As a long-term nudist, I can quite easily separate being nude with sexual nudity. After all, if arousal went hand in hand with nudity, I would be constantly exhausted so it's not actually practical.
The problem is when nudity and sex overlap and how that is perceived. Nudists and textiles are both sexual but textiles have the handy threshold of getting naked when they want to be sexual. For a nudist, there isn't that threshold. Also, if a nudist experiences arousal, the knee-jerk response is that they are conflating nudism with sex. It's as if there needs to be a public announcement that this nudist here is moving from the social nude world into a sexual one.
Personally, I still find this difficult to manage. My wife and I are both nudists and I'm attracted to her so I have sexual thoughts like most husbands have towards their wives. But as nudists, it's as if we're not allowed to feel sexual just because we're naked. If I get aroused openly around others, I do the decent thing and make myself scarce but people do see it happen unlike the aroused textile who can go incognito.
Controversially, I do see the appeal of nudist erotica. I have even written some. The way I rationalise this is that erotica can take place anywhere including the office. But that doesn't mean office workers are purely sexual creatures. So why not have erotica set on a nude beach?
A couple thoughts on this comment. I agree with most of what was said. I dont think it is hard to separate nudism for sexual activities. Also dont think being sexual is something that is anathema to nudism its just a matter of appropriate place and time so nudist spaces can be safe for everyone. For example there are some people actively get nude who dont want families with kids around nudist spaces so they can be publicly drunk and engage in sexual behavior. That is very selfish in my opinion because families have as much right to be able to enjoy nudism as single people or those without kids. Also there are adult only venues if you dont want to be around families.
Finally erotica is erotica in my opinion, there doesnt need to be a nude qualifier. Erotica has a sexual intention of arousal and titillation built into it. It can be set in any numbers of locations including ones where characters are nude. On the other hand naturist or nudist fiction has nudism and the accompanying social nudity at the center of the story without being focused on any sexual connotation.
I completely agree. I've written nudist fiction with both non-sexual every person audiences as well as sexual erotica.
As for family environments in nudism, yes, there is a distinction. Much the same way as there are adult-only bars and clubs as well as family-friendly places like restaurants when it comes to evening entertainment.
I find that naturists are more flexible than non-nudist textiles that, through no fault of their own, aren't aware of the naturist lifestyle and the mindset that goes with it.
I do tend to think as a textile in naturist circumstances and that probably why I overthink these things.
The point I was trying to make is if you accept nudism as not inherently sexual then no qualification is for erotica is necessary. Erotica is inherently sexual just as naturism/nudism is not inherently sexualI completely agree. I've written nudist fiction with both non-sexual every person audiences as well as sexual erotica.
Here are a couple quotes from papers and research on naturism to clarify what I mean
Recent paper
Naturist nudity is not interpreted through the prism of eroticism by naturists, because it does not have sex as an aim. Aleksandra Herman
Early research
We need to acquire the capacity to see the bodies of individuals of the other sex with such self-control and such natural instinct that they become non-erotic to us and can be gazed at without erotic feeling. Havelock Ellis -Psychology of Sex, Sex in Relation to Society (1929)
In order to make a clear separation between social nudity and sexual nudity we would need to separate the social from the sexual. And thats never been done in any context!
Lets get real here and not forget that people get aroused and act sexually when fully clothed too, so textiles arent separating social interactions from sexual interactions either. Does that make them perverts? No. It makes them normal. Whats not healthy or normal is fixation on denying human nature and the obvious, fundamental facts of our being. We need to manage our feelings and sexual impulses whether clothed or naked so as to behave respectfully and responsibly. But being respectful to our own and each others humanity also requires embracing our beautiful sexualities and their open fulfilment, and a rejection of the puritanical nonsense thats at the heart of ridiculous pretences of asexuality with which many seem to want to burden other naturists.
Heres to openminded naturism where sex is celebrated respectfully and openly rather than demonised by self-appointed guardians of naturism who are in reality just pretentious puritans.
SMH Whats not normal is the idea that the only thing that applies in social setting is individual needs wants and desires. This whole fake asexual idea about those who actually are mature enough to control their behavior and moderate sexual action to where it is appropriate is so tired and played out. The only people saying nudists are asexual is those who want an anything goes environment where the safety or concerns of other dont matter. I for one am anything but asexual but I dont use every social environment to pursue sexual activities. I am mature enough to know when and where sexual activity is appropriate.
On the other hand all these "open" and "open minded" libertines talk about people being overtly sexual while wearing clothing as if that is something common place. It isnt. People having sex in public wearing clothes is considered no more appropriate than people engaging in sexual activity unclothed. So stop with the false equivalency, what aboutism, false flags and paper tigers. The only people who buy it are those libertines who want to pursue their sexual profile ties under the guise of being nudists.
Unfortunately those in the mainstream who are against nudism totally also see this and use it to reinforce their interest in eliminating nudism.
I am not sure if its a lack of education or wilful ignorance but Im constantly amazed at how many people fail to understand the meaning of the words they use.
