Island in the Portland Oregon area, the sheriff for Columbia county testified that they have more problems at non-nude beaches with public sex than at the nude beach.

[barefootguyinco]

I agree with some points made by eric6420. I to think that we make to much of the point that sex is not allowed at nudist events. I totally agree that open sexual conduct should not be allowed but maybe we need to clarify things a bit.

Nudists do have sex lives, at least normal, healthy adults do. It’s just that sexual activities of any kind are not allowed in public areas of a nudist activity. Basically the same rules as applies to the general public. But we should point out that it’s not that we don’t approve of sex, it’s just that it’s a private affair that is NOT a part of nudist group activities. I agree that we need to make it clear that we are not a venue for orgies or sexual acts in public, or the prurient interests will work harder to shut us down. But maybe we just need to clarify our no sex policy so new nudists don’t think we all think sex is evil or something.

But at the same time I also feel that we shouldn’t act like we are ashamed of our sex lives. Sex is right up there with nudity in that it is natural and amazing normal part of our lives that god gave us to enjoy. Of course, like nudity, it can be perverted and cause negative stigma among the public. But I’m talking about sex between sane, sensible partners and not the psychos and perverts. I agree with Bobx23456 when he said “In my opinion human bodies are beautiful and two human bodies giving and receiving physical pleasure is very beautiful.” In the right situation of a private location I would not be bothered if friends had sex in view of myself. It’s a beautiful act between lovers and it’s not like we don’t know they have sex, and unless we are ashamed of it, why do we have to hide it? And I have several nudist friends who feel the same way. I for one feel that we should be able to discuss sex in the same manner as nudity as neither is something to be ashamed of when handled appropriately.

That being said, I still feel that in general public nudist locations and events, sex should remain only in the privacy of your dwelling. But what happens in private locations (personal or resort type settings) is up to the group that are attending. But just because nudists visit locations that allow sexual behavior doesn’t mean they are Non Nudists. This is totally prurient talk and thinking. They are just more sexually open than others. But they are only doing so in a private location, so again, why let it bother you what they do in private?

I’m also one who strongly believes that what consenting adults do in private is their own business and not the business of ANY government or individual for that matter, as long as what they are doing is not hurting anyone. That includes viewing of adult magazines or anything similar. Who are we to tell others what they can and can’t do in the privacy of their home? Nor can we impose our specific morals on others. It’s up to each person to decide what is right or wrong to them, and as long as they are not hurting others in any way, it’s their own business. I really hate stories where someone had the cops called on them for something like sunbathing in their backyard when the reporting person had to stand on something high to look, aka Spy into the neighbors yard. There are to many people who are very bothered just ‘knowing’ there is someone nude in their yard, or a hot tub, etc, when they can’t see them without going to extra effort.

I also agree with eric6420’s statements of: “I think also that freedom is very important. If you want to recognize a country or a nation that is not free, just look at the attitudes towards sex, gays and nudists.”

I’m neither supporting nor condemning any specific activities, just saying that it’s not up to others to tell us what is right or wrong.

[richinoregon]

By in large I agree with you BareFootGuy, however, unless you believe in no law what so ever, you don't really believe your statement
Nor can we impose our specific morals on others.
*ALL* laws and regulations are the imposition of someone's moral beliefs on someone else. The unspoken premise behind every law or regulation is 'it is wrong to do (or not do)...' and there is your moral principle that is being imposed.

Examples of laws imposing moral values: Murder is illegal because it is wrong to murder
Tax evasion is illegal because it it wrong to avoid paying your fair share of society. Speeding is illegal because it wrong to endanger others. Stealing is illegal because it is wrong to take what doesn't belong to you. Even your statement that sex should be private is imposing your moral values on others.

I believe that you are trying to say that certain moral values should not be the business of the state (ex: how much you give to your church-BTW Germany does make that it's business).

But even that the statement is also is an imposition of your moral values on others. It's just not possible to not to impose our moral values on others. The disagreement is *which* moral values will be will be imposed.

[richo]

By in large I agree with you BareFootGuy, however, unless you believe in no law what so ever, you don't really believe your statement

*ALL* laws and regulations are the imposition of someone's moral beliefs on someone else. The unspoken premise behind every law or regulation is 'it is wrong to do (or not do)...' and there is your moral principle that is being imposed.

Examples of laws imposing moral values: Murder is illegal because it is wrong to murder
Tax evasion is illegal because it it wrong to avoid paying your fair share of society. Speeding is illegal because it wrong to endanger others. Stealing is illegal because it is wrong to take what doesn't belong to you. Even your statement that sex should be private is imposing your moral values on others.

I believe that you are trying to say that certain moral values should not be the business of the state (ex: how much you give to your church-BTW Germany does make that it's business).

But even that the statement is also is an imposition of your moral values on others. It's just not possible to not to impose our moral values on others. The disagreement is *which* moral values will be will be imposed.

That's actually wrong. Laws are part of a social contract in which we agree to restrictions in exchange for protections. Murder's illegal not because it's "wrong" but because we, individually, don't want to be murdered. So, we agree not to murder others in exchange for reciprocation.

This is obvious by the fact that, in certain situations where the social contract isn't in question, murder is, in fact, legal.

So, no, morality isn't the general issue. Yes, there are *some* laws that are based on morality, but far fewer than you might think.

