StevieLorna wrote:A personal view. In our 30s we were very casual with clothes around the house, especially in the warmer months but we never considered ourselves nudists. Later choosing to be nude on a clothes optional beach, we still never considered ourselves nudists. It wasnt until we actively sought out nudist resorts that we finally started identifying as nudists.I agree with HCF, many people can be nude at home. That doesnt mean they are nudists.In the same way, me eating an apple does not make me a vegan.
I begin to appreciate your position. It may be true that for most people, nudism equates to social nudism. For me, it doesn't. It's a matter of personal commitment to the idea that when it doesn't make sense to wear clothes, it makes sense not to wear clothes. And to the idea that being nude and exposed to the sun and the breeze and the water unfettered by clothes that block those sensations is a Good Thing. But I'll grant that my take on it probably isn't yours.
True, eating an apple doesn't make you a vegan, in the same way that being nude in the shower doesn't make you a nudist. But if you're given a choice between an apple and a hamburger and choose the apple because you don't like the idea of eating meat, then you might consider yourself a vegan. In the same way, if I'm given a choice of being nude or clothed when I'm in my backyard and I prefer being nude because I feel more connected to the environment, then I consider myself a nudist.
Again, Woodsman, you are misconstruing my point.
My reply was in response to a statement that home nudism was on the increase. Even though this typed was with no actual evidence other than wishful thinking.
Simply being nude at home doesnt make you a nudist.
If youve been a nudist for years and are nude at home thats normal, but its not an increase in home nudism.
I remain confused by the connections you are trying to hear. You are trying to slice these examples so thin to try to validate you opinion but I dont think they stand up as more than an individual opinion or perspective.
It is clear to me a that a person does not like the idea of eating meat and not be a vegan. Talk to any vegan and you will learn it also extends to a philosophy of not using animal based products or by products like wearing a leather belt or using honey as a sweetener.
What you are doing IMO is just what you do with nudism. You take one aspect (maybe the most visible) of a way of life and magnify it above all other aspects then define the presence of that singular part as the whole.
I realize that works to justify your point but IMO it doesnt hold up to scrutiny. Just because you dont agree with the broader view of nudism doesnt make it invalid it just makes it another view that is contrary to your own.True, eating an apple doesn't make you a vegan, in the same way that being nude in the shower doesn't make you a nudist. But if you're given a choice between an apple and a hamburger and choose the apple because you don't like the idea of eating meat, then you might consider yourself a vegan. In the same way, if I'm given a choice of being nude or clothed when I'm in my backyard and I prefer being nude because I feel more connected to the environment, then I consider myself a nudist.
I try to get on when I can, but my job in media can get me busy. Ive also been dealing with some injuries lately thats slowed me down on a lot things. But getting back into my usual groove. One of my injuries involved my hand, so obviously that slowed me down on everything, with the other being my leg, but Im almost 100% healed, so Im getting back in my groove again, which is nice.
homeclothesfree wrote:I remain confused by the connections you are trying to hear. You are trying to slice these examples so thin to try to validate you opinion but I dont think they stand up as more than an individual opinion or perspective.It is clear to me a that a person does not like the idea of eating meat and not be a vegan. Talk to any vegan and you will learn it also extends to a philosophy of not using animal based products or by products like wearing a leather belt or using honey as a sweetener.What you are doing IMO is just what you do with nudism. You take one aspect (maybe the most visible) of a way of life and magnify it above all other aspects then define the presence of that singular part as the whole.
I think we're really on the same page here. My contention was simply that nudism doesn't assume social nudism. But I admit that for many nudists, social interaction is a vital component of proper nudism, a part of being who they are. But they would be mistaken to think that their game is the only one in town.
The person who goes nude at home or likes to go on nude hikes by themselves, but who doesn't seek out interaction with other nudists, is not a nudist by many people's definition. I recognize that.
But if the nudist who like to go on long hikes alone comes afoul of the law, that person might turn to AANR or TNS or BNS for legal assistance. Would those organizations turn that person down because he or she wasn't what I'd call a "social nudist"? It would be sad if they did.
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!