To be clear if this kind of behavior continues unchecked those of us who just want to be clothes free without sexual behavior in natural spaces will continue to see options reduced or eliminated. The behavior no matter how some try to spin it only provides fuel for those who want to deny us the practice altogether.
It was only a couple years ago the clothing optional section of Gunnison reduced without comment from anyone. Haulover is under scrutiny as reported by the South Florida Free Beaches Association and just recently Byron Bay in Australia clothing optional section was eliminated according to reports because conservatives used this kind of thing as an excuse.
Non sexual nudism is under threat and benign neglect from genuine nudists is partly to blame. It is time to call it out the behavior because that is the right thing to do and the only way to preserve any hope for public spaces for social nudism.
There are those in TN who constantly keep up the mantra, how nudism in America (and elsewhere) is heading downhill, and that the inevitable demise of nude resorts and CO beaches is already on the way, that the trend away from healthy social nudism is coming, through many divergent and often contradictory reasons - not the least of which is allowing free expression of open sexual practices where naked people congregate.
Sadly, they are not wrong if we caring, informed, and otherwise-inclined supporters of legal bareness allow a few bad characters to push their bullshit, prurient narrative - that they somehow have the right to fuck and suck on demand wherever they care to. When another place loses its wholesome, family-friendly nude spot, we naturists all lose, and we lose big time. It's a shame when a small percentage of visitors end up being walking pricks and uncontrolled clits, and those few do pull us all down with them with their lack of reasonable self control.
WW1 . . . you stated the most obvious with clarity. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote. The only catch is getting the offending horde to read the post and realize its about their stupidity selfish behavior. As has been said before, the only way to stop it (inappropriate behavior) is self policing. Simply put, we need to be much more assertive about telling them to *GET A ROOM*!!!
This is on point and unfortunately there are people who call themselves nudists and in the name of individual freedom turn a blind leading to the inevitable results we are seeing now. But what does that matter if they are able to express themselves right?When another place loses its wholesome, family-friendly nude spot, we naturists all lose, and we lose big time. It's a shame when a small percentage of visitors end up being walking pricks and uncontrolled clits, and those few do pull us all down with them with their lack of reasonable self control.
Going back to the original question, thoughts on seeing someone with a penis ring.
I dont care what you wear.
I do have opinions on it though.
In over twenty four years visiting nudist resorts ab beaches weve encountered all kinds of people from all walks of life with all kinds of interests. Weve met many swingers at nudist resorts but happily never encountered anything overtly sexual from their public behaviour.
Weve also seen couples with various piercings and genital decorations. If we see a woman with pierced nipples and clit ring with a man sporting a Prince Albert we automatically assume they are swingers. They may not always be, but personal experience tells us its almost always the case. Everyone else at the resort also thinks this. So if we see a guy with a cock ring, we might not think hes a swinger, (being solo and in his later years, usually) but we definitely think a sexual encounter is on his mind.
So when a bejewelled guy sits down next to us at the pool when there are dozens of other free loungers, I do question his motives. I wouldnt question the motives of a guy in a hat, or someone wearing sunglasses.
So dont start that bollocks and expect us to fall for it.
Answering the original question then, If I see a guy with a penis ring, I think he is wearing it because he want others to know, hes part of the looking for fun crowd even though its just making him look pathetic instead,
StevieLorna wrote:In over twenty four years visiting nudist resorts ab beaches weve encountered all kinds of people from all walks of life with all kinds of interests. Weve met many swingers at nudist resorts but happily never encountered anything overtly sexual from their public behaviour.Weve also seen couples with various piercings and genital decorations. If we see a woman with pierced nipples and clit ring with a man sporting a Prince Albert we automatically assume they are swingers.
I wonder if that's a cultural difference between Europe and the Americas. It's good to know how you'd be received at a different environment than you're used to. So people may need to keep that in mind when traveling.
Here in the western US, I haven't seen genital jewelry used as an indicator of promiscuity. (Or maybe I'm too obtuse to get the reference. I am in many ways more naive than most people are.)
Thanks for your observation.
One more thing: there's a great temptation in the public mind to conflate genital jewelry, or even simple nudity, with overt sexual activity. The latter is definitely out if we want to keep beaches nudist-friendly, as I'll explain below. But nudity is equated with pornography in our culture (if you doubt me, just put the word "nudist" or "nude" in your browser and see how far you have to scroll down before you find a genuine nudist web site.) That's the biggest obstacle we face.
I wonder what's being discussed at city councils in the areas where nude beaches are threatened. I don't know if they saying that "We've got to close down this beach because people are going beyond mere public displays of affection" or "We've got to close down this beach because people are wearing genital jewelry that we find out of line" or "We've got to close down this beach because people are walking around buck-naked."
Here in the US, the last statement is usually all that's necessary to put the kibosh on nudist activities on public land. If the people are naked, we have to stop it. It doesn't matter what they're doing, or what they're wearing in the way of jewelry. Nudity is immoral, and therefore must be made illegal.
But there's no question at all about public humping. It has no place in any public venue, whether naked or clothed. In California and other states, it easily falls under the category of "lewd and lascivious behavior" that's been the catch-all for any prosecution of public nudity. I don't see any problem with people being prosecuted for that. But I'm horrified that its presence on a public beach is used as a justification for banning all nudity.
The notion that Europe where everyday nudity is much more common place is different from the US in equating genital jewelry to promiscuity while us delighted people in the western US do seems so far fetched it strains credulity.
Could it simply be that genital jewelry like all other jewelry is meant to call attention to itself and signal something about the intention of the the wearer as another commenter suggested. Example wedding rings call attention to an individual hand and signal they are not available. Earrings call attention to the wearers face and can signal several things including a desire to be seen or in some cases sexual orientation.
All body decoration including jewelry serve a purpose and signal intention. To suggest that some how genital jewelry in this case cock rings are except from that just benign and so should be treated with benign neglect the so called live and let live approach is a paper tiger and ruse IMO opinion meant to deflect attention away from the factual impact that genital jewelry and other sexual devices (like butt plugs) worn a clothing optional beaches has on the experience of the vast majority of people who do not feel the need to accessorize it that fashion in said beaches. As well as the impact it has on the mainstream public perception which continues to result in the erosion of public clothing optional spaces.
IMO the desires of the many for nonsexual clothing optional spaces are being subjugation by the desires of the few under the guise of individual freedom, respect and tolerance.
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!