The hypocrisy of nudist wrt to erections
Patrick Dewey
Kelly wrote:
> > Obvious displays of sexual arousal disturb the peace of naturist venues.
> This is a key area in which we differ. I felel that an erection in and of
> itself is not lewd. You disagree.
The lewdness has to do with deliberate public sexual displays.
> Ok Patrick, you say regulate displays of sexual arousal. The means erect
> nipples, according to your standards, for if a penis cannot become erect
> for a non-sexual reason, than a female nipple is the same. Isn't an erect
> female nipple more often than not associated with arousal (rightfully or
> wrongfully)? What about vaginal secretions/lubrication? What about a
> swollen, red vulva? Same things, Patrick. They are often associated with
> sexual arousal. Would you regulate those too, or just the penis because
> it is obvious when it is aroused?
Women and men share the obligation to be discreet about sex in public.
Experience shows that it's not an especially burdensome obligation for
either sex. It isn't helpful to obfuscate the issue with strange
anatomical comparisons.
> > Ideally, naturists enjoying nude recreation don't suffer from
> > inappropriate sexual expectations.
> Inappropriate is in the eye of the beholder, as well as the resort rules.
Ok.
> No, not at all. Perhaps his parents had a chat with him beforehand
> indicating that an erection may occur, and some fools may see it as a
> sexual display, so best try to cover it up discreetly before someone
> thinks you're a pervert. Possible?
This part is good advice: "an erection may occur ... cover it up
discreetly".
> True enough. I don't know the family, but I saw what I saw, and I know
> they were thrown out for that boy's involuntary erection. That much was
> told to me by the owners.
It seems a little overly punitive to throw the family out on the first
violation for something this minor. Maybe a first time warning and
frank discussion of the rules would have been sufficient to address it.
> Refer to an earlier paragrapgh in this not. I am using your logic, namely
> visible signs of arousal. Some see erect nipples as a sign of sexual
> arousal, while others know it isn't always so. The same holds true for
> erections. Some are sexual, some aren't. You don't get it, do you?
An erection is usually a sign of sexual arousal. It can happen
spontaneously, for obscure reasons. I'm not saying it's bad, or wrong.
However, you are obligated to be discreet about it in public.
> > Be honest. If a guy gets an erection it's usually for sexual reasons.
> Does that include infants? Do you have a starting age? On what basis do
> you state your opinion? Patrick, how do you differentiate an erection on
> a guy being sexual in nature versus non-sexual? Or is every erection
> sexual in nature? And don't forget Patrick, we are talking the erection
> itself, and not anything that may be done to it or with it afterwards.
> How do you tell?
AFAIK, all healthy erections are sexual. See a physician to diagnose
the cause of any non-sexual erections.
> But stereotyping against single men occurs with all too much frequency,
> imho. Most guys that I know understand that they are already the low man
> on the totem pole at a resort, and they would not do anything in the
> least to be tossed out. But to be looked at as a perv whenever they
> simply walk by a woman, is a bit much. And it happens, as I am certain
> you know. The stereotyping continues.
I don't know much about the situation with single men you describe. As
for stereotypes, they aren't fair to everyone but they tend to continue
for as long as they are useful in decision making.
Patrick
Patrick Dewey
cyndiann wrote:
> An erection is not always a sexual display.
Yes, if it's not being displayed.
> > Ideally, naturists enjoying nude recreation don't suffer from
> > inappropriate sexual expectations.
> You keep throwing the term "sexual" around where it doesn't belong. There
> were no sexual expectations in this situation.
I was making a more general comment. People shouldn't go to naturist
sites with sexual expectations. Suffering may result.
> That does not do any such thing. He was probably just following through on
> what has been engrained in his head by others who thought they were giving
> him good advice. Those people that told him that gave him bad advice, I
> think. Kids are predisposed to obeying adults after having spent a lifetime
> doing so. This does not mean the advice was good or that he believed the
> advice was good.
We can only speculate about it.
> Perhaps the rules need a trip into the new millenium.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom."
> You are again assuming that all erections have a sexual nature, when of
> course, they don't. Especially on teens!
