RE: Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

Well said nakednaturalist. Some times questions and comments are stipid or ignorant. No doubt the original questions were raised because the person had heard weird stories. All things happen in the textile world and no doubt happen in the nudist world. But some questions do raise one's eyebrowns as to the stupidity of it.

This post was edited
RE: Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

Yes, as a normal human being, there is a sexual component in both the nude and textile environments. However, as a responsible nudist, any sexual activity should always be engaged with the same levels of public discretion and decency as you would in a textile environment.

If you really consider the situation, living nude is probably no more sexual than the textile lifestyle. I do think that textile people ( including the horndogs and perverts that creep into this site ) tend see nudity as a sexual overture because they are not used to benign nudity in everyday situations and they only enter some state of nudity when engaging in sex ( if you count a "nude" hand as their partner ).

Just like in the textile world, someone's state of dress is considered sexual only under specific and mutually agreed to conditions. And in normal everyday situations, nudity is just another state of dress. Therefore, people should be able to engage in normal everyday activities in the nude without it being interpreted as a sexual overture. In this format incidental nudity does NOT equal sex and the mere presence of another nude person should never confused as some form of implied consent or invitation for sexual activity.

And, in this new "Me Too" world, undesired sexual attention is considered a sexual assault.

This post was edited
RE:Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

To me there is a sexual side to nudism.
The thing is to turn it into something "positive" which not everybody is defining the same way.
I admit to find it exciting to undress at a nude beach where I can look at others (women) and they look at me.

But no one shall be offended in any way by these nude encounters.
When I look at a woman, she has the right to look back of course and be sure that I am going to breach any good manner.

This together with feeling the sun on your entire body is what makes up nudism for me / us.

M from Germany

This post was edited
RE:Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

Ah yes of course there is!

After all, there is a sexual side to life, except for those organisms which are asexual.

Conservative nudism has almost always portrayed nudism as totally asexual, which is a load of rubbish. Humans are sexual beings, naked or clothed, but the way that individuals treat their sexuality varies.

For some, sex is for procreation only. They don't want to talk about pleasure.

For others, it is for hedonistic pleasure, like with swingers for example. Not all swingers are nudists of course, though some are.

Some prefer sex with their own gender, and this is whether nudist or otherwise.

Some are bisexual, but again this orientation has nothing to do with being a nudist or not.

For myself and my wife, going nude provides the opportunity for occasional spontaneous sexual activity, but for most of the time being nude is just about being free of clothing when conducting normal activities.

So far my wife only goes nude occasionally and only with me. Her last experience of social nudism was when she was a pre-pubescent girl swimming nude in the river with the local boys near the farm where she lived. Typical Filipino country activity.

For me, a long-term home nudist who has always enjoyed cooking and housework nude, and just hanging out (pardon the pun!), it's a way of life. Back in my home country of Australia I also enjoyed going to nude beaches (which was my first experience of social nudism way back in the 1970's) and as well to nudist resorts. At the last resort I went to, I recall spending time in the spa nude of course with a couple of gay guys, a guy who always wore a very nice cock ring that fitted around his cock and balls so they were usually semi-erect, and a straight couple who often attended the resort. They had a cabin there and on one of the days we were there we worked nude on some renovations to the cabin, and had dinner and drinks nude in the evening. While there was obviously no sexual activity between us, there was that little bit of excitement to be nude with an interesting group of people. The lady in question also shaved off the beard I used to wear, and we were nude of course at the time, and I remember that being a very sensual, almost sexual experience. I had a bit of an erection for a while then I recall! The resort had none of the silly nudist rules about covering erections and sitting on towels, which I thought was great!

This post was edited
RE:Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

For me there should be a common ground of respectfulness that should around all nudist. We should all feel safe when were out enjoying the nudist life style and around others. To me the feeling of being safe around all other nudist is paramount.

This post was edited
RE:Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

This issue is frustrating to me. The ideology that is current was developed to combat the idea that nudists are perverts which is complete bollocks as we all know. In the most extreme form, it borrows from second or third wave feminism and the backlash against the libertine attitudes of the 1970's, which is not to say feminism is bad or the issue, just that the iteration of the body is inherently non sexual nude is a direct family based response to public sex and lines crossed especially in Europe. For women and mothers who were nudists or naturists, establishing strict non-sexual nudism was essential in avoiding legal predation of the community, child welfare nightmares, and it prevented men who wanted to be sexual (and some women) from being able to participate in those settings because frankly that's appropriate. The distinction between nudists, naturists, and swingers became more distinct in many communities. This was ideology applied to logistics for reasons of safety and security and it makes sense for family based nudist or naturist communities.

