Accommodating Sexual Perversion
Essentially all textiles admit to finding the unclothed human body sexually provocative. In fact, that tends to be the motivation for being textiles and why they feel nudity is obscene and indecent. Textiles essentially universally suffer from gymnophobia.
It's interesting how phobias point towards suppressed sexual perversions.
Although homosexuality is not a sexual perversion for most people, it is for those who have homophobia. In the mind of the homophobe, homosexuality is bad, evil, wrong, and shameful. Homophobia is the clearest indicator of suppressed homosexual feelings. If homosexuality is not a perversion, then why do homophobes suppress those feelings? Because for them, homosexuality is a perversion and those feeling "must" be suppressed to prevent them from engaging in perverted behaviors.
I'm also a barefooter -- I essentially never wear shoes. Conditions must present a clear and present danger to my feet before I'll consider wearing shoes. And remember, because I essentially never wear shoes, conditions that may likely damage your feet are not likely to harm mine or even be uncomfortable for me.
I do, occasionally, encounter a podophobe who spews all sorts of nonsense about feet. As far as I can tell, no one has done a study that would indicate that podophobia is cover for podophilia. But in my experience, that does seem to be a likely explanation.
Regardless, there are people who have podophilia -- who are sexually triggered by bare feet. Should I, or any barefooter, feel an obligation to accommodate their fetish or perversion by not being barefoot in public? So as not to trigger them sexually? Is that a reasonable expectation? Or do we expect those with sexual perversions to accept responsibility for their own sexual perversions.
In the same manner, nearly all textiles are sexually triggered by seeing an uncovered human body. They are incapable of looking at a nude human without having a sexual response. Is that sexual response the responsibility of the nude person? Are nudists/naturists obligated to accommodate the sexual perversions of textiles? Are nudists being "inconsiderate" of textiles by not automatically covering up when in presence of a textile? Or should textiles be expected to "own" their perversions?
Certainly, many places have laws that are based on the sexual perversions of textiles and those laws must be obeyed (or suffer the consequences). But, in most cases, those laws do not apply within one's own home or in single-sex locker rooms. Is it ok for textiles to foist their sexual perversions on everyone else? Should that behavior be tolerated or accommodated?
What do you say?
Essentially all textiles admit to finding the unclothed human body sexually provocative. In fact, that tends to be the motivation for being textiles and why they feel nudity is obscene and indecent. Textiles essentially universally suffer from gymnophobia. It's interesting how phobias point towards suppressed sexual perversions. What do you say?
I understand your point but don't necessarily agree with it. I imagine that the Taliban justifies rules to make women to wear burkas as a means of keeping their sexual attraction/control/perversion in control, but they're an extreme. Rather, my impression is that more textiles feel strongly against nudism not for finding the naked body sexually provocative, but rather repulsive. Both are a sign of objectification more than phobias. I also think that sexual provocation stems more from behaviors and clothing than nudity. Take a look at lingerie, for example: it's 90% titillation and 10% practical function. However, I don't think I can speak as either a true nudist or textile. Ask me about wearing clothing when I don't need to and I'm a nudist. In taking a public position regarding discriminating against single men, I'm 100% a textile and don't want to touch the nudist label with a 10-foot pole.
Phobias related to nudity seem to be more a Puritanical thing. In Sweden, for example, most people think nothing of being seen by a stranger naked, but tremble at the idea of having a stranger approach them making small talk. I don't think they have a talking perversion either, it's just a social expectation. I see my issues more in terms of pet peeves. When I was commuting daily, I didn't appreciate people sitting next to me eating fried chicken, putting on makeup/doing personal hygiene or having intimate cell phone conversations. That was more about maintaining comfort in my personal bubble in a public space.
I prefer to frame nudity in philias (affection) over phobias. Call me hydro- and solarphilic to explain why I prefer to lay and play on the beach without textile interference.
Essentially all textiles admit to finding the unclothed human body sexually provocative. In fact, that tends to be the motivation for being textiles and why they feel nudity is obscene and indecent. Textiles essentially universally suffer from gymnophobia.It's interesting how phobias point towards suppressed sexual perversions.Although homosexuality is not a sexual perversion for most people, it is for those who have homophobia. In the mind of the homophobe, homosexuality is bad, evil, wrong, and shameful. Homophobia is the clearest indicator of suppressed homosexual feelings. If homosexuality is not a perversion, then why do homophobes suppress those feelings? Because for them, homosexuality is a perversion and those feeling "must" be suppressed to prevent them from engaging in perverted behaviors.I'm also a barefooter -- I essentially never wear shoes. Conditions must present a clear and present danger to my feet before I'll consider wearing shoes. And remember, because I essentially never wear shoes, conditions that may likely damage your feet are not likely to harm mine or even be uncomfortable for me.I do, occasionally, encounter a podophobe who spews all sorts of nonsense about feet. As far as I can tell, no one has done a study that would indicate that podophobia is cover for podophilia. But in my experience, that does seem to be a likely explanation.Regardless, there are people who have podophilia -- who are sexually triggered by bare feet. Should I, or any barefooter, feel an obligation to accommodate their fetish or perversion by not being barefoot in public? So as not to trigger them sexually? Is that a reasonable expectation? Or do we expect those with sexual perversions to accept responsibility for their own sexual perversions.In the same manner, nearly all textiles are sexually triggered by seeing an uncovered human body. They are incapable of looking at a nude human without having a sexual response. Is that sexual response the responsibility of the nude person? Are nudists/naturists obligated to accommodate the sexual perversions of textiles? Are nudists being "inconsiderate" of textiles by not automatically covering up when in presence of a textile? Or should textiles be expected to "own" their perversions?Certainly, many places have laws that are based on the sexual perversions of textiles and those laws must be obeyed (or suffer the consequences). But, in most cases, those laws do not apply within one's own home or in single-sex locker rooms. Is it ok for textiles to foist their sexual perversions on everyone else? Should that behavior be tolerated or accommodated?What do you say?