[barefootguyinco]

I believe that there is a distinction between morals, and necessary laws. Yes some may have a basis on general moral values, but overall laws are simply means of protecting the general public from harm from others.

I think most will understand that my point was that non nudists should not be able to go around imposing their specific morals on nudists when they are in private locations. I'm not trying to get into the debate of whether nudity in public is right or wrong as that is to complex, although I would envision a world where nudity most anywhere was seen as normal. Instead I was making a point that there are many out there that feel that all nude beaches are sinful, immoral etc, and that a person being nude outside of the bedroom or bathroom is lewd, and an evil immoral person and all nudity should be banned. I mean if we have a beach designated as a nude beach and it bothers someone, why can't they just not go there. There are plenty of textile beaches for them. The reason, they wish to impose their moral values on nudists even though we are not hurting anyone. The puritan extremists try to make it as if nudists by the act of wanting to be nude as often as possible must be deranged, sick people with no morals, and we are all perverts, child molesters etc. This of course being totally in their minds only, but it is the perception a lot of the people who oppose nudity believe in. It's stereotyping at it's best.

[hyena2]

New member and thought I would chime in here. I agree with simonsebs that nudist are opened about sex. Its just they do not view being naked as sexually, or lewd and luscious.

And while yes society is changing and most teenagers have had sex and watched porn and more opened to sexually experimentation at an earlier age. But are they ready for the consequence if the get pregnant or get an STD? And is that teaching to be comfortable with there bodies, and knowing that nudity and sex can be two different things?

While I don’t agree with clubs not allowing same sex couples as
couples. And disagree with treating single males with caution than single females or the male/female ratio at some club events. I understand the reason for it even though I do not like it.

For me being naked is not sexually and should not have anything to with sex. It’s about freedom, being comfortable with yourself, body acceptance, no matter what your body size is or age. And the equality of being naked and not judging people by how the dress, but who they are and the inside. As most nudist I have meet at resorts, clubs I have attend event with, and beaches, are more opened and friendly. These are things I think we should reinforce to promote nudism to younger people....And have events and activities at clubs and resorts that fit the crowd you want to attract and that carter to the young adults.

I know some “nudist” clubs are nothing more than swinger clubs, and some nudist are swingers, and “nudist” resorts do promote swinger, orgies, and sex…That’s fine as long as the say that and people know what the place or club is about before joining or visiting. I for one would stay away.

[DINKY]

You are correct when you state..."some nudist are swingers, and “nudist” resorts do promote swinger, orgies, and sex…" That has been my experience.

As for my never to be humble opinion... Nudity in and of itself is not about sex. I have attended several clubs over the year that encouraged by notice and scheduled activities focusing on... sex is OK. This was not in public, but in groups.

I happen to like being in a room or by the closed pool with 20 or thirty naked people of both sexes. Getting an erection was just kinda like saying... "Hello". I never found these events to be anything but respectful and fun. Many in the group were bi-sexual, which doubled your chances of an encounter worth having. LOL. Seriously it was just good clean fun.

If you are opposed to such things, I understand, no children were ever involved at any event, frankly it was mostly 30's to 70's and everyone always played safely. I still attend group activities and even house parties with some of the folks I met at the clubs.

[bobk]

A lot of ground has been covered in this thread. I will try not to be repetitive. My thoughts are:

A female's primary motivation is the maternal instinct. The preening and sexually charged dress and conduct of a young female is to attract a suitable mate to create a family. The children then become the focus of her attention. The father becomes a provider for the family and assists the mother in rearing the children, but his sexual urge is unabated. The mother has gone through hormonal changes and her primary focus is the children and sex is secondary.

Sexual activity follows intention. There are nudists who have clear intention to enjoy being unclothed and free of spirit and they are not titillated by the sight of the naked opposite sex. They notice particular attributes of others but tend to look at, and respect, the whole person. Other nudists intend to engage in sexual activities and they do not focus on the whole person. Potential partners are those who appear to be able and willing to satisfy their desires, but they do not consider or respect the whole person.

The above comments apply to clothed people as well. The advantage that clothed people feel that they have is that they are not revealing all of themselves. With clothing they can try to hide attributes that they feel are unattractive and try to emphasize those attributes that they feel are attractive. They criticize and judge people by the clothes that they are wearing.

The nude body as a whole is beautiful.

Only humans are sensitive about open sexual activity. Though they do it themselves they say that they find it disgusting to see others do it and their children must be shielded from it. Cows and horses are not particularly dismayed by sexual activity happening around them in their fields, the sex drive in humans is every bit as strong as it is in animals, and the female animals have children they are protecting as well.;)

I do endorse the point that anything produced from inside the body may do harm to others that come in contact with it.

[baboon]

deleted










in










protest

[Moontan]

As is in most cases I'm usually nude when I have sex.

[Kouak]

I would word it differently.

We don't object to private sexual activity at all.

If we tolerate something, it may indicate we don't like it but accept it.

I personally think that there is nothing holier or more wonderful than a married couple having private sexual activities.

I don't understand all of this talk about "private sexual activity." By definition, no one knows about it; otherwise it would be public. Since no one knows about it, it may not be happening and therefore does not exist. How could you object to something that may not exist??? :D

BTW, if a man talks and his wife is not around to hear him, is he still wrong?

[Moontan]

BTW, if a man talks and his wife is not around to hear him, is he still wrong?[/QUOTE]

I have been told numerous times that yes he is still wrong. :laugh: