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.
Come on Woodsman, I honestly cant believe you are that naive.
I visit a family friendly resort where on our first trip there I figured I'd be the only guy with genital piercings...to my surprise that was not the case at all. I have seen dozens of men(probably 30-40), in the 2 years we have been going, with genital piercings ranging in age from 20s to 70s, including the owner of the resort. And not a single one has ever came across as cruising, looking to hookup, or swinging to my wife and I or any of our friends at the resort. Now are some of them swingers? probably so, I am sure some are single men who would enjoy sex as well. But a genital piercing does not equate to swinging, cruising, or looking to hookup. Making a blanket statement that all men with genital piercings are swingers and looking for sex is just as dumb as the blanket statement other people make when they say that all nudist are sexual deviants.
Well, maybe I am. Or maybe I just see people at face value, without a lot of pre-judgment. I dunno.
There it is, the Im not judgmental card.
Woodsman your statement is an oxymoron. By saying you have accepted people at face value is also a judgment on their character.
Whether or not wearing a cock ring make you sexually promiscuous or more likely, wishing to be sexually promiscuous its how others see you, and thats the problem.
As an adder to Stevie's comment, "Whether or not wearing a cock ring make you sexually promiscuous or more likely, wishing to be sexually promiscuous its how others see you, and that's the problem." is exactly the issue. Regardless of what anyone may want to believe, adding a bling factor to your genitals is an attempt to draw attention, period. That's why they're made. Otherwise, all the efforts, similarly designed, at advertising would go for naught. On the point presented by Voodoomagik about his resort having numerous folks with genital adornments, that is obviously true based upon his observation. But the likely causality is group 'self selection'. Per the generic definition, "especially : to opt in or out of something (such as a group, activity, or category) in accordance with one's personality, interests, etc. ." The people that are comfortable with that environment choose to be there and the others opt out. You're not seeing the whole pool of potential nudist members, just the ones comfortable with the, most probably, known environment. Added proof can be easily observed here on TN as the spoofers, fakes, assorted 'comfort people' and generic perverts have been more prevalent in daily interactions here on the site. The folks more tolerant of that activity are staying while the balance are slowly disappearing. Cases can be made for all of it, but the declining numbers here and disappearing public venues are 'prima facie' evidence that cannot be refuted. Keep it natural and have a better chance of keeping the spaces.
This is the truth that none of the pro genital jewelry people want to address. And that is a large part of the issue. They don't want to address it because they know its the truth so they skirt around it, obfuscate, conflate and talk about individual experiences that they generalize to everyone else. They do everything but address the issue.As an adder to Stevie's comment, "Whether or not wearing a cock ring make you sexually promiscuous or more likely, wishing to be sexually promiscuous its how others see you, and that's the problem." is exactly the issue. Regardless of what anyone may want to believe, adding a bling factor to your genitals is an attempt to draw attention, period. That's why they're made. Otherwise, all the efforts, similarly designed, at advertising would go for naught.
Making the point that one individual experience at one unnamed "family" resort can be generalized to every other resort and every other nudist situation is like saying one time I was is a garage and there were other cars there and I felt like a car. So everybody who goes into a with cars should feel like a car. Huh?
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!