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?
StevieLorna wrote responding to my quote:"Well, maybe I am. Or maybe I just see people at face value, without a lot of pre-judgment. I dunno."Woodsman your statement is an oxymoron. By saying you have accepted people at face value is also a judgment on their character.
I guess it could be taken that way. What I meant to say is that if a person is simply wearing a plain cock ring, I'm not going to make a value judgment on his morals or his character. I'm going to wait to see if he goes out of his way to be sexually aggressive, socially obnoxious, or in-my-face about it. That's when I'll make an analysis of his 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.
Maybe that's true of most people, and I'll grant that it could be taken as grounds for suspicion in some circumstances. But as I mentioned before, any sort of pubic adornment is a grey area. I've seen more than a few ladies with a "landing strip" shave, with a bit of hair remaining above the vulva but shaved clean elsewhere. I can't imagine that it's for comfort. It clearly signals to me that the woman wants to call attention to her pubic cleft. But am I to assume that the woman is trolling for sexual contact? Or maybe she's seen it on other women and just likes the look?
Some men shave their pubic area, and say that it's for comfort. Others do it to make their junk look bigger. But in the latter case, are they signaling that they're ready for sex, or do they just like the look of having a longer penis? When women shave their pubic area, is it for comfort or because they want people to take their shaven pubes as a sign that they're out for promiscuity?
If we draw the line at cock rings, fine, we draw the line there. But there are many other potential lines to be drawn, and many other reasons for supposing that people are signaling more than just a love of self and a love of nudity. My real concern is that, once we start drawing these lines, we are tempted to draw others, about pubic hair, tattoos, or even haircuts. (Is that far-fetched? I remember a time when long hair was definitely a symbol of the counter-culture, to the point where I was once spit on simply because I had long hair then.)
I'm talking, of course, about how we regard ourselves. How others regard us, including the people who share beaches with us or with public magistrates who dictate the bounds of propriety, is something else again. We have to be sensitive to those feelings, too, particularly when our right to use those beaches is at stake. I don't think there's any disagreement there.
StevieLorna wrote responding to my quote: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.Maybe that's true of most people, and I'll grant that it could be taken as grounds for suspicion in some circumstances. But as I mentioned before, any sort of pubic adornment is a grey area. I've seen more than a few ladies with a "landing strip" shave, with a bit of hair remaining above the vulva but shaved clean elsewhere. I can't imagine that it's for comfort. It clearly signals to me that the woman wants to call attention to her pubic cleft. But am I to assume that the woman is trolling for sexual contact? Or maybe she's seen it on other women and just likes the look?Some men shave their pubic area, and say that it's for comfort. Others do it to make their junk look bigger. But in the latter case, are they signaling that they're ready for sex, or do they just like the look of having a longer penis? When women shave their pubic area, is it for comfort or because they want people to take their shaven pubes as a sign that they're out for promiscuity?If we draw the line at cock rings, fine, we draw the line there. But there are many other potential lines to be drawn, and many other reasons for supposing that people are signaling more than just a love of self and a love of nudity. My real concern is that, once we start drawing these lines, we are tempted to draw others, about pubic hair, tattoos, or even haircuts. (Is that far-fetched? I remember a time when long hair was definitely a symbol of the counter-culture, to the point where I was once spit on simply because I had long hair then.)I'm talking, of course, about how we regard ourselves. How others regard us, including the people who share beaches with us or with public magistrates who dictate the bounds of propriety, is something else again. We have to be sensitive to those feelings, too, particularly when our right to use those beaches is at stake. I don't think there's any disagreement there.
This is exactly it. These people want genital piercings and cock rings to be the scapegoat for the nudist community. When in reality the decline of public nudist spaces is due to people behaving poorly in public, overt sexual acts in public, etc. And those two things are not one in the same. Obviously they think genital piercings and jewelry equates to sexual deviants and they want to believe that that is what's causing the decline in nudist populations and public nude venues. A man having a Prince Albert ring, or a woman having her clitoris pierced doesn't equate to swinging and sexual promiscuity anymore than a person shaving bare to make their genitals more visible. Or as you said, one shaving a certain design into their genitals, obviously they went out of their way to shave in a landing strip, or a triangle patch of pubes...does that mean they are looking for sex? Of course not. And its absolutely ignorant for people to think that.
The scapegoat argument is a total false flag. I could use another phrase but I will keep it civil. Facts are facts. The nudist community is the one being scapegoated. Mainstream society sees the guys on public beaches wearing a "simple cock ring" and they move to a precursor to sex. It doesnt matter what the nudist community thinks at that point get your facts straight and stop all the deceptive projection. Why is it you all never speak to the real issue. No one can tell you what to do or wear in the privacy of your own home. But a beach is not a private space and in every civilized society their a norms for what is appropriate in a public spaces.
We are losing so many of the spaces for simple nudity while all the individual people who want to put their individual "comfort" and personal desires above all the people who just want to being clothes free at the beach with friends and family. There was a simple thread on Reddit and it didnt take long for several examples to be pointed where c/o places were ruined for everyone because of this craziness. But I suspect the c ringers dont really care.
. But I suspect the c ringers dont really care.
The simple fact is the guy whos wearing old washing machine parts on his cock and balls will never concede is sexual.
Everyone else thinks it is.
So when all the nudist spaces are gone, itll be because of all these people in hats or with haircuts that ruined it.
Woodsman, the excuses after excuses is embarrassing, Im sorry.
.So when all the nudist spaces are gone, itll be because of all these people in hats or with haircuts that ruined it.Woodsman, the excuses after excuses is embarrassing, Im sorry.
If I'm making the same point over and over, it's because I don't think I'm properly getting my message across. I apologize for that.
And I do maintain that when we lose all those nudist spaces, it's because of people who are acting badly with sexual misconduct or making unwanted advances to other people, not people who wear jewelry that mainstream nudists frown on.
If you truly sense that the mere wearing of genital jewelry is enough to get a beach closed down by public authorities, then by all means discourage it... not because it's a betrayal of nudist beliefs or sentiments of personal freedom, but because the Powers That Be at that particular beach have dictated it. "When in Rome..." Same for resorts, who have a lot more power to boot somebody who's out of line with their philosophy.
Maybe it's time for a frank talk with the authorities, to ask them what they consider out of line. I know of one nudist beach around here (I forget the name of it offhand, but it's on the coast where Fort Ord used to be). The rangers there are happy to talk with visitors, and they appreciate that those visitors take the time to ask them about policy rather than just going ahead and doing what they want.
Mate, its nothing to do with the authority.
Its a personal choice and its a personal obligation.
If your objective is prioritising your shiny cock over everything else.
Sigh.
It was fun while it lasted.
This is a straight out false dichotomy a perfect example of whataboutism that continues to deflect from the reality. Genuine nudist beliefs are exclusive of the idea that sexual activity is a private thing and cock rings despite all the protestations are designed as a precursor to sexual activity so because, one person or one happens to go along with the idea that c rings are non sexual doesnt make it so. On earth one that just isnt reality. People in the majority of people in the nudist community and on mainstream society see it for what it is. The consequence of trying project an alternative set of facts on earth two doesnt change. This is a case of the minority who arent being harmed claiming victimhood I the face of the actual beliefs of the majority are being harmed..If you truly sense that the mere wearing of genital jewelry is enough to get a beach closed down by public authorities, then by all means discourage it... not because it's a betrayal of nudist beliefs or sentiments of personal freedom, but because the Powers That Be at that particular beach have dictated it. "When in Rome..." Same for resorts, who have a lot more power to boot somebody who's out of line with their philosophy..
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!