Sexuality, Nudity and the Single Male
Dario Western
I found this very interesting article by Andrew Smith in issue No.56 of Australian Sun & Health magazine in October - December 1996, and it probably goes to some length as to why the single male is often treated differently to single women, couples and families in traditional nudist clubs.
SEXUALITY, NUDITY AND THE SINGLE MALE
By Andrew Smith
All plants and animals regulate sexual behaviour using smell, visual cue, ritual movement, and contest, with a strong connection to the environmental cues of time and season. Reproduction is an energy intensive activity – it requires timing and structure for the perpetuation of the species. Complexity theory shows that reproduction involving intense sexual activity as a necessity in the evolution of complex forms of life. So this energy expensive activity is a part of nearly all living things. Human beings are no exception, but the mechanisms we have evolved are as diverse and complex as could be expected of a creature as intelligent as we think we are. The other animal specific chemical or visual signals that regulate sexual behaviour are instinctual, that is – hardwired. Only a vestige of these remain in humans.
Tens of thousands of years ago our increasingly intelligent minds evolved to the point where we recognised that survival in the cold could be achieved by covering our bodies with the skin of an animal suited to that environment. This clothing obscured the sex organs and made less obvious the differences between male and female. At the same time developing social structures were regulating sexual behaviour. So the stage was set for clothing, or more particularly its removal to reveal the body, to become a part of sexual interaction. Whatever the mechanisms that controlled sexual behaviour before the use of clothing have been lost. Now old instincts, devoid of innate mechanisms, take over in the last steps of the process of transmission of genetic material from male to female.
Some will point to the many indigenous peoples that wore very little clothing, particularly in tropical climates. It is also interesting to note the complexity of their sexual controls, some more restrictive that Queen Victoria’s day, others relatively free and unrestrictive.
This theory explains a lot of the controversies that surround nudity and why clothing has evolved to become such an essential part of our lives – without it we must face not only the elements, but our sexual animal selves devoid of normal animal controls. It also explains the rise of mythical or religious beliefs regarding nudity and its concept of naked shame. In many ways nudism is turning thousands of years of human evolution upside down, so there is bound to be a few problems.
Now consider nudity as a sexual stimulant and the differences between the sexes. Perhaps because a woman has to bear and nurture offspring explains why she has a more complex reaction to nakedness that a man. All other things being equal, expose a man to a naked woman and he reacts with sexual interest proportional to the females visual sexual desirability. The reverse situation, without the reassurance and freedom of choice that social and emotional information provide, the woman’s first and deepest reaction to a naked man is fear.
I believe this fear is not based solely in nature, but in the natural fear of rape with its violence, pain, and unwanted and unsupported pregnancy. Hence males generally have positive experiences to anonymous female nudity and females have neutral or negative experiences to anonymous male nudity.
Is it any wonder then that we rarely hear of a lone woman attending a nudist beach, and have to turn away lone males from clubs and resorts? Have you ever heard of a woman being castigated for going to such a place as a "perve"? That is not to criticise all nudist males as perverts, it’s simply a fact that male bio-sexuality predisposes males to use genital visibility in a sexual way.
If the more conservative nudists, (who are more likely to be older and in positions of office in clubs and resorts) are honest, this issue forms at least half of the consideration in banning unattached males from resorts and clubs. Let me say here and now, I don’t blame them for doing so. The tendency toward male bias in clubs numbers is real and if the foregoing is true, should not be a surprise. Of course, a male with a partner can be just as ready to use genital visibility in a sexual way, but his partner will exert and additional force for him not to make it obvious, and in the minds of the incumbent members, the female partner neutralises any sexual tensions that might otherwise be expressed toward existing female club members. Also perhaps at a subliminal level, a new male is seen as potential rival by other males but a female companion tends to neutralise this issue has any bearing on single male exclusion, and object to the vulgarity of animalistic regulations expressed here, but we ought to be ready to acknowledge the depth of these issues on both sides and not use platitudes and smoke screens when talking about them.
At the present time, with the Royal Commission into Paedophilia in New South Wales putting the media spotlight on the subject, there is not a more emotionally charged issue than the protection of children from those who would pursue a sexual relationship with them. Nudist parents have the added worry that their children, if nude, are without the defence clothing provides and the public visibility of their juvenile genitalia will draw the attention of those with paedophilic attentions.
Because it is overwhelmingly males that are paedophile, (I will leave that analysis of this fact to others) and that males use visual stimulation sexually more than females, unknown and unrelated males are put under microscopic behavioural scrutiny when anywhere near children at nudist resorts. This becomes a further reason for excluding unattached males from clubs. Again I sympathise. But it is worth nothing the ranks of paedophiles com from singles, families, couples, related more often than not, and sometimes in the most respected circles. The various churches have found to their chagrin, that covering up paedophilic evidence and protecting a high ranking perpetrator only leads to worse scandal and more ruined lives in the end.
Clearly just because a male is unattached and/or has no children does not justify exclusion as a paedophilic risk. But such a male should not be surprised at being put under surveillance or being excluded. He needs to be careful how and where he looks, particularly when around sensitive young teenage girls. He needs to be careful not to be put into a position with an unrelated child where there is any risk of an accusation being levelled. Even though it is only a very small fraction of males (and an even smaller fraction of females) that bear any risk to children, all us males have to carry this burden of suspicion – accepting and living with it will bring respect.
What are the demographics of clubs that exclude single males as opposed to those that do not, in regard to male/female ratio, marriages between members, etc? Perhaps it is time someone with the appropriate background did his/her PhD thesis based around these issues.
I have written these thoughts in order to further stimulate rational discussion around the subject of sex, single males, and the nudist/naturist movement. I have no formal qualifications in these fields, so these are just the observations of one man… and I can hear teeth grinding now!
----------------------------------------------------------Best wishes,