Nudism and Voyeurism/Eroticism: an Oxymoron?
Hello.
As a statement of observation, there apear to be a recognizable number of groups or forum posts relating to the common intrest of erotic art or voyeurism. Being fairly new to the nudist culture, I may not be completely educated on the incorporation of eroticism and voyeurism in nudist culture. However, I cannot help but be disturbed by the idea that these two -isms can be included in a nudist lifestyle by some people.
About six months ago, I was equally disturbed about the idea that nudism was sensual, but after learning further about what was actually meant by that adjective, I am now more accepting of it and realize that it is completely different than sex. From what I've learned, fundemental values of nudism separate sex from simple nudity. It would seem to me that any sexual gratification based mainly on the sight or pressence of a naked body would be against these fundemental values. And, just for reference, here are the deffinitions for Voyeurism and eroticism.
Difinitions obtained from https://www.merriam-webster.com
Voyeurism: one obtaining sexual gratification from observing unsuspecting individuals who are partly undressed, naked, or engaged in sexual acts; broadly : one who habitually seeks sexual stimulation by visual means.
Erotic: of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire.
Based on these deffinitions, I cannot see how anyone can participate in either of these -isms, esspecially voyeurism, and still consider themselves nudists. The values fundamentally conflict. Eroticism may be debated as being based more on sexual acts than nudity, but often nudity is heavily involved, and in my opinion, it's support from groups or forums on a nudist site does not support the distinction between nudism and sex. I also believe that looking at and appreciating naked people or pictures of them is not voyeurism, but if someone looks with the concious inclusion of sexual gratification involved, then it becomes voyeurism.
Any thoughts or opinions of this are welcome, but as some starting points of discussion, here are some questions. How do you think voyeurism and eroticism coincide or conflict with the fundamentals of truenudists.com or nudism in general? Is it alright to include such pro-voyeur or pro-eroticism forum posts or groups on this site? Do you think people do not understand exactly what voyeurism is? Is the term "voyuerism" incorectly applied to the non-sexual appreciation of the sight of a naked person or people? Do you think there should be a new term to identify this appreciaition, if one does not already exist? Should any sexual content, (Swinger groups, erotic art groups, etc.) be acceptable on this site?
My statements and observations are from what I have read and seen, and do not include a thourough review of all the content on this site. Also, feel free to call out any flaws I may have in this analysis.
I'll take a little crack at this. Voyeurism by the first definition is taking sexual pleasure from observing unsupsecting people in some degree of undress. So looking at another nudist without any sexual pleasure cannot be voyeurism because the observed naked person is not unsuspecting and no sexual feelings are involved. However, I do think it is voyeurism to look at a nudist with sexual pleasure if the subject is not aware of the viewerssexual arousal. If both are aware of the sexual nature of interaction, then I do not think that falls into voyeurism.
I find the broad definition of voyeurism to be too broad.
The issue of ertocism on this site is for the owner to determine, of course. We are human beings with programmed behaviors that we can control for the most part. Sexuality is a part of all of us. For some people they have a hard time separating nudity with sexuality. For others it is much easier to keep the two separated. Should those who can keep the two spearated be penalized becuase there are others on this site who can't? Of course that is up to the owner, but having a strong libertarian foundation, I would prefer to keep erotic groups here. Just my personal opinion.
The point of social nudity is to take overt sexuality out of the situation. This includes "normal" sexual urges as well. Nudism has nothing to do with sex, or sexual preferences. It's about behaving yourself and overcoming the urges that we inherently have. Therefore, it really doesn't matter if you're a voyeur, an exhibitionist, or whatever. As long as you behave yourself in nudist situations then everyone should be fine. Get naked, be happy!
Thank you everyone! This was my first starting thread post. The other 5 have been replies, so I am very glad to have recieved such a possitive response, but regardless of whether the response was possitive, I highly appreciate the discussion that has been contributed thus far. I was going to chime in here but thought I should just let the discussion go on a bit more first. ^_^ Thanks for the discussion!
Your questions:
How do you think
voyeurism and eroticism coincide or conflict with the fundamentals of
truenudists.com or nudism in general?
Voyerism and exhibitionism are part of the nude setting, albeit where ONLY nudies interact, they not really dominant things. Fact is that a relevant factor for participating some socially nude activities to certain people are exhibitionist/voyerist/eroticist traits.