This is taken to be a true way of seeing human sexuality. It's simply incorrect from every point of view I can see which I must take pains to state is not the same as not what the community should be doing. Sexuality is not sex. It's not preference. It's not emotions, and it's not sense data. It's a complex of all those things interacting in varying ways in various people at different times in different ways. For example, most people think an erect penis is sexual. It might be nervous. It may also be illness, and for many men, it's a normal part of waking up as the urogenital system revs up but I don't often feel the burning in my bladder as I stagger awake and a dim feeling of hard as sexy or even erotic. It's mechanical. The same goes for women (and men to some degree) and nipples. Erect nipples can be a sign of arousal, or cold, or nerves, or nursing time for a young baby...or like mine modified though play to be always erect...which seems to tell men to twist them hard for no reason which thankfully is almost never in nudist groups, it's an assault albeit a small one. This example illustrates how poorly we are cued to understand sexual response and how easily we accept one element as a whole. The holistic sexuality of human being is a series of waves and rhythms just like the rest of nature. The menstrual cycle, the testosterone cycle, the influence of sweat and urine in small quantities and other pheromones, the sensuality of temperature and wind and water the gaze of others (this does diminish as a nudist or naturist and gone entirely in some), for men, three erections in view will make an erection in most involuntarily, it's basic neural programming for mammals like us. All of this is not localized to an act of sex or intercourse it's the sense data and chemical dance of life against which sex acts are performed. But where does the act begin? At desire? At cognition? At arousal? Most naturists see male arousal as the definite no no and quite clearly any manual oral anal vaginal stimulation is definitely sex... but these acts are not human sexuality. They don't just start from nothing and go to completion and done with it. They happen in the course of daily life. The way we are scented and clothed and medicated and worked is designed to make us as non sexual and depressed as we can be (again, sexual is not the acts we have proscribed it is rather the conditions which make sexuality possible as something more than mechanical). The first thing a body feels when it sheds clothing is the awakening of the biggest organ of all...the skin. It is frissons, it is electric, it is soft and gentle and sensual and wonderful if you are open and aware. The same biochemical and electrical flows that make these feelings are the ones that make orgasms. Orgasms are simply regular sense data fed back and amplified by the brain and some of the special nerve bundles in genitals. There is no real difference between them in physiology, except that the orgasm is much more complex and directed in its pleasure than a feather on the arm for example, or warm water. Where does that process begin? In the stress relief the day before with a deep massage? With the sun warming gentials hours before and bringing fresh blood? With the actual feedback and buildup of nervous energy? Again, there is not a simple answer but the idea that sex is only what happens when responsible nudists or naturists second themselves in a private space and will the stuff into being is simply incorrect. It may be what people think they are doing and it is certainly what they should be doing rather than being perverse but... those bodies did not go from non sexual to sexual when a door closed. Human beings did not evolve to have sex in private. Or to wait or put it off. Obviously those are things that we have had to adapt to as we grew into societies but the change from open sexuality in many aspects of life to closed and compartmentalized is radically new. It's not even 1000 years old and for most humans neoliberal capitalism is the first global regime of regulated human sexuality as a means of stopping it. Birth rates declined in the West as a result of wealth and health but also because people stopped having as much sex. Singapore and Japan have crises of epidemic proportions as young people are so desensitized and not educated in their bodies that married couples don't have babies because it doesn't occur to them there is such a thing as sex. This pathology is related to the entire purtianical regime of body shame and sex shame that is in many forms in our culture. The Greeks called nature physis...physics. Physis is sexual...it is pollen and flowers, must and rutting, flora and fauna, and nature is constantly in sexual reproduction. It has no start and stop. Human women are fertile year round. Most mammals our size have one estrus. The direct result of cyclical fertility is cyclical sexuality. Dogs don't have sex all year round. Humans do. By design. We are one of the only such mammals and the design is evolved for maximizing pleasure. Our orgasms are miles beyond what most animals have. This is also evolved to make us stay together not only as couples but as larger social groups. Happy people having good sex and performing their given roles don't want much else. This is our only innate power. So taking it away is the key to controlling human beings. But it is impossible to ban the act as much as it has been tried. The key to control is to break the desires, to render them dirty and foul, and to attack the body as a regenerative and sensually continuous space. Shame, fatigue, depressants, stimulants, clothing, false hormones and chemical scents as well as the banning of social nudity, sexual research and sexual cults over the centuries as well as the stigmatization of women's bodies as defective and failed have all been used to make us less happy, and less aware and less able...and the result is insecurity and malaise to which the answer is the only answer consumerism gives...spend and shop. Cheap thrills adrenal short cut, no real reward pleasure center hungry immediately. Good orgasms last days. They are also free. So here is my dilemma. The ideology of non sexual nudism participates unwittingly in the larger breaking up of holistic sensual sexual human being by making a claim that while necessary in the family setting is absurd scientifically and biologically. That claim is used as a cudgel by some to police communities such as gay nudists. I was told in all seriousness that gay male nudists in a private club in a legal establishment licensed and forewarned with rules that do not encourage sexual activity but also do not stigmatize it in a group that does workshops on touch sti's sexual health and overall wellbeing and that advises no penetration and use of private homes are perverts ruining the nudist community because there is sex. Legal sex, in a space privately owned and at a private