The key is to be both open to erotic and sexual engagement but not actively imposing it on anyone else ever. It's a balancing act but easy when you try. Manners discipline and care. I pride myself on being able to meet exceed and model the best behavior and be an open sexual being as easily in the right setting. I don't accept juvenile behavior from anyone. Textiles or nudists
Such generalizations cant be proven.
More than that such sweeping generalisations are almost always incorrect, and tend to say more about the person making them than the actual topic.
I was tempted to say they are always incorrect. But that would have committed the same mistake as the OP.
mensasnem wrote:Essentially all textiles admit to finding the unclothed human body sexually provocative. In fact, that tends to be the motivation for being textiles and why they feel nudity is obscene and indecent. What do you say?
I think we're looking at two different phenomena here. Textiles (and beginning nudists) find the unclothed body to be sexually provocative because we've been conditioned to see it that way by society, where nakedness is used for a specific response, brought on that way by its scarcity. About the only times people see other naked people in the flesh (pun intended), especially people of the opposite sex, is in situations where nudity is a prelude to sex. And those pictures of women in bikinis lounging on motorcycles? The ad people are signaling that if you buy this motorcycle, women will lay you.
Imagine that you're walking past a bakery, and you haven't eaten in days. The smell of baking bread will elicit a strong response in you, of thinking about eating bread. You start to salivate... you can't help it. Meanwhile, the baker inside the story is smelling baking bread all day. It doesn't trigger the intensity of wanting to eat that it does in you. True, if the baker is hungry at that moment, he'll salivate, in the same way that the sight of a naked body will trigger a sexual response in a person if that person is horny.
Second, as stoneandy pointed out, when many textiles are asked about nudism, they'll claim repulsion. The ones who claim it most, in my experience, are the ones who have body issues of their own. They project their dissatisfaction with their bodies onto others, because it's protective coloring for their own feelings. "I don't want to see that person naked." they say, but the do it to head off the possible situation where they may be in a situation where others may see them naked. They claim revulsion, but by proclaiming that revulsion they're putting themselves in the comfortable camp of people who aren't going to strip naked, thank you.
That's how I see it.
I have no problem respecting boundaries when nude at the beach. I have met all kinds of people male & female. I don't go to be sexual and respect others privacy. Most people are just fine. Rangers / Lifeguards can deal with the problematic.
San Diego here. I have been approached by both Men & Women at Blacks. Occasionally a nice gay guy will ask to Join me and we chat and have no problems. Some straight, married can be aggressive as soon as they sit down. I don't care to be touched or grabbed by strangers. Very off putting. I tell them I'm not there for that. Those bozos give beach a bad rep...
I think we are all responsible for our own sexuality. To be responsible not to impose yet clever enough to subtlety imply. We also need to be mature enough to accept advances, in hand with accepting when someone declines those advances.
Getting along together takes communication and compromise. We all have our perversions , an intimate part of our I'd, but there is a time and place for exercising. It's a wonderful journey to get to know someone intimately enough to understand their sexuality, opposed to having it thrust in your face.
I think its fabulous people feel sexualy aroused when disrobing, it's a great positive energy, but we need to have some manner and etiquette for those enjoying their own space in their own way.
I'll not say too much, its been a deep discussion here. I'll just say, we are an imperfect human race and once we become sexually active in some way we all will have some form of perversion, we're imperfect, but a balance must be struck to afford protection. It however works both ways, the nudist should not be targetted for being naked and then those who are not nudist imply that the nudist is sexually motivated for applying their rights of freedoms and enjoyment.
In the UK we are legal to be naked, so if that is your thing, then it is normal to you but not to others who have been brain washed over many years being told your body is indencent when naked. As far as I'm concerned, legally or otherwise, nobody can question the design of the male or female body, it is a fact we are humans and this is how we are created and born, its normal so people need to get used to it.
In the UK the law only changed in 1942 when the Government made the ruling that people had to wear some form of covering, probably because materials became available then, but that does not overrule people's needs if they have other genuine reasons for needing to be naked, i.e. health reasons but not mental health issues.
I'll not say too much, its been a deep discussion here. I'll just say, we are an imperfect human race and once we become sexually active in some way we all will have some form of perversion, we're imperfect, but a balance must be struck to afford protection. It however works both ways, the nudist should not be targetted for being naked and then those who are not nudist imply that the nudist is sexually motivated for applying their rights of freedoms and enjoyment.In the UK we are legal to be naked, so if that is your thing, then it is normal to you but not to others who have been brain washed over many years being told your body is indencent when naked. As far as I'm concerned, legally or otherwise, nobody can question the design of the male or female body, it is a fact we are humans and this is how we are created and born, its normal so people need to get used to it.In the UK the law only changed in 1942 when the Government made the ruling that people had to wear some form of covering, probably because materials became available then, but that does not overrule people's needs if they have other genuine reasons for needing to be naked, i.e. health reasons but not mental health issues.
And I can't edit my own post, so I'll just add the bit I forgot to write before posting, and that is, the law was changed in the UK in 2003 to make nudity legal in public and private, threfore the law was wrong back in 1942 when the old ruling was made.
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!