I think it's the same for me. When I have gone to nudist camps and spent a day or longer there I noticed those sexual feelings went away pretty quickly. The more I was around people who were enjoying nudism the more relaxed and comfortable I became. The more I talk with others about this the clearer it becomes- thanks for all your input!
I am often in the same mode set. I am a lone nudist in my home so I often feel that just to be nude with my wife in clothes is odd. I enjoy my nude time on the pool deck and around the house when I am alone. But I too often find myself start to think on the sexual level. God made us as sexual being so I also justify my thoughts that way. I believe if I am misusing that gift from God that is when I feel guilt and shame. If I am in the right God frame of mind there is no guilt
Both nudity and sex are gifts from God. When you are alone, what and when you feel those feelings really is your business, with the caveat that if you are only aroused when nude and not when clothed, or you find yourself getting nude to become aroused, then you're not fully embracing nudity in its totality OR giving your sexuality the same care and respect. Clothing forces us, especially with the hyper visual culture of the body as object into an objectified, objectifying pornographic erotic cage, in which we conflate nudity or any number of things with sexuality and vice versa. Becoming comfortable with and accepting one's nudity and growing into a mature human in this is the process of separating any erotic connection between being nude and being sexual. That doesn't mean repressing this aspect of the self, it means letting go of the shame and the guilt and the compulsion or the denial about it, and replacing it with the determination to be both caring and respectful of one's sexuality and of being nude so that the two are without any relationship to the other. There is also the truth that what we can accept and should accept while by ourselves is much more open and without constraints than what we are bidden to do and be in a social setting, and I nor anyone else can proscribe how that is going to work out best for anyone else but me, but I will say that the most important thing is to be without shame or guilt, which is not to say, act with recklessness or abandon, but rather that when we are offending no one, and considerate in all things, what we choose to do privately or with another in private with consent for pleasure is in and of itself not only acceptable but without possibility of being a sin, or wrong. God did not make us disfunctional to this point, that is most certainly a concoction of mankind's failed imagination.
I agree with that feeling. When I'm in a pure nudist environment, it's completely natural and non-sexual.However, my wife doesn't see it that way and thinks nudity is too sexually charged.
That's understandable because as a woman, in a lot of nudist settings, you as a man will be perfectly certain that it is non sexual because you will not be directly or even subtly approached in that manner, and you will not feel any disproportionate degree of attention from others, as is the case with most men in most settings. But women, on the other hand will almost always be the focus of many times greater attention almost exclusively from other males, and even if all the twenty to 50 or so men who speak with her just introduce themselves the fact that there is that degree of attention carries with it the undeniable and unavoidable sense that this interest is disproportionate not due to any intellectual, social or random chance reason, or because they are just all that friendly but because they're seeing sexual encounters (or wishing to make quick and easy connections which women are going to read exactly the same way as in any other setting, because nowhere in life has it been any different and women are, by the time they are grown, completely aware of it in a way most men are never going to experience even a little. If you (or I, or any guy) had the same degree of attention most women get, I would bet you might feel somewhat the same. And its not only the verbal interacts but the glances, the smiles, the lingering and the obvious interjections and social niceties that demonstrate interest of a purely physical nature, or at very least, a fast entry into engagement with her, and him introducing himself just as fast. I don't talk to single women or couples in nudist settings as a single guy until I am spoken to, and then with the attitude that I want to make it easy to say goodday, be friendly and cordial paying attention to the couple or the individual as a couple or as a person, and nothing more. Simply because my intertests are not predatory, I am not seeking a lover, a liaison or access to that, but I know that this is going to be the suspicion and with good reason given the experience of most nudists who are in a couple or a single female, or even two or more women together, even if I am just friendly offer a kind word or linger.
It's very rare to find a nudist setting where most women feel comfortable and at ease, and which actively promotes and maintains that environment, and for most men, its not even perceptible because its not affecting them and the reality is that as a couple, you can go out for a social event clothed and the same thing will be the case more often than not for women, so nudist social space is not more or less attractive than textile, just not as much of a liberating experience as it is for men.
I agree with that feeling. When I'm in a pure nudist environment, it's completely natural and non-sexual.However, my wife doesn't see it that way and thinks nudity is too sexually charged.
