No announcement yet.

The Dilemma of the Single Male

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Dilemma of the Single Male

    Yet another article on this problem.

  • #2
    Yet another article on this problem.


    • #3
      The article was very well written and I would have to say to a large extent...very accurate [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

      Greensunshine in the Pacific NW [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
      Female, Mormon, and Proud of Both [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]


      • #4
        Thank you for that Rex. For the most part an accurate article. How do we maintain a policy that encourages participation rather than exclusion while protecting those who dont want to be harassed?


        • #5
          It is indeed a good article. But I feel that the solution is not quotas or restrictions.

          What we struggle against is perception, not reality. The average woman seems to have much more difficulty accepting the goodness and beauty of her own naked body than the average man--and just enough women have had bad experiences in the nudist environment to reinforce all of society's worst stereotypes about us. Restrictions on single males will merely strengthen those stereotypes.

          Somehow we must get out the truth that nudism isn't about sex, that it has as many benefits for women as for men, and that women can be safe in nudist environments. That will do more to balance the genders than any quotas.


          • #6
            What the article fails to address is its own assertion that ".. without it ["quota" system ], many naturist groups and gatherings would simply die."

            This is a commonly held view but I wonder if there is any substance to it. If there are genuinely more men than women wishing to practise naturism (for whatever reason)then why should it be considered unreasonable to reflect that imbalance in those who actually participate?

            The article seems to be saying that as women feel threatened by men then that threat should be addressed by removing men. In other words it is discriminating against men in favour of women which begs the question 'why should women be allowed greater access to naturism than men?' Is there any other social activity which imposes such blatant sexual discrimination?

            My own view is that actually gender balance is self-fulfiling if you accept that there will never be a truly equal balance? I believe (but I might be wrong) that most men see social naturism as a social activity which should include both sexes and as such may themselves be uncomfortable in a situation where there is a predominance of males - in which case they will stop putting themselves in that situation thus helping to create a more equal balance.

            What seems to happen in practice is that because many single men find it difficult to be accepted at many naturist venues they tend to 'flock' to those venues which openly accept single males - and of course to beaches. However if all venues were open to all comers regardless of sex and status then the 'flocking' effect would be reduced and the predominance of males would be more evenly spread.

            This whole thing seems to be much more of an issue in the UK and the US than in continental Europe where, as a solo traveller on many occasions, I have been openly welcomed by clubs and other resorts and never once has my solo status been queried or even commented upon. So you'd think that continental clubs would be overrun with men: not so.

            So what's the difference? In my view it has something to do with social conditioning beyond naturism. In Holland, Germany, France etc there is a much greater acceptance that the genitals, when not being used for sex or urination, are simply another part of the body. So whilst continental women may still feel 'threatened' by a predominance of males it is not necessarily a greater threat within naturism than any in other social sitation.

            I also feel that the quota system itself may have an impact on the perception of naturism to the non-naturist world (from where new naturists are recruited). It implies that there is something inherently wrong in a situation where there are more men than women. Given that some people hold the uninformed view that naturism is at best a bit naughty and at worst is a hotbed of sexual activity, they may well be asking themselves 'Why would naturists want to control the gender balance if, as they claim, there is nothing sexual about naturism?'

            So what's the answer? Like the writer of the article I'm not really sure but I am certain that discrimination only tackles the symptoms and not the cause. If the solution lies in helping women to feel less threatened then maybe a generally more open attitude by clubs and naturists in general would help to normalise the sight of genitals and would help women to understand that naked men are no more of a threat for being naked than if they are clothed.

            It also needs the national organisations like AANR and, in the UK, British Naturism to take a much more campaigning stance for the aceptance of nudity in general rather than the acceptance of naturism in its relatively narrow format which currently exists. I don't know about the US but I feel that various events in the UK over the last year, which have promoted the concept that nudity is not harmful, have put us on the cusp of a much wider acceptance of nudity which, if we grasp the opportunity, will help us campaign for a much wider acceptance of naturism which will help to diffuse the whole issue of single males.



            • #7
              You make some very good points, Rik, which I agree with. Although I am single, I haven't been denied access to a club. I have gone by myself, with a group of men and women, and with another guy. This has only been at BB's Hideway near Canton, TX and Oaklake Trails near Depew, OK so I can only speak of these two. I was at BB's for 5 days, including the weekend, for the SWSA Convention in June of last year. I don't know how many were there but it was guiet a few. There was more men but not alot more. There were kids there but not a whole lot of them. The convention, I was told, accepted everyone without using a quota. I really didn't notice a large majority of men over women although there wwere more men than women.

              The first thing that struck me when I entered was all the smiling faces. Everyone was very friendly and outgoing. The whole time I was there I never saw any sad faces, though there may have been a few. There were somber faces, especially during the meetings, and relaxed faces but mostly smiling faces. The image of smiling and happy people is fixed upon my mind.

              I am a people watcher and I never saw even one woman showing body language to lead one to think she felt uncomfortable in any way or threatened by any males. Like I said, everyone was so friendly and having too much fun to be anything but happy. I was there as a single male and women were approaching me to join in the festive activities.

              This is the way it has been everytime I have gone to Oaklake Trails. I don't know if they have a quota system or not but I have been going there for years with no problems.

              The problems, as I see it through my rose colored glasses, are 1. The clubs should try dropping their gender quota for at least three months to see if problems arise from having more male members. (Having some couples threaten to drop out rather than giving this a try is a problem with the couples attitude and not the new male attendance.) 2. Have AANR, TNS, INA and other mainstream nude organizations focus much more on merchandising nude recreation and lifestyles to women. Really target womens issues. It really doesn't take much to get men to try nudism so the main emphasis should be almost solely on women.

              Alot of nude advertising it about recreation and not the nude lifestyle itself. That is because the emphasis of nude recreation brings in money while just living a nude lifestyle doesn't. No one is making any money from me if I'm running around naked at my home. So I guess maybe if there were more articles in mainstream newspapers, magazine, etc., on the benefits of a nude lifestyle in the home (children with healtier views on nudity, more honesty in the family by being more open, saving money on wardrobes, a whole lot less laundy, and just being a whole lot more comfortable) the idea of nudism itself will catch on to more people thus encouraging them to be more likely to take nude vacations. I could be wrong.


              • #8
                Not only is there a problem with women accepting their own bodies, but there is their mistrust of single men, which is sometimes justified. Unfortunately, there ARE men, single and married, who are looking to score, or just wanting to stare and ogle. I met a married man like that at Turtle Lake Resort last year. He was there trying to talk a woman into renting a cabin with him for the night. He told me about it as he was leaving disappointed.

                Everyone talks about the problem, but no one seems to have an answer.


                • #9
                  But that's an issue with behaviour, not status. If you accept being punished (by discrimination) for other people's behaviour then that's fine but personally I find it unacceptable.



                  • #10
                    I've said this before. I socialise at dances, where there are usually more women than men.
                    The women are generally friendly and approachable. Maybe friendly women tend to take up dancing, maybe dancing helps to make them that way, maybe a bit of each.
                    A lot of women I've met at dances seem happy to try the free beach. Maybe that's because they're already more comfortable and confident with themselves, than non-socialising women.