The attitued of couples only has always bothered me. They are essentially painting all men as sexual deviants when in reality it is a few who are and not the many. I understand the problems that clubs have had in the past, but deal with it on an individual basis. If you have a person causing problems, kick them out and if they won't go, call the cops. Part of nudism is about acceptance, which is fantastic, but nudists do not practice it. Obviously that's the case since single men are discriminated against on a daily basis and when we have the balls to complain about it we are told to get a girlfriend? Well I've got a wife and she wouldn't take one step into a nudist resort because she's not a nudist. So what am I supposed to do? Find some nudist woman who I dont' even know to go with? Like that's going to happen. I guess I could find a guy friend to go with, but wait, a couple in most places isn't two men, it has to be a man and a woman. So again, I'm screwed and I hate getting screwed and not enjoying it. In the end, if I want to enjoy nudism in a social setting I will have to start a resort of my own, becuase it's painfully obvious to me that the nudist movement does not give a rats-ass about single men. Unfortuantely for me I do not have the finances to do so, which is really sad because I would make a mint I'm sure. Which boggles my mind even more, as the VAST majority of nudists out there are single men! You would think somebody would pick up on that big cash cow, because if single men knew there was a place they could go they would show up in droves.
Another great post swifty. I too have felt there was a conflict between the acceptance of nudism and the discrimination I have seen. My interest in starting my own resort has even gone to the point of looking at some land for sale in what would be a prime location, midway between a college town and a popular lake. Unfortunatlely I don't have the finances to do so either. If I ever did, you would have a free pass and I would even find a friend to take your wife shopping. LOL
LMAO! Deal! Truth be told though, I have always had it in my head that one day YOU would be starting a nudist resort/campground. I don't know why I've always felt that, maybe it's because when I think of Texas I think of wide open spaces. But hopefully one day you will be able too, because knowinng you as I do I'm sure the place would be one of the better ones out there!
On some levels I agree with Willie, but not on others.
True, the single male ban is quite prejudiced, very narrow minded, and does tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
On the other hand, I've heard or known of many problems caused by a very few, who happened to be single males.
There have been one or three caused by females, but they are the decided minority.
Unfortunately, some will declare that it's simply easier to restrict single males for whatever stated reasons, than to try and filter the large numbers, in attempt to weed out the problems. Further, some do have a genuine interest in gender balance. I've no problem with either, personally. Yes, there clearly is a sexual undertone, as there must be. The word "gender" implies sex, whether in regard a person, or a wall plug. This can't be avoided. IMHO attempts to de-sexualize any human anything is short sighted, and wrong, no matter how politically correct as it has become in the US of A over the last 40 years or so.
We all have sex ! ( it's NOT a verb ! ) Attempts to believe it has no affect is dishonest at best.
Are single males the victims of perversion ? NO ! We're the victims of the single males who have truly earned the contempt of society at large.
I hold no grudge against those who look askance at me as a single male, but I hold a GREAT deal of contempt for those males who have earned it, and by proxy victimized ME with their stupidity.
Tell me where you can find a single girl who is into nudism in a nudist park. SIngle women in nudist camps dont exist.
Perhaps not in Mass. but they do exist.
At both of the resorts I've been to this year, in fact.
Further, both are full members. One has a camper permanently parked at one resort, and the other owns a cabin at the other resort. One is a widow, the other divorced long ago. More-so, I know of at least two couples who met at the resort. The younger, both quite good looking folks. ( younger meaning 40's ) Also, full members with permanent vacation residence on the resort. I know of, have met, at least one more now couple who reconnected at a resort. He's a bit jealous type, and with reason.
It very much appears that although there are fewer single women at resorts than in the general population, that's also true in reverse. In fact, I'm finding the ratios a much more favorable 2:1 as opposed to about 15:1 on singles sites, including single nudist sites. Perhaps the element of pre-screened choices at resorts has something to do with it ?
It all appears that while the undercurrent of discrimination does exist, it's very real, it's not that great a hurdle most of the time.
And, I agree with you !
