Big No, you look other people into the face and thats it. Do not behave like a textile or swinger and look them on the boobs, or bulge or buttocks. You will look there sub-consciously, but consciously you look into the face otherwise it is not good naked culture, for sure no naturism.
I would like to quote from the paper: "Naturist utopia and libertine rebellion" by Herman 2016: For the naturists, eyesight is a tool of self-control and of control of the surroundings, in the sense that insistent staring ones own and of others must be kept in check. The naturists realise that looking even if unintentional might be interpreted as impudent by the observed person. Pursuant to the rule of intuitive law, it is then the looker who must make sure that his or her looking does not breach the privacy of another person. Fleeting, short glances, one-overs are allowed."
Big No, you look other people into the face and thats it. Do not behave like a textile or swinger and look them on the boobs, or bulge or buttocks. You will look there sub-consciously, but consciously you look into the face otherwise it is not good naked culture, for sure no naturism.
Great point, paper your quote is a good one used that particular quote several times. Here is another good one.
I always go with women who are my friends, and many times its their first try at nudism and for sure first time being nude in front of me...I really enjoy seeing them nude and me being reciprocal nude. So its not exactly the same, but I like that it puts us on even ground without all the sexual stuff that can go with being friends.
I love being naked and I love seeing others enjoying the same pleasures that I share.
This link to the article you offered is not working, or at least not for me. I was curious to read a news story about this incident, but then I got the 404 page on Fox news. Fox news in court some time ago, to get out of a lawsuit they were involved in, stated that they were not a news channel but in fact an entertainment channel, so that immediately makes anything they are "reporting" to be questionable. Anyone who calls themselves 'NEWS' in their title but then claims something else make me wary of their content, as I feel it should for anyone.
Can you corroborate the story through a more reputable source, please?I read a recent news t report about a man being shot dead on a nudist beach for preforming a sex act in front of some women.That is a bit extreme but naturists are very quick to work out just who the creepy people are and soon let them know they are not welcome.Here is link to that article https://www.foxnews.com/world/nudist-arrested-shooting-fellow-nudist-exposed
This link to the article you offered is not working, or at least not for me.
Link was updated apparently Fox News changed the URL
Fox was not the only source that reported on the incident since a report naturist news stories on my site I always validate from more than one source here are a couple others including the independent from the UK that reported a quick Google search would have surfaced many more
https://news.yahoo.com/75-old-nudist-arrested-shooting-175946128.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/lyon-shooting-nudist-beach-france-b2130411.html
This link to the article you offered is not working, or at least not for me. I was curious to read a news story about this incident, but then I got the 404 page on Fox news. Fox news in court some time ago, to get out of a lawsuit they were involved in, stated that they were not a news channel but in fact an entertainment channel, so that immediately makes anything they are "reporting" to be questionable. Anyone who calls themselves 'NEWS' in their title but then claims something else make me wary of their content, as I feel it should for anyone.
This case was in reference to Tucker Carlson, a commentator, not a hard news show. Fox News clearly deliniates it's hard news shows from it's commentary shows (Unlike many of the other networks where they bleed together).
At least with Fox News, I'm getting the story. Yes it may be slanted to the conservative view point, but I get the story. It's amazing how many stories CNN, MSNBC, and the others blatantly ignore because it's bad for the DNC. (Think pretty much anything about Hunter).
John aka cobeachbum
This link to the article you offered is not working, or at least not for me. I was curious to read a news story about this incident, but then I got the 404 page on Fox news. Fox news in court some time ago, to get out of a lawsuit they were involved in, stated that they were not a news channel but in fact an entertainment channel, so that immediately makes anything they are "reporting" to be questionable. Anyone who calls themselves 'NEWS' in their title but then claims something else make me wary of their content, as I feel it should for anyone.This case was in reference to Tucker Carlson, a commentator, not a hard news show. Fox News clearly deliniates it's hard news shows from it's commentary shows (Unlike many of the other networks where they bleed together).At least with Fox News, I'm getting the story. Yes it may be slanted to the conservative view point, but I get the story. It's amazing how many stories CNN, MSNBC, and the others blatantly ignore because it's bad for the DNC. (Think pretty much anything about Hunter).John aka cobeachbum
I didnt know Hunter was in the president cabinet or running for office? If he or anyone did something wrong prosecute them( they had 4 years for Benghazi is classic Conservative smear politics with no outcome! LOL )....Is that hard to understand?....Damn were living through something more corrupt than the Reagan administration and your worried about Hunter? WoW...time to read and wake up my friend!
Im not quite sure how this thread went for sunglasses to Benghazi.
In any case, I think it's dangerous to make claims of "true" nudism, which sounds dogmatic to me. To me it's about respect. That's RE as in "again" and "spect" as in "look at" (think spectator, spectacles). Respect=to look at twice. The first time for yourself, the other time from the other's perspective. That means we need to give that other person a chance to look back and respond, or we are invading their autonomy. Some may be offended by a glance and others welcome a stare. It's hard to gauge for people clothed and in everyday situations, and nudism only makes it more complex. As far as sunglasses, people sense when they're being stared at, just like you stare at someone from behind and they'll likely turn their head to see what "it" is.
Yes or no? It depends.
This could get ugly but I will say that from my viewpoint, the blame game and falsehoods have to stop. If it is news, report it as such and if it is opinon or analysis, make that known. Too many people are playing games with the truth, and that is causing a lack of trust in the system. It may not be perfect, but our system of democratic representation is the best to have been devised so far. What we need most is an electorate that actually represents their constituents.
Too many of us sit back and critcize, but do we contact our representatives? I try but rarely get a reply and when I have gotten one, the answer has been a form letter that essentially says, I am right and you are." Polls have shown that a majority of us are not happy with our representation, yet we continue to reelect those who are not listening to us. I can't even count on the newsletters from my congressman to be truthful. They tend to be written with an attitude of show how they are working for us, when in actuality they are working for themselves. Find me a politician who began his tenure with little to no money and ended it after many years with little to no money.
I didnt know Hunter was in the president cabinet or running for office? If he or anyone did something wrong prosecute them( they had 4 years for Benghazi is classic Conservative smear politics with no outcome! LOL )....Is that hard to understand?....Damn were living through something more corrupt than the Reagan administration and your worried about Hunter? WoW...time to read and wake up my friend!
If Joe is "The Big Guy" and was involved in Hunters shady business dealings and used daddy's position as VP, it's relevant. If Joe sold access to the VP office and the President, it's relevant. The fact is the mainstream media buried the story because it looked bad for Joe and the DNC. They are no longer "News" orginazations, they are propaganda arms for the DNC.
John aka cobeachbum
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!