Is it alright to include such
pro-voyeur or pro-eroticism forum posts or groups on this site?
That is a very hard issue. In general if people were able to take more academic approach, any issue could be discussed. It sure does get discussed in private. Nevertheless I tend to oppose allowing posts of that kind as it gives wrong signals to wrong kind of people who really not desired in community like this, as many such would definitely fall into category "TrueNudist". Groups is a bit different story, and I have no real opinion about it. As an activity between consenting adults, none of the inclinations in the question are illegal, just to which degree and when they can be brought in relation with nude recreation is another issue.
Do you
think people do not understand exactly what voyeurism is? Is the term
"voyuerism" incorectly applied to the non-sexual appreciation of the
sight of a naked person or people? Do you think there should be a new
term to identify this appreciaition, if one does not already exist?
When exactly does a non-sexual appreciation end and when a sexual appreciation begin? It is like many things in life, it is not only 100% or 0%, it can be bit of both. If I see an attractive representative of opposite sex, I appreciate her first and foremost non-sexually nice individual to look at, but my mood, her attention to me or some other detail may bring some sexual undercurrent to my appreciation. If we interact and hit it, my appreciation will turn fully sexual, but in this case it would most probably be already out of broader social nudity context. In general non-sexual appreciation is easy to differ from sexual - people mostly are quite obvious and if their sexual appreciation voyerist/exhibitionist AND strongly sexual they may or may not be able to stick to code of conduct in socially nude environment and that is the key issue here. Besides, non-sexual appreciation of human beauty I would call aestheticism.
Should any sexual content, (Swinger groups, erotic art groups, etc.) be
acceptable on this site?
Word erotic art alone is very debatable. Erotic art may be erotic without being sexually anyhow explicit. On the other hand it may be very blunt, too and thus offensive to some. In cyberspace with human interaction, exual content is always there, just I'd wish people to make a difference between social nudity and sexual preferences. Sex is as good topic to talk about as any, and that includes straight, gay, trans, polygamist, polyamorous, swinger, masturbative etc sex. Just social nudity is not about sex and if sex is one's sole or major motivation to be on a social nudity site, then it is a wrong place. I don't mind talking privately about sexual things myself. On the other hand, if people I talk to start mixing up social nudity and sex or claim to be nudies and give no indication of understanding the elementary things in socially nude behaviour, I do not deem the nudists and am not inclined to talk much with them, either.
All in all, I would say anything that does not contest the idea of social nudity is OK, including various sexual preferences that are not strictly illegal in most liberal western societies. The real problem in sex-related topics is that they tend to attract the wrong crowd and thus are problematic. I have sat in mixed company in nude setting with very various people and had interesting conversations about sex and sexuality of different individuals of very different kinds around same table/circle, but in socially nude setting it has been informative, not drooly talk. In general live and let live is a good principle. Also certain respect towards people whose preferences (sexual or non-sexual) vary from our own is definitely asked for.
Practical point is that there already enough wankers and fakes on this site and if somewhat more restrictive approach towards sex and sexuality helps to bring more right types to the site, it is good. On the other hand going too far to the prude corner fends off people who do think sex is part of life and should be able also debated openly BUT nevertheless are TrueNudists and not wankers or fakes. So basically any public topic that has a purpose of exciting either OP or (some) readers is inappropriate and should be removed. On the other thing any topic in the public, handling sex and sexuality, no matter of which kind, in an informative and responsible manner (though some may not say there is nothing responsible in having many partners for instance) is in general OK. Just too many people do not get this fine difference.
Many here who are lifelong or certainly long time nudists and have a deep understanding of "nudist culture" find it often frustrating when confronted with chat requests and discussion offered by those who have not yet come to appreciate the difference between social nudism and voyeurism/eroticism. However, such "encounters" offer an opportunity to educate, not in a "lecturing", put down way, but from the passion a deep love and appreciation of what social nudism is truly all about.
And here we have stated that which is so sorely lacking on this site in particular, of late. In fact, we have too many who take the opposit tack, where any opportunity to correct and educate is turned into an opportunity to scream "troll" and to insult, assault, and otherwise ruin any value whatever may have been had by anyone.