I merely suggest that to others, one bad apple HAS spoiled the whole bunch, and that my greatest contempt is held not for those who may have had a bad experience and tarred us all with the same brush, but for the root cause of their discontent.
I agree with Willy that a pervasive evil exists, that it is two-faced, and may even be as bad as he suggests in some few cases where the evil seeks to exclude *us* as competition, fostering itself. This truly a bad thing by any measure, and that's what results in the clubs that ban the married man sans spouse while accepting *single* unmarried men. I've seen this very same thing happen in supposed support groups for recently single parents, and such, in the textile world as well.
As Willy suggests, the "acceptance" espoused by many does not manifest in their actions. Hypocrisy exists.
I accept that. It's left to me to prove myself each and every time I visit a resort. I accept that also, unfortunate though it may be.
It seems to me, that the best way that *I* can fight such, is by simply being me ! To prove, each time, that I AM OK.
The more of *me* ( meant to include you, an archtype, not me personally ) that they see, the less inclined they will become to paint with such a broad brush.
We ARE victims, but let's be careful about who we brand the perpetrator.
I was far to harsh on club admins. The second post was confrontational and, well, not relevant to this point.
Many
sun clubs are committee-run and bound in bureaucracy. If one person
complains about a member applicant it overrides everybody else's
opinion for months until the next SGM. So one person can upset the
life of an applicant and perhaps deprive the club of an exemplary
member. The applicant, panned behind his back, has no right of reply.
So sometimes it is a member not a club autocrat who is the spoiler.
But the points made are still valid and indisputable in logic. So I have rewritten it.
Gender balance is a policy that is based in the interest of sexual activity only.
You don't agree? Then you tell me which other aspect of human life, other than sex, DEPENDS on what the person has between his/her legs. The answer is - none! There are other gender-relevant issues, but they are not dependent!
If people feel more comfortable with one gender or another, that is personal preference (still probably based on sexual attraction) and should have NO bearing on a club policy. For instance, I feel intimidated by an entire male group, but that is my hormonal problem,
not the group's.
Then
there is an argument that the psychological difference between men and
women is more than just genital. I counter-propose that the difference
between an alpha-male and a passive one is greater than that between
the latter and the average female, based on the alarming variation in
5aDHT levels from one male to another. So this objection is not sound.
Step
inside the club! Miniten does not depend on "mixed doubles".
Sunbathing is not outlawed if it it single-sex only. Cooking and ining
are not the exclusive activities of one gender or the other. Nudist
clubs have mixed saunas, not single sex, so no balance is required
there. If women like to have men to look at and, conversely, men prefer
seeing females, that is down entirely to primal SEXUAL attraction. What was that again about non-sexual naturism?
What
is beyond dispute is that, if sex is NOT on the agenda, then it is
irrelevant whether the group is 100% male, 100% female or 50/50! So
..... the only possible logical reason for balancing the genders is the
sexual one. So this case is proven.
So why do representatives
of allegedly non-sexual naturist clubs adopt a clearly
sexually-motivated policy? The answer is simple. It is not a conscious
decision. Sex plays such a part in society these days, in the media, in
the fashion industry, even in social etiquette. It has become
subliminal. The club admins are instinctively, unwittingly motivated by
sex, despite their probably honest intentions not to be. Therefore
until these people smell the coffee, non-sexual naturism will remain
unintentionally, but perpetually sexual in nature.
I agree that the bias against single males is arbitrary and unfair, and the belief that any club that allows single males will soon be ALL single males is laughably unfounded. TCotta's use of Baker Beach as an example wasinappropriate. Baker Beach is a well-known hangout for gay men and not at all representative of nude beaches in general. I've been to Maui's Little Beach many times, and it has the same diverse mix of couples, single men, single women, and children I've seen at the local resort, which also allows singles but still has a membership of mostly couples, proving how untrue the myth that males will take over is. Another thing that bothers meis that even when single men are "welcome", they're still regarded with suspicion, as if they're expected to be sexual predators. The only sexual predators I've seen are married swingers, who are often allowed to get away withbehavior that would get any single male banned for life. Why? Because couples are considered to bedesirable no matter how outrageous their behavior is, while single men are considered to be undesirable no matter how well-behaved they are. It's all about what kind of clientele the owners want to attract, and they'll look the other way when couples misbehave as long as they pay their fees. As Nicky said above, profit rules. When single men are thoroughly polite and don't hit on any women, do they say, "Maybe we were wrong about single men"? No, they say, "He must be gay!" I hope this perception will change someday, but I'm not holding my breath.