Really? I would have thought the opposite was true.
> > Be honest. If a guy gets an erection it's usually for sexual reasons.
> Very not true! Especially for teens.
???
> A public beach does not sound all that isolated. Please read that post
> again.
Yeah. He said they went to their "own area". Maybe it wasn't so
isolated.
Patrick
Patrick Dewey
Mike J Oropeza wrote:
>
> Patrick Dewey wrote:
> > It is an act of omission to deliberately avoid doing that which you are
> > obligated to do. People visiting naturist venues have an obligation to
> > be discreet about sex in public areas.
> I think if change that to "avoid sex in public areas" you have my
> agreement. However, a discreet area where the risk of observation is
> very low could be considered a "private area".
How about "Don't have sex in public and be discreet about sexual
displays".
cyndiann
Patrick Dewey <patric...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:38D27E64...@prodigy.net...
>
> cyndiann wrote:
>
> > An erection is not always a sexual display.
>
>
> Yes, if it's not being displayed.
Being visible is not the same as being displayed.
>
>
> > > Ideally, naturists enjoying nude recreation don't suffer from
> > > inappropriate sexual expectations.
>
> > You keep throwing the term "sexual" around where it doesn't belong.
There
> > were no sexual expectations in this situation.
>
>
> I was making a more general comment. People shouldn't go to naturist
> sites with sexual expectations. Suffering may result.
You are speculating here. You have no idea if this teen had any "sexual
expectations".
>
>
> > That does not do any such thing. He was probably just following through
on
> > what has been engrained in his head by others who thought they were
giving
> > him good advice. Those people that told him that gave him bad advice, I
> > think. Kids are predisposed to obeying adults after having spent a
lifetime
> > doing so. This does not mean the advice was good or that he believed the
> > advice was good.
>
>
> We can only speculate about it.
>
>
> > Perhaps the rules need a trip into the new millenium.
>
>
> "Let a thousand flowers bloom."
>
>
>
> > You are again assuming that all erections have a sexual nature, when of
> > course, they don't. Especially on teens!
>
>
> Really? I would have thought the opposite was true.
I don't understand how you could forget your own teen years, or were you
hatched full size?
David B.
> It is an act of omission to deliberately avoid doing that which you are
> obligated to do. People visiting naturist venues have an obligation to
> be discreet about sex in public areas.
I completely agree. Any one who knows me, has seen my writing, or my posts online
knows that I am totally against sexual displays in nudist places including the
wearing of lingerie. Just as some nudists cant seem to grasp that erections don't
always equal sex, there are also some that call themselves nudists that still can't
seem to grasp that nudity isn't always equal to, or an invitation to, sex. There's
nothing wrong with sex (it's great in fact <g>) but it doesn't belong in the pool
at a nudist club any more then it belongs at the local mall, public park, or health
club pool. Sexual displays are NOT spontaneous body reactions, they involve very
intentional actions on the part of one or more people.
> Methinks you protesteth too much
> about the non-sexuality of erections.
>
> Patrick
Methinks you protesteth too much about the sexuality of erections.
Here's a timely quote I received from an email list yesterday...
"As humans, we are incredibly closed-minded and arrogant. We actually
believe that what we think is the truth is TRUE, and that what someone
else believes is just THEIR OPINION. This arrogance and foolishness
sticks us with our beliefs, blinding us to any other possibilities --
possibilities that may propel us toward success."
It is unfortunate that some nudists or so threatened by erections and can't
separate them from behavior or sex, just as most non-nudists can't separate nudity
from sex. I don't understand why the non-nudist is threatened by nudity or why the
nudist is threatened by erections unless it's because of their own insecurity.
--
David B.
Redeeming the Body
http://www.homestead.com/b_redemption/body.html
Goodby Kodak
>
> cyndiann wrote:
>
> > An erection is not always a sexual display.
>
> Yes, if it's not being displayed.
An erectile display for an early teen could be something along the line
of arching the back and wiggling it around. He did not. Obvious
embarrassment, hesitation to rise from a hidden position and reluctance
to be around the table are the opposite of making a display.