An academic discussion is not for everyone, I'm forced to distressingly admit, as there will always be at least one of such a small mind as to not permit it to be, yet we all could learn so much if such discussions could happen, regardless of our experience, or lack thereof. *I* will always gain so much more by an understanding of opposing opinion than otherwise, even if it's only to strengthen my own resolve.
defnitely.Nudism is not about seeing or being seen. Right on!
As much as I understand that argument I would disagree. If you didn't want to be seen nude or see others nude you'd do it alone in private only, one of the fundamental elements of something being social is the "see and be seen" part of it. If you'd like to argue that it's not about seeing others or being seen in a sexual light... fine, but I mean really you're there to be seen and see others... naked. I mean it's not necessarily a thing where you judge on sexual appeal or physical beauty... but you're still wanting to be seen.
I mean I'd be lying if I said that I didn't go to nude events to see others as much as to socialize. I mean take something like a ComicCon or something, part of the reason you go is to learn more about your favorite comics, part of it is to see the people that dress up as comic book characters, and sometimes to go dressed as one. The problem is this carries a negative conotation because we assume you want it for bad reasons... but there's lots of reasons people like to look and be looked at. For me it helps reinforce the idea that there's nothing lewd about it... I mean the last time I went locally a woman had a bruise on her ass. I wasn't "looking" at her ass as in a sexual thing... but I did look and see her ass and notice it, and thought "oh no how did she get that". The physical may not change your opinion of someone, but it's still something we look at whether we pretend we just see a face or not... just not necessarily in a sexual way.
The LAST thing I would want to see is a site like this one prohibit nude pictures. It would be oxymoronic to talk about nudity and not be able to see it or show it.
ON THE OTHER HAND, it just may may elevate the quality of discourse... and the quality of members and member participation.
As for what Cheri said, I will add this: Even when I'm clothed, I'm not dressing for anyone else's pleasure. Comfort and protection from the elements are the only consideration. Likewise, when nude, I simply want to relax comfortably. Whether someone is looking at me or not is irrelevant.
The LAST thing I would want to see is a site like this one prohibit nude pictures. It would be oxymoronic to talk about nudity and not be able to see it or show it.ON THE OTHER HAND, it just may may elevate the quality of discourse... and the quality of members and member participation.
And on yet another hand, ( how many hands does he have ? ) I gotta wonder if a prohibition against showing genetalia at all would force some to consider a more artistic approach, and help to reduce the out and out smut that passes for nudism ? Clearly, some of the best nude art of all time manages to do just exactly that ! ( and so did Sally Rand live and on stage )
defnitely.Nudism is not about seeing or being seen. Right on!
As much as I understand that argument I would disagree. If you didn't want to be seen nude or see others nude you'd do it alone in private only, one of the fundamental elements of something being social is the "see and be seen" part of it. If you'd like to argue that it's not about seeing others or being seen in a sexual light... fine, but I mean really you're there to be seen and see others... naked. I mean it's not necessarily a thing where you judge on sexual appeal or physical beauty... but you're still wanting to be seen.
What you say is right, YBM2007. Obviously a major part of social interaction, whether naked or clothed, is to see others and to be seen by them. I think, though, Cheri was making that rather generalised statement in the context of the OP's questions about voyerism and eroticism. Social nudism is not about voyeurism (seeing in order to be sexually aroused) nor exhibitionism (being seen in order to be sexually aroused).
You might want to check your definitions voyeurism is indeed about sexual gratification but exhibitionism is simply about showing off... unless of course you're referring to psychiatric dysfunction, and I assume you aren't in the profession to make that judgment. Which is probably why they use the term eroticism, which is actually about the sexual stimulation from having your senses activated and is more about a mind fuck, so to speak... which doesn't really fit in. Maybe... something like... observational. For example I would love to be a fly on the wall in a polygamist household just to see what the daily trappings are... even if i'm not actively interested in it. When I go to a beach even if I don't surf I like to watch the surfers... and when I do do something like beach volleyball I enjoy watching as much as I enjoy playing... doesn't mean it's sexual.
It's not a definite always/never or everybody/nobody kind of situation... but some people when they go out like to be noticed... and for more than they're awesome volleyball players. In the same way some people go out to look at more than how well you grill weinies. Doesn't mean it's sexual... just a human condition.
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!