let me add to that as a "former " aanr member,,,,,,,,,that card means NOTHING, when it comes to this sorta issue,,,,,, and aanr will do nothing to assist tiher member with the card,,,,,if you call the as i did, they will tell you "oh its not our problem- click,,,,,,,,Or the other std answer,,,,,"sorry we cant make policy for resorts...
YET they will black list or remove thier recognition and sanctioning of resorts that toooooooo open fratrinize with the swinger lifestyle folks. They couldn't do the same to those resorts that discriminate or do not honor aanr membership ......????
its not that they can not do anything , their actions speak louder , they do condone the actions , of coarse if you study who is in office or run the offices of aanr,,,,,,,,,,,,,,whallah-- its people of the same mindset that single / solo males dont deserve fair and equial treatment.
check out thru the bulletin who the reps to the conventions and gatherings are,,,,,,,,,,you will see the same snobs and old gaurd types that push the quota's and the ban on single / solo men, there,,,,,,,,,how many single / solo men have you ever heard of being a resorts representative,,,,,,,,,few , damn few,,,,,,,,,which equates to no voice and that how they want to keep it and by THEY i mean the marrieds!!
I can understand both perspectives on this issue, and have to say agree with them both.
On one hand the resorts have the right to do what they think is best for clientle that they wish to attract. If they want to keep a more balanced gender then it is their prerogative. Single/solo men do not always pose a problem, it is obvious based on almost any statistic out there that single nudist men probably out number single nudist women at least 10-1, if not even higher than that. So, if a resort does want to encourage single women, and feel the way to do that is to have quotas, then one could easily make an argument for it.
On the other hand, to deny access based on gender and quotas may be bad for business, has this system worked to increase single female participation? who knows, to complain that the business is losing/closing because people do not go there, certainly would make an argument towards the error in there ways.
We are not swingers, and enjoy our time at resorts, and do not want to be involved with swingers, yet they tend to show up and have converted some resorts to that lifestyle, which discourages others from going there, so screening does not work all the time.
Personally as a couple with no kids (all grown up) I prefer to go to resorts that do not have kids making noise and interrupting what I enjoy or want to do.
All this to say is that you can not please all the people all the time.
A point of note, Sea mountain spa is known as a swingers spot, I have heard that on average they get 100+ requests from single/solo men who want to go and it is all sexually based.
Sorry to say but these are samples of society, and these snapshots can be extrapolated to indicate what the motives are behind some of the singles. Which is what the resorts are using to determine, policy.
Even car insurance rates are based on marital status, and gender.
Just an opinion, some of my best friends are singles, lol
a simple question ,,,,,,,,,if single women are welcomed - given spcl treatment on gate fees, , and sorta put on a pedastal,,,,,,you would think there would be more of them into the lifestyle,,,,,,,has anyone comtemplated the absense of eligiable men. as being part of the problem due to the narrow minded quotas or denied access of eligable men to meet......if you were a single woman would you want a resorts admissions policy picking and chooseing for you who you get to meet,. that's about what the present day policy does in essence or is it that the boomer agecples and older just want to isolate themselves from the rest and make resorts "thier" place! to eventually become geriatric centers.
perhaps instead of allienateing single and solo people resorts should adapt and have so many days a week that they are welcomed and if sone honestly does misbehave,,,,,,there is the gate, not slam the gate to all, and work towards a more inclusive inviroment for all nudists. when i say if someone misbehaves that means ALL! members guest visitors - all i dont care if that cple lived their 40 yrs if one of them does something that woud get a visiotr kicked out they should be subject to the same - walk to the gate!! in a cples case boot them both out!!
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!