Been a husband who's wife does enjoy nudism, it took some time to get to this point. We did the public places and as it was pointed out, the nudism that was experience in those 'clothing optional' places was sexually charged. I've heard my wife talk with other females and even males that wives are not comfortable with nudism, the females has to be comfortable with her self image. Until she is OK and accepts her self image and then how others will view her, it's a no go for them. You will read other post that they see no issue with males getting aroused, it's a natural thing, which is correct but it's a natural stage in a 'sexual' state. What you do is, take any situation, you don't get 'exited' just because, it would be considered 'inappropriate'. Now take the view of Christians, nudity doesn't get a good rap. It is like money, both money and nudity are not a bad things, it is was we do while having money and been nude. If we keep with the norms of them, do good with money, be a responsible in sharing our money wealth, been respectful while been nude, then a Christian should not have any issues with in this case nudity. Just like the other posters, single men get a 'bad rap' in nudity environment. It is key that individuals, especially single males, and males in general, understand that their actions will effect how others see them and single men or men in general. That 'natural' action will effect more than them but other men, how those they were 'inappropriate' with with men. and nudity in general.
I feel more confused than enlightened reading this thread, and try to remember that the Bible is a collection of books which was written over hundreds or thousands of years in various cultural contexts and as interpretations of oral histories which are even older. So I'm still not clear on how Onan was killed or smitten for pulling out while having sex with his sister in law, and Noah cursed his son Ham into slavery after Noah got drunk and Ham saw him naked. Why isn't Noah at fault for drunkenness and indecent exposure? What was the big deal for Noah's other sons to cover their drunk dad without seeing his genitals? And if that was such a big deal, how could the prophet Isiah, the Fisherman Peter and the Baptizer John all work naked without concern? I believe that there must have been some misguided intent or social context which was lost in the translation of these books. Even for the Puritans who provide a much more vivid historical framework, it's difficult to understand their relationship to sex and nudity. They likely lived in close enough quarters to be aware of other couples having sex and at the same time were unwilling to expose parts of their body for what we'd consider common sense hygiene. Go figure.
So who's to say how a man's erection can be both an act of morning innocence and a sexual provocation to a woman depending on the context. The key for me to remember is that everything is contextual, so it's what we have in our hearts that matters, and it's difficult for others to know and understand that.
nudistpig wrote:Leviticus is the social law of the Levite tribe. I spent a long time with rabbis and Jewish scholars to understand what that means, even in the time of the Levites before the writing down of the book, and they are all very clear that this is not religious law but social law
There's a similar situation in Islam, where Sharia law is conflated with scripture, so that the two seem to be fused together. But one can be a devout Muslim without worrying about conforming to Sharia law.
Nudistpig wrote:IThat's understandable because as a woman, in a lot of nudist settings, you as a man will be perfectly certain that it is non sexual because you will not be directly or even subtly approached in that manner, and you will not feel any disproportionate degree of attention from others, as is the case with most men in most settings. But women, on the other hand will almost always be the focus of many times greater attention almost exclusively from other males... because nowhere in life has it been any different and women are, by the time they are grown, completely aware of it in a way most men are never going to experience even a little. If you (or I, or any guy) had the same degree of attention most women get, I would bet you might feel somewhat the same.
Or, to put it another way, imagine yourself as a straight male going to a place frequented entirely by gay males who are hitting on you. Would you be comfortable in a situation like that? That's the world that women live in every day. And since it's been implied in societal norms that simply being nude is extending an invitation for sex, women have to be convinced that these societal norms are disregarded in nudist settings.
... So I'm still not clear on how Onan was killed or smitten for pulling out while having sex with his sister in law, and Noah cursed his son Ham into slavery after Noah got drunk and Ham saw him naked. Why isn't Noah at fault for drunkenness and indecent exposure? What was the big deal for Noah's other sons to cover their drunk dad without seeing his genitals? ...
Nudity itself was not the problem in these cases and, as in most cases where nudity get a bad rap scripturally it is because some folks didn't want to use the correct words. In scripture any condemnation of nudity, or the appearance of condemnation, was the result of an improper, often illicit, sexual component where the nudity was incidental to the sin being committed.
In the culture baptisms, and the Jewish ceremony it came from, were performed naked, even to the removal of jewelry and hair adornment. Prophets were often nude and when it talks about Saul being naked before God the question wasn't "has he lost his mind?" but "is Saul now among the prophets?"
In a cultural context much manual labour would have been performed nude. Skin was much easier to clean than fabric, the basest of which would have been very costly. Most people would have one, sometimes 2, pieces of clothing to their names and washing was a time consuming and destructive process, greatly shortening the life of the garment.
In a contextual reading Onan was smitten because he chose to disobey what was a cultural command, that he father a child with his sister in law; said child being considered the child of his dead brother who had left no offspring to protect and provide for his wife, now widow.
Ham was cursed, not because he saw his father naked, the context and word used for naked implied a carnal event, not even necessarily relationship, where he used sex with Noah's wife to indicate he was taking his father's most intimate relationship and thereby signaling that he was usurping his father's rule and authority. AS a friend of mine has described it those passages have suffered from squeamish translations.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!