Nudists should be more tolerant.
In some respects, nudist are the most tolerant people on the planet. In others, they are absurdly intolerant. For some, a boner is entirely intolerable. I've been told many resorts will ban a man for having one. TN seems to be moving towards greater tolerance -- looking at the whole image and not focusing on one part.
Nudists should be more tolerant.In some respects, nudist are the most tolerant people on the planet. In others, they are absurdly intolerant. For some, a boner is entirely intolerable. I've been told many resorts will ban a man for having one. TN seems to be moving towards greater tolerance -- looking at the whole image and not focusing on one part.
I just have issue with the idea that opinions about what other people do with their bodies in public should matter. Each of us to our own bodies, the others can make their own decisions.
I just have issue with the idea that opinions about what other people do with their bodies in public should matter. Each of us to our own bodies, the others can make their own decisions.
I agree completely. Does their behavior abridge or violate any of my rights, am I being harmed, is my property being damaged? If not, then it's none of my concern; it doesn't affect me; it's none of my business.
When you say penis ring, do you mean a cock ring or penis jewelry? I have a pubic, scrotal and foreskin piercing as well as a penis tattoo. For me, it's not sexual but instead just decorations, or adornment. for my genitals.I love my genital decoration and dont see why clubs look down or prohibit it but tattoos even suggestive ones are ok. Nudists should be more tolerant.
I think also given what other men have said, that for the vast history of human beings being nude which is almost a million years and with adornments for at least 250,000 the version of naturism that says its wrong is.... barely 50 years old. There's the usual dose of cultural imperialism in there, and some hubris. One of the major, major flaws of this naturism or these naturists is that they cannot restrain themselves for deciding for others what is right and wrong in any space someone else's home public a foreign country, it's absurd. This kind of social control or the desire for it is what we expect from very extreme religious sects not nudists or naturists. The entire premise was to get away from judgment and approbation and yet here we are with people who don't have don't know and don't want to, expressing opinions about the internal state of others they cannot have a clue about.
If it's not your beach, your home, your club and you didn't ask the other person who was not being declarative in one way or the other, first off none of your business go elswhere if that is bothering you, and number two, you dont know. Mind reading is not a skill anyone here possesses. I don't understand the point, none of this was expressed in the moment, so you fumed and fretted about it until you could regurgiate it here, and what good has that done? Start a thread where you share your views from your experience of not being peirced and be positive about it and don't mention others if it matters. Why do none of you ever do that? It's not hard, and its more constructive than whinging.
Those who think that individual expression rises above everything are as much purists as those of us who want nudism and naturism to be no sexual in nature.
The nature of genital jewelry is sexual and any pretense that it isnt designed to draw attention to sexual organs is just that pretense and gaslighting in order to pursue an individual agenda regardless of how is seems to anyone else. This kind of toxic individuality is why societies and institutions no longer have any clout and we no longer have any interest in the common good.
As to nudists being tolerant they are no or less tolerant than any other segment of society. The attempt to shame those who simply express their opinion and view that nudism/naturism is non sexual in terms of public expressions of sexual behavior is nothing but a false flag and paper tiger meant to silence our voices. So the same people who say they must be allowed self expression turn around and attempt to quell the same when it doesnt serve their purpose. We seeit in the broader society and we see it in what now passes for nudism online.
I wish everyone would just be honest and be transparent about motives and intentions. That is not the world we live in however so we are left with the muddle of comments that have been shared here. It is no longer that society as a whole is moving away from nudist acceptance. In countries like Germany and the UK where naturists have worked hard to define public social nudity as non sexual there are many more opportunities for social and solo public nudity. While in the US clothing optional spaces and venues decline every year. But maybe that is what the individuals want because then their individual expression will stand out.
The nature of genital jewelry is sexual and any pretense that it isn't designed to draw attention to sexual organs is just that pretense and gaslighting in order to pursue an individual agenda regardless of how is seems to anyone else. This kind of toxic individuality is why societies and institutions no longer have any clout and we no longer have any interest in the common good.
No part of the human body is inherently sexual. This is borne out by the fact that different societies sexualize different parts of the body. In some societies, a person can be entirely nude, as long as their feet, hands, hair, or face is covered from public view. Thus, any jewelry worn on those parts of the body is there strictly for the purpose of drawing sexual attention to those sexual parts.
The Bakairi tribe in Brazil believe that eating is a shameful activity that should only be done in private.
Merely because you see something as sexual doesn't mean others see it the same way. If you are not being harmed, if you property is not being damaged, if your rights are not being violated or abridged, if it's taking place somewhere not on your private property, then it's none of your business. I have a brother who insists that he is being physically harmed by people who do not share his perspective. When I've asked him to describe this physical harm, he is unable to do so but continues to insist that it's happening. He has full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
No part of the human body is inherently sexual. This is borne out by the fact that different societies sexualize different parts of the body. In some sociThe Bakairi tribe in Brazil believe that eating is a shameful activity that should only be done in private.
Didnt know we were talking about Brazilian tribes? Anyway my response to the idea that part of the body is sexual is someone ole folks in my community often say. Common sense isnt all that common anymore.
Didnt know we were talking about Brazilian tribes? Anyway my response to the idea that part of the body is sexual is someone ole folks in my community often say. Common sense isnt all that common anymore.
The case of the Bakairi tribe was giving as an example.
And a member of that tribe would "know" that the shame of eating is merely common sense. Of course it's shameful. And that's no different from claiming that any particular organ is dirty and shameful -- inherently sexual. The truth is, common sense clearly dictates that no part of the human body is dirty, shameful, or inherently sexual.
Regardless, if you are not being harmed, if your rights are not being violated, if your property is not being damaged, it's none of your business -- there cannot be a clearer case of common sense. Are you like my brother? Do you believe you are being physical harmed by people who disagree with you?
His argument is definitely coming across as "I don't like that and so it's obviously wrong and shouldn't be allowed". My father was adamant in teaching us the golden rule of "mind your own business", especially when it's not harming you in any way. So some man's penis has a shiny bit of metal on it, or a woman's nipples have hoops through them...who cares? No need to go clutching one's pearls over something so insignificant. It's a piece of jewelry, meant to enhance that person's look or self love or even sexual pleasure. But as long as they aren't actively having sex in front of you then that jewelry is no more sexual than a wedding band. I mean he is arguing a piece of metal is sexual, while he stares at another man's penis?
Can we not just agree,body adournments are not new, each to there own, if you're gonna visit naturist sites/ beaches, you are gonna see the whole spectrum of bodies and whatever they want to do with them, be it tattoos, jewelery, piercings, you're not gonna die cos someone has a pierced cock, chill out, live and let live
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!