Singles at clubs

[Tarzan]

I went to 2 camps: Olive Dell & Glen Eden in So CA & was NOT screened at Olive Dell but was at Glen Eden.
Me I feel anyone Guest should be screened since Married Single Men are more "vulturous" than singles WE Never Marrieds. Im 49& since I joined AANR I expect some respect now.
Maybe thats your ticket.
Join INA AANR.
(Yes Id hate to go a nude club & girlfriend would NOT go, but hey Its my Life).
Contact AANR & let them know of this issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cookie Monster:
[qb] What of those married men that would like to go to a naturist facility, but the wife doesnt want to go? The only way he would be able to be let in is to lie and remove the ring. It is not the resorts problem if two people become friends and they begin a relationship. If one of these two people is in a relationship and the stuff hits the fan, then it is the responsibility of the the parties involved to get it straightend out, not the resorts. How can a resort be liable? If these same two people meet at the mall and things proceed and they begin to meet at Motel 54 does that mean that Motel 54 should be legally in trouble? Does that mean that Motel 54 is in someway responsible? I think not. The bottom line is this is discrimination against a single individual.
Now say that the single individual does gain entry (legally of course) from what I have heard they are watched like a hawk. Why? If you are going to watch someone because you fear that he is a preditor then shouldnt you watch everyone? I mean the prisons have their fare share of people that are/were married, but decided they needed to take advantage of another human being.
I guess my point here is Why should a person lie if he/she wants to go to a nudist resort? If a person is going to take advantage of another person, it will happen whether or not he or she is married.
Just my vent for the day. [/qb]

---

[Tarzan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cookie Monster:
[qb] What of those married men that would like to go to a naturist facility, but the wife doesnt want to go? The only way he would be able to be let in is to lie and remove the ring. It is not the resorts problem if two people become friends and they begin a relationship. If one of these two people is in a relationship and the stuff hits the fan, then it is the responsibility of the the parties involved to get it straightend out, not the resorts. How can a resort be liable? If these same two people meet at the mall and things proceed and they begin to meet at Motel 54 does that mean that Motel 54 should be legally in trouble? Does that mean that Motel 54 is in someway responsible? I think not. The bottom line is this is discrimination against a single individual.
Now say that the single individual does gain entry (legally of course) from what I have heard they are watched like a hawk. Why? If you are going to watch someone because you fear that he is a preditor then shouldnt you watch everyone? I mean the prisons have their fare share of people that are/were married, but decided they needed to take advantage of another human being.
I guess my point here is Why should a person lie if he/she wants to go to a nudist resort? If a person is going to take advantage of another person, it will happen whether or not he or she is married.
Just my vent for the day. [/qb]

---

[NUDE RICK]

Bob S,

Very true, I guess INA is more widely recognized out here on the "left" coast.

Nude Rick [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[Bob S.]

Rick, at a lot of nudist parks, the INA is not recognized. However, that little vignette of advice may work if you are a member of AANR or TNS.

Bob S.

[NUDE RICK]

Cookie Monster,

I have been to Laguna Del Sol in Sac twice w/o my wife (with her knowledge). I didn't lie when asked about my marital status. I was refused entry the first time until I mentioned that I am a member of INA and showed my card. That made all the difference, I was welcomed in and took the tour. Now that I'm in their computer system no questions are asked at registration. My suggestion...when calling resorts, mention your INA membership, it could make a difference.

Nude Rick [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[Bob S.]

The issue is not one of legality. I don't believe a lawsuit of the park would be successful. The thing they are trying to protect against is the bad publicity. That is part of the liability that I have tried to explain.

A nudist park that considers itself as a family park does not want to be dragged through a divorce proceeding with possible publicity that "Mark, the husband, had an affair at Sunny Acres Nudist Park." That would not be the best publicity for that nudist park.

And sometimes, especially if there is a custody battle, the owner of the park or other members may be asked to make statements concerning the behaviour of the spouse involved. That is the type of liability they are concerned about.

And as Cyndiann said, not all resorts are the same.

Bob S.

Not all resorts refuse married men from attending without their wives. Each is free to make their own gate policies.

[Cookie Monster]

What of those married men that would like to go to a naturist facility, but the wife doesnt want to go? The only way he would be able to be let in is to lie and remove the ring. It is not the resorts problem if two people become friends and they begin a relationship. If one of these two people is in a relationship and the stuff hits the fan, then it is the responsibility of the the parties involved to get it straightend out, not the resorts. How can a resort be liable? If these same two people meet at the mall and things proceed and they begin to meet at Motel 54 does that mean that Motel 54 should be legally in trouble? Does that mean that Motel 54 is in someway responsible? I think not. The bottom line is this is discrimination against a single individual.
Now say that the single individual does gain entry (legally of course) from what I have heard they are watched like a hawk. Why? If you are going to watch someone because you fear that he is a preditor then shouldnt you watch everyone? I mean the prisons have their fare share of people that are/were married, but decided they needed to take advantage of another human being.
I guess my point here is Why should a person lie if he/she wants to go to a nudist resort? If a person is going to take advantage of another person, it will happen whether or not he or she is married.
Just my vent for the day.

[Cookie Monster]

What of those married men that would like to go to a naturist facility, but the wife doesnt want to go? The only way he would be able to be let in is to lie and remove the ring. It is not the resorts problem if two people become friends and they begin a relationship. If one of these two people is in a relationship and the stuff hits the fan, then it is the responsibility of the the parties involved to get it straightend out, not the resorts. How can a resort be liable? If these same two people meet at the mall and things proceed and they begin to meet at Motel 54 does that mean that Motel 54 should be legally in trouble? Does that mean that Motel 54 is in someway responsible? I think not. The bottom line is this is discrimination against a single individual.
Now say that the single individual does gain entry (legally of course) from what I have heard they are watched like a hawk. Why? If you are going to watch someone because you fear that he is a preditor then shouldnt you watch everyone? I mean the prisons have their fare share of people that are/were married, but decided they needed to take advantage of another human being.
I guess my point here is Why should a person lie if he/she wants to go to a nudist resort? If a person is going to take advantage of another person, it will happen whether or not he or she is married.
Just my vent for the day.