event, restricted to an area in a community that has as much or more clothed in similar establishments. This argument went around for a while when I was then told that homosexuals are perverts because the word homosexual has the word sexual in it. The nonsense here is that apparently, nude gay men are supposed to be far less sexual than clothed gay men in private. That makes zero sense. The swims we did the public appearances all were 100% naturist as they should be. Being open and frank and setting clear lines between public and private as well as not pretending what is obvious wasn't there allowed me to weed out problem members. How? The ones still hiding and lurking are doing so for a reason. Maybe shyness, maybe not ethical conduct. These are the men who walk and stroke at the public beach. Gone. Adornment of erection at parade. Gone. But if there had been no lines and no discussion and no allowing of open and honest expression in the one setting then those who are hiding in the midst of all the men who really don't want to hrut anyone and who just like to be the men they are do not appear...because there is no line to force them back into the shadows. It's not a perfect solution for nudism or naturism as it is practiced by hetero families. None of those people attend the events where anything against the ideals would occur. What it did do was help to correct some real problems we faced in terms of denial and shame. The law banning this activity is 12 years dead. It was high time to adopt new guidelines. The swingers have done the same here in Ontario. We have few in the gay groups but the groups are amorphous in the nudist and naturist communities and they are spread out in all the organizations which is fine. However, there is far more sexual activity in many of those spaces than in ours and the settings are also familial. I'm not suggesting anything wrong is happening. What I will say is that by asserting that this space is naturist and non-sexual when in fact there may be quite a bit of activity that spills from space to space especially at night is pushing the limits. I know this issue is arising and some campgrounds have taken zero tolerance approaches and for family settings I concur. However, the ongoing issue of denial around the sexuality of nude bodies and of nudists is not going to help this issue it will cloud it. I would rather prefer we were adult enough to say humans are sexual beings and that energy is both vital, universal, and constant in its series of complex rhythms. It is not wrong, it is not evil, it is not bad or criminal. It's the life force of all things, us included. Feeling your connection to that is not intercourse, but it's also not non-sexual. Not feeling the connection or severing it is damaging and it creates stress and ultimately perversions when extreme. Puritanism is an example of this. What I think would be healthy is a look at how we can better facilitate the spaces we use and as different communities who are nudists to make it easier to live and not infringe on the rights of others while putting a healthy and holistic version of sexuality in the right context where it is not hidden or denied but also not shoved on people. Touch seminars that are erotic and non erotic (again the line here is not sharp) and that teach things like erectile control and how to allow arousal to grow, to diffuse, or to suspend (stopping it cold is bad for the body), that help delineate between social and sensual and sexual, that teach men how to look at women and to be physically present and open without being imposing. So few men have this skill set and it is invaluable. The clear understanding that group sex is not an activity that is really right for a nudist family setting. Swinging is not bad per se, but swingers should abide by those rules...of course, that allows for more open and frank creation of spaces that are adult in nature for those activities and the two groups know and accept this and support it, so that it is compartmentalized and structured to be healthy for all. Also, touch allows folks who might eschew swinging entirely to see what is the fundamental draw (human intimacy among many not one and two) because group touch that is non erotic is wholesome and can be extremely liberating and revelatory when taught by professionals. All these are things being done in various ways in many places. So long long long answer but it covers the main issues of the various communities as well as I can. Many will reject what I suggest and that is fine, I am not here to take away the concept raised from those who cherish it. I will insist it not be applied where it is useless and pointless and that is in groups of adults in spaces that are for adults and adult activity that is legal. If we stop stigmatizing folks who have sex exactly as it is suggested, in private but somewhat communally, those folks especially straight swingers will not be as secretive or as upset with the doom and gloom about how these are the immoral nudists. The mantra of immorality in nudism is strangely often internal rather than external. The immoral is the same as in textile society... violaters rapists, perverts and sex criminals. Gay sex, bi sex, group sex, lesbian sex, trans folk none of these are in those groups de facto. Wanting sex is not a sin. Nudists who embrace sex are not sinning. I will always uphold the community standards in public naturist and nudist areas where families are and that means no sex. But I will not carry that over for no reason to my community to appease ideological rigidity that is frequently also homophobic. One of the single biggest reasons naturism is not attracting the younger generations is this inability to express sexuality in nudism in any other way than flat erasure. Youth culture for generations has been about sexual exploration. That's why we are young. Telling 20 somethings take off your clothes feel better don't fuck it's ok this is cool is for many a non starter. Note I am not saying let them run like the cast of Hair in a wild acid lsd orgy. I'm saying that the sexuality of young people is not simply a thing to be put away and hidden once the clothing is off as if the magical loss of the textiles liberates from objectivity by producing rigidity and frigidity. The body should not be objectified as a sexual thing. But loving the self as a whole and in synch with the power of nature which is sexual inherently (the term is scientific always it refers to the manner in which reproduction happens but also the qualia that frame it) is not objectifying its universalizing and expanding. I hope this brings some interesting discussions and that those who might feel offended or upset understand I am not advocating for sex in nudist spaces, nor am I saying that the idea is bad for family space I am saying the solution is not universal and it has problems as such that need to be discussed honestly for the good of all.