> > You are again assuming that all erections have a sexual >>nature, when of course, they don't. Especially on teens!
>
> Really? I would have thought the opposite was true.
Oh??... Don’t you remember the cursed second period boner from Jr.
High? I sure do and it was quite the topic among us poor fellows with
newly acquired puberty. We hated to go to the blackboard or even stand
to leave the classroom at the end of the period.
Didn’t your Coach or Heath/Sex Ed teacher ever tell you that males will
get an erection several times in a 24 hour period to flex the spongy
tissue in a healthy penis? Or.. did you close your eyes and hum while
they spoke about that “dirty stuff”?
>
> > > Be honest. If a guy gets an erection it's usually for sexual reasons.
>
> > Very not true! Especially for teens.
>
> ???
Most men and more so in the younger years, will get occasional
non-sexual erections when:
1. Cold air passes over it.
2. The fellow feels anger, fear or embarrassment from the animal fight
or flight reaction that puts all systems on alert.
3. Urination or the need to do so (haven’t you ever seen a horse’s or a
dog’s penis extend when urinating?)
4. Naturally flexing while sleeping.
5. Getting bumped or rubbed in the course of some non sexual activity.
I remember one kid in the eighth grade (1958) who learned he could cause
his fellow classmates to have boners in the gym showers by snapping a
towel on or around their penis.... until the Coach put a stop to it.
6. Dreaming of many of the above non-sexual situations.
7. Etcetera, etcetera, etceter........
Why is it that Cyndiann knows more than you about men’s penis related
health issues and she doesn’t even have one? Hmmm... From your name I’m
presuming you have a penis. Am I wrong? Are you actually a female?
(tagline)
Goodbye Kodak!
Patrick Dewey
cyndiann wrote:
> > > There were no sexual expectations in this situation.
> > I was making a more general comment. People shouldn't go to naturist
> > sites with sexual expectations. Suffering may result.
> You are speculating here. You have no idea if this teen had any "sexual
> expectations".
Neither of us can be certain either way.
> > > You are again assuming that all erections have a sexual nature, when of
> > > course, they don't. Especially on teens!
> > Really? I would have thought the opposite was true.
> I don't understand how you could forget your own teen years, or were you
> hatched full size?
Not unless false memories of growing up were implanted afterward. I
dimly remember a certain 9th grade fascination with the girls in their
mini-skirts. But that was a long time ago. I could be misremembering
how it was. Nah. It doesn't take much to pop one when the hormones are
flowing. That's nature.
David B.
> A pure mind needn't worry about the thoughts
> and reactions of others.
> --
> Mike J Oropeza
> Those who hear not the music, think the dancers mad ~{';'}~
Wonderful cliché, I wish that it was true. But if one knows they are likely
to be ostracized and called a pervert because of the thoughts and actions of
others toward something like a natural, spontaneous body function, it
isn't. It also isn't true for Christian nudists who fear being ostracized
by church and even family, because those in their family and church have
been conditioned to equate nudity with sex. It's not just Christians
either, if that cliché were true most nudists would be open about this
lifestyle they enjoy so much, instead of keeping it in the closet hoping the
wrong people don't find out! Sadly many people in this messed up world
still have to worry about the thoughts and actions of others simply because
of the color of their skin! How messed up is that?!
Getting such a spontaneous erection at a club is no longer much of a concern
for me in my late thirties, but remember that this thread was started
regarding teens. I remember very well the concerns I had about being seen
with an erection as a young adult at a nudist club, which is why I started,
and continue, to post to this thread. It's unfortunate that so few male
adults in nudism (most of whom seem to have joined after the age of 35 or
40) weren't involved in nudism as teens, perhaps there would be more
understanding regarding this. It's a major reason more younger males aren't
in nudism and that boys whose families are nudists don't go to clubs (or
don't go nude outside of the pool if they do go) in their teen and young
adult years.
I like your sig line, to paraphrase it, unfortunately... those that don't
experience non-sexual erections, think those that do are mad.
Drums1953
own rules...If you are unhappy at any club, move on ...Feel free to open your
own club and make and enforce your own rules.