Puritan, look it up and then tell me that it in any way could be used to describe a nudist.
Asexual, look up the definition.
I can sit with a beautiful sexy woman dressed or naked and have a conversation. I dont need to sexualise anyone to be social. That in now way means Im not attracted to anyone.
I am a normal adult male.
Thanks for calling out the usual drivel that tries to cast people who know how to be appropriately sexual as asexual just because the libertines want to engage in sexual activity anywhere and everywhere. I usually return to this quote from a paper on the difference between naturism and libertine nudity.For the RAKES', on the other hand, nudity is a sign of sexual readiness. What's more, they are not "sexually closed", but are open ready to touch and be touched, ready for bodily contact and intimacy. This interpretation of nudity is in stark contrast to the one shared by naturists. - ALEKSANDRA HERMAN :NATURIST UTOPIA AND LIBERTINE REBELLIONOver the years we have met hundreds if not thousands of nudists, cant say any of them were asexual, we certainly are not.So, how does one recognise an asexual nudist?
The big problem people have all over the world at the time we live is simply, "Commercialism and man made laws", power seekers who are specifically chosen for the purpose to drive their personal views of what they want to be right and wrong into other peoples lives.
These people who present their laws forcing themselves onto individuals who are naturalists are NOT the same type of people. My research has shown that the UK laws were changed back in 2003 on this very subject. Let me digress...
The Media approached the police (UK) asking their views and understandings of laws regarding to sexuality, male to male, female to female. The police with their usual approach came straight out and said, "We will prosecute ANYONE like that"?
The press laughed. Okay then now we've established the law on this subject. What about this evidence that shows your own police officers are also gay and lesbian people. Once the evidence was presented to them, their reply became, give us time to get this sorted out, we will get to the bottom of this, which is not acceptable!
What then happened? The law changed and said people had a right to be gay or lesbian. No prosecutions etc, because its their own people, who can't be seen to be wrong in socienty.
I certainly will NOT be bound by these people and their rules of law. They say naturists, nudists have some type of mental illness that causes us to be the way we are? Who then are the police force with their deranged mindsets to tell anyone else right from wrong!
Their probation services are out each week of the year telling people on their court ordered courses that men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women are having NATURAL normal healthy sex and its legal?
Absolutely everyone living on this planet knows they are born NAKED. Nobody growing up through early childhood has a problem being around other people, family and friends in their naked state. You just can't dress it up any other way with words etc other than its the most normal and natural design of life we've all been given.
It is irrelevant whether anyone chooses to believe in a creator or not, but what is certain is that it is recorded that he the creator of heaven and earth said, let us make them in OUR IMAGE, male and female. They were both naked, living naked and had no problem at all until sin entered the equation of life.
What are the human race left with now! Some of the most dangerous incorrectly educated people hiding behind uniforms bulleying their way through life on individuals with their deranged mindsets.
The standard was set correctly 6000 years ago, its natural and normal and people should be left alone in or on their own properties at least. Its their lifes not anyone elses.
Rant over.
Badly educated or just ignorant?The big problem people have all over the world at the time we live is simply, "Commercialism and man made laws", power seekers who are specifically chosen for the purpose to drive their personal views of what they want to be right and wrong into other peoples lives.These people who present their laws forcing themselves onto individuals who are naturalists are NOT the same type of people. My research has shown that the UK laws were changed back in 2003 on this very subject. Let me digress...The Media approached the police (UK) asking their views and understandings of laws regarding to sexuality, male to male, female to female. The police with their usual approach came straight out and said, "We will prosecute ANYONE like that"?The press laughed. Okay then now we've established the law on this subject. What about this evidence that shows your own police officers are also gay and lesbian people. Once the evidence was presented to them, their reply became, give us time to get this sorted out, we will get to the bottom of this, which is not acceptable!What then happened? The law changed and said people had a right to be gay or lesbian. No prosecutions etc, because its their own people, who can't be seen to be wrong in socienty.I certainly will NOT be bound by these people and their rules of law. They say naturists, nudists have some type of mental illness that causes us to be the way we are? Who then are the police force with their deranged mindsets to tell anyone else right from wrong!.
David your reasoning and research is so epically wrong its hard to know where to start, but Ill give it a go.
The police enforce the law, although these days its been changed to apply the law.
The police dont make laws. The police cant pick and choose which laws they want to apply.
The people who make laws, are us, you and me, everyone who votes for their local politicians.
Politicians (working through us and public opinion of the day) can bring a bill to introduce a new law, change an existing one or abolish one all together. This bill has to be passed by both houses for it to become an act.
The police change their guides every time a law gets amended or a new one introduced. They have no say on which laws they can apply and which they can ignore.
If you truly want nudism to be accepted, dont say god made us this way.
Change public opinion. Flashing your dick in front of your neighbours isnt going to help anyone.
If you or anyone else want to change public opinion and make nudism more acceptable?
My first suggestion to many here would be, stop making nudism weirder than they think it is.
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!