This post was edited
RE:Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

YAWN!!!!

This post was edited
RE:Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

I agree, my husband has 1 daughter from first marriage and I have 2, a son and daughter from my first. We don't spend a lot of time at "public nude facilities" bc there are not many where we live (near oxford MS) but we do spend a lot of nude time in the home mainly swimming together and showering together. I'm one that believes being "stiff" does not necessarily = sexual arousal, maybe others disagree. Mine is basically the morning wood argument and i won't get into that here, but my son and husband are always hard and no one is having sex or trying to do inappropriate things or anything like that. It's just the truth and they are fine with it and so are me and the girls. Maybe we'd feel different at a public place but until someone express concern or becomes uncomfortable its not an issue for us.

Our son is used to see mum & dad naked from early on. He is 13 now, and has no problem to get out of the shower naked etc.

He joined us on nude beaches on vacation a few years back which he wouldnt do anymore. Lets wait a few years and see if he is getting back to nudism, hopefully with his girlfriend then.

I am shaved / smooth so our son has recognized that I have a positive Body Feeling and that sexuality for us is NOT dirty or so.

But I have made sure that he never saw me with an erection.

Smoothbear

This post was edited
RE:Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

For me, nudism and sex are two completely different things. Nudism is a lifestyle centered around comfort. Sex is an act performed for pleasure or procreation. Neither have anything to do with the other.

This post was edited
RE:Is There a Sexual Side to Nudism?

Why I've not noticed this before is beyond me. Perhaps it's because I never scroll down to the absolute bottom of the page. Here is a sentence from the owners but I wish this sentence was in bold letters on a banner across the top of the page where the logo and leaf are, next to the Bug Report button;

" True Nudists is for genuine nudists, if you are seeking sexual content please use trueswingers.com. "

If there is a sexual side to Nudism, it's something YOU bring into the lifestyle. Nudism in itself is NOT about sex and anyone trying to state otherwise is NOT a nudist but is using nudism to satisfy their sexual appetite.

"Naturism, or nudism, is a cultural and political movement practising, advocating, and defending personal and social nudity, most but not all of which takes place on private property. The term may also refer to a lifestyle based on personal, family, or social nudism.[1] Naturism may take a number of forms. It may be practiced individually, within a family, socially, or in public. Additionally, there is also militant naturism, including campaigning, and extreme naturism is sometimes considered a separate category." Wikipedia

For those of you sex starved people proclaiming that nudism is sexual you are wrong and have decided to either add that to the definition of the lifestyle or SEX is what you personally bring to your brand of nudism but nudism in itself as a lifestyle does not have anything to do with sex.

This post was edited