See ya...Kevin
Sky Farm NJ
nudistfamily
"cyndiann" <cyndiann...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8atbsj$2f1$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> David B. <dav...@vfimail.com> wrote in message
> news:38D158BA...@vfimail.com...
> > nudistfamily wrote:
uh, I had nothing to do with the following quotes
> > Somebody ought to educate some men on why they shouldn't be threatened
> simply
> > by an erection. Trying to get some men to see an erection as anything
> other
> > then lewd is a hoot too. I ask if someone can't see it as anything but
> sexual,
> > whose the one thinking lewd, sexual thoughts??
> >
>
> Exactly!!! I figure its the problem of the one always equating erections
> with sex, not the ones with the spontaneous erections.
> cyndiann
> Singlenudist Messageboard!
> http://venus.beseen.com/boardroom/g/50406/Post
>
>
Kelly
says...
>
> cyndiann wrote:
>
> > An erection is not always a sexual display.
>
>
> Yes, if it's not being displayed.
[snipped for brevity]
> > You are again assuming that all erections have a sexual nature, when of
> > course, they don't. Especially on teens!
>
>
> Really? I would have thought the opposite was true.
>
>
> > > Be honest. If a guy gets an erection it's usually for sexual reasons.
>
> > Very not true! Especially for teens.
>
>
> ???
Patrick, I did some research on your behalf with regards to involuntary
erections. You seem to think they do not occur, particularly in teens.
Look at the following snippets, with accompanying url's at your leisure.
While I cannot vouch for the validity of these sources, I strongly
suspect they are more current and modern than you may be, with the
possible exception of #6 below. Enjoy.
1)
http://www.citynet.net/personal/pcsci/sexual.htm
Psychology of the Middle Childhood Student
30. INVOLUNTARY ERECTIONS OF THE PENIS MAY OCCUR AT UNDESIRABLE AND
EMBARRASSING TIMES.
2)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1998/05/98/the_human_body
/newsid_110000/110183.stm
Erections
And, as if expanding testes are not enough to cope with, teenage boys
also face the terror of involuntary erections and wet dreams.
3)
http://www.phytoestrogen.com/
Testosterone medications also include the warning that priapism
(involuntary erections lasting for many hours) is a possible side effect.
4)
http://www.hsc.missouri.edu/~oncall/menv.shtml
We referred to a book from the American Academy of Pediatrics, "Caring
for your Adolescent." It says...Involuntary erections occur more
frequently.
5)
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/urolog/pubs/impotnce/impotnce.htm
Healthy men have involuntary erections during sleep.
6)
http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/churchta.htm
Some religions are still debating if women have souls. Genital
mutilations are done today as a faith ritual. A Muslim man may not pray
if he has touched a woman and not washed first. St. Augustine was quoted
as saying; "Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They
should in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and
involuntary erections in holy men."
Kelly
says...
>
> Mike J Oropeza wrote:
> >
> > Patrick Dewey wrote:
> > > It is an act of omission to deliberately avoid doing that which you are
> > > obligated to do. People visiting naturist venues have an obligation to
> > > be discreet about sex in public areas.
>
> > agreement. However, a discreet area where the risk of observation is
> > very low could be considered a "private area".
>
> How about "Don't have sex in public and be discreet about sexual
> displays".
>
What you really mean is sexual displays by men, that *you* have judged to
be sexual. Correct?
Kelly
cyndiann...@mindspring.com says...
> >
> > > An erection is not always a sexual display.
> >
> >
> > Yes, if it's not being displayed.
>
> >
> >
> > > > Ideally, naturists enjoying nude recreation don't suffer from
> > > > inappropriate sexual expectations.
> >
> > > You keep throwing the term "sexual" around where it doesn't belong.
> > > were no sexual expectations in this situation.
> >
> >
> > I was making a more general comment. People shouldn't go to naturist
> > sites with sexual expectations. Suffering may result.
>
> You are speculating here. You have no idea if this teen had any "sexual
> expectations".
While I may have a limitation in this regard, I would rather doubt the
boy had sexual thoughts. He was playing pool with his brother (close in
age), his mother and father. His infant sister was sleeping in a trolley
nearby.
I don't really see that as conducive to sexual thought :) Maybe Patrick
does though...no idea.
Patrick Dewey
Goodby Kodak wrote:
> An erectile display for an early teen could be something along the line
> of arching the back and wiggling it around. He did not. Obvious
> embarrassment, hesitation to rise from a hidden position and reluctance
> to be around the table are the opposite of making a display.
Maybe the owner should have given him credit for trying to be discreet.
I'm not in favor of harsh penalties for minor transgressions.
> Oh??... Don’t you remember the cursed second period boner from Jr.
> High? I sure do and it was quite the topic among us poor fellows with
> newly acquired puberty. We hated to go to the blackboard or even stand
> to leave the classroom at the end of the period.
You misunderstand. Of course I agree that puberty is a time of
heightened sexuality. It's ridiculous to claim that it's not or that
healthy erections are anything other than sexual in nature. No doubt
that causes extra embarrassment for teens.
> Why is it that Cyndiann knows more than you about men’s penis related
> health issues and she doesn’t even have one? Hmmm... From your name I’m
> presuming you have a penis. Am I wrong? Are you actually a female?
Sigh. You and cyndiann both confuse cause with effect. It doesn't
matter whether the stimulation was cold air, emotions, bladder pressure,
or something rubbed against. It doesn't matter whether it was
intentional or accidental. The result, a healthy erection, is still
sexual. It's not unreasonable to expect discretion regardless of the
original intent.
Patrick
Patrick Dewey
Kelly wrote:
> > How about "Don't have sex in public and be discreet about sexual
> > displays".
> What you really mean is sexual displays by men, that *you* have judged to
> be sexual. Correct?
Well, in this case it was the owner that made the judgment.
Fortunately, most men have the good sense to be discreet without
prodding.
Patrick Dewey
Kelly wrote:
> Patrick, I did some research on your behalf with regards to involuntary
> erections. You seem to think they do not occur, particularly in teens.
> Look at the following snippets, with accompanying url's at your leisure.
> While I cannot vouch for the validity of these sources, I strongly
> suspect they are more current and modern than you may be, with the
> possible exception of #6 below. Enjoy.
Thanks for the research but you completely misunderstood my point. A
healthy erection is sexual whatever the cause. It doesn't really matter
if it was involuntary. Discretion in public is still advisable.
Patrick
Allan Beatty
> An erection is usually a sign of sexual arousal. It can happen
> spontaneously, for obscure reasons.
Perhaps it's obscure to you, but plenty of others posting here
seem to be familiar with the phenomenon.
> AFAIK, all healthy erections are sexual. See a physician to diagnose
> the cause of any non-sexual erections.
Normal teenage males are victims of priapism?
Or maybe it's not the nature of erections that is in dispute
here -- perhaps we are using different definitions of
"sexuality." If by the term you mean something like "anything
involving the genitals," then I'd have to agree that all
erections are sexual.
:-)
--
Allan Beatty
"Our God has no favorites" http://www.ames.net/uccmisu/
David B.
I agree and hypocrisy over this issue, while at the same time openly allowing
sexy lingerie, best buns and boobs contests, very sexual "flirting" contests,
etc. is a major reason I'm not a member of a club now. Along with things like
not liking all the drinking, smoking, and many clubs not providing any fitness
equipment except for some old broken junk that's not fit to use. Would love to
open my own resort, simply can't afford it.
David B.
> An erection is usually a sign of sexual arousal.
Granted, for older males, not as much so for younger ones (directly at least,
it also depends on how you define sexual). I find it interesting that I am a
pretty conservative Christian (except for nudism!) who believes the only
appropriate place for sex is between husband and wife (in private) yet I'm not
threatened by erections, if (and it is a big IF) the persons behavior and
actions are in no way sexual or lewd. I don't understand why others are so
threatened by them rather then by behavior.
> It can happen
> spontaneously, for obscure reasons. I'm not saying it's bad, or wrong.
