When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

I think that flashing is usually the first step towards discovering nudism/naturism if one has not been previously introduced to the lifestyle by someone else. If flashing is for the purpose of just be "naughty" then I think it has nothing to do with nudism.

This topic was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

I agree. But first, let's get some definitions straight.

"Flashing" is an extension of "exhibitionism" which is all about being seen by others to get a sexual thrill. In nudism/naturism, that thrill is absent. That's the difference. Flashing usually involves a level of non-consent ... doing it without the viewers' permission, by surprise. So baring one's breasts in a Mardi Gras parade, in front of a crowd that expects to see it, would be exhibitionism, but it wouldn't be flashing. But doing it in a shopping mall, where nobody expects to see it, would be flashing. At least, that's how I understand the terms.

In naturism, there is no element of surprise, and no intent to either get a sexual thrill or receive one. (There may be a sexual element there, as there is in other everyday, clothed circumstances, but that's the topic of another thread.) In social nudism, we enjoy seeing other people who are nude, and enjoy being seen by those people, but it's because we're sharing an experience of showing each other who we really are beneath our clothes, and of making physical contact with the world employing every sense we have.

And I really don't see "flashing" as having any part of that, so I don't consider it a first step toward nudism.

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

I'm with woodsman21 on this one.

Flashing is exhibitionism. It may end up with you going around nude a lot, but at it's heart it's a completely different thing from what nudism is, despite the similar end states.

And I honestly believe that said difference is why nudism gets a bad reputation, and that the average person out there doesn't understand the difference. I also think a helluvalot of self-proclaimed nudists are indeed actually exhibitionists, which further muddies the water because it allows something wholesome to be used as a mask for something unwholesome. Failure to be able to tell nudism from exhibitionism is more or less the war we're fighting, imo, and it's the reason why nudism struggles to find legitimacy - it keeps being undermined.

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

I think that flashing is usually the first step towards discovering nudism/naturism if one has not been previously introduced to the lifestyle by someone else. If flashing is for the purpose of just be "naughty" then I think it has nothing to do with nudism.

Id have to disagree with flashing usually being the first step. If you look through the many threads and groups on this site as well as some studies a very large number of nudists are or were originally closet or home nudists not involved in social nudism. For me it started as a freeing feeling of being comfortable at home and in my backyard.

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

I tend to agree that flashing is using nudity to surprise someone who would not expect you to be nude. That does not mean that being caught nude is not a surprise, but the intent makes the difference. Answering the door to a stranger while nude would be flashing. Having a neighbor see you through the hedge or over the fence is being caught. Many of us will chance being caught because it is an inconvenience to get dressed for a brief run to the mailbox or to take the trash to the street. Doing it in daylight could be considered flashing.

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

Naturalism/Nudism isn't about a surprise flash on a unsuspecting person showing of ones junk, strut ones stuff to gain some type of satisfaction . I personally fail to see where it is a any step to true nudism to flash and set yourself up just to be seen. Even when nudist are generally careful but do get "caught" it's not an intent to sport what they own.

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

First of all I would like to give the definitions of nudism and naturism!

*NATURISM; Is living with nature. Clothing will only be used to protect against external influences, like there is wheater, protection against
cold,
or protection to heat or fire of whatever.
When not needed clothing will not be used and that will give a great feeling of freedom.

*NUDISM ; A nudist is not especially thinking about nature's rhythm.
A true nudist is enjoying the freedom of nudety and has lost shame over his/her body and having a normal life like most of us but
in the freedom of nudety.

Conclusion ; A naturist is always a nudist, but a nudist is not necessary a naturist!
One very important note is that nor nudist or naturist will shock fellow humans who are not aware!

From this point out you can understand that "flashing" has nothing to do with naturism or nudism.
Ofcourse it can always happen that one accidently flashes but those are accidents!
Flashing is more an act of exhibitionism in an erotic way and has nothing in common with both others.

In my personal opinion, and I do not want to offend anyone, the USA is as a wetern society most conservative in there opinions about nudety and educate children as if nudety is something to be ashamed of...
In fact teaching your children that one of the most natural things in live is forbiddin.

Those who see nudety, or even in some cultures partial nudety, as something bad are people who are constantly obsessed by erotism!
Those are the people socity should be affraid of for sexual harassment.

I myself feel most comfortable in a naturist village to leave my keys in the car or my wallet on a table because there is respect!

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

By your definition, naturism sounds ideal, but nudism is probably the best a lot of us will get, lol.

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

Indeed so, only few are real naturists

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

BelgiumKnokke wrote:

Indeed so, only few are real naturists

That's the paradox. You can have a person who likes to be nude, and likes to associate with other nude people, and evince no shame from being nude, but who would rather be in a nice warm room than in a campground or stretch of forest.

And you've got people like John Muir, the naturalist, who would rather be out hiking in the woods than in the confines of society, but who would prefer to remain clothed under most circumstances. Their concept of being "one with nature" does not necessitate being naked, but their love of nature and its wonders is second to none.

So a "naturist" is a "naturalist" who is also a "nudist. And there are people who are perfectly content to be nudists without being naturalists, and people who are perfectly content to be naturalists without being nudist.

Where am I in this spectrum? I like being nude, and I like being in nature. I have so few opportunities for doing both that I hesitate to call myself a "naturist." But I certainly wouldn't turn down those opportunities if they are offered to me.

This post was edited
RE:When does "flashing" become a first step towards nudism/naturism and at what point does it remain as exhibitionism?

Woodsman21:

You can be both. You don't have to always be engaged in one to be considered it. I mean, are you nude 100% of the time? Probably not, but you're still a nudist. If you agree with the aforementioned philosophy of naturism and practice it as you can, you're still a naturist as well.

Also in most places, I think naturist is just what they call nudism. Nudism has some negative overtones in some places. And in a few, naturist means people who just enjoy nature.

Then there is gymnosophy, which is something else entirely.

I'm sure a lot of us would love to be nude at any time the weather/elements allow it. I'm sure plenty of us would love to be out in nature more, and some of us may even want to go full-hermit mode out there. But we have to deal with reality. We have to face legality (nudity is simply not allowed in most instances in public). We have to face social acceptance (we're all part of a society unless you really are a hermit out there) - frankly most people just don't accept this and some are hostile. We have to provide for ourselves, typically be working, which in most cases again, nudity does not mesh.

It's just how it is - you're not likely to find many people who can be considered really true to their chosen beliefs and philosophies, but that doesn't mean your heart isn't there. It just means you've bowed to various pressures. More power to the ones who don't, but it's not a tenable situation for most of us.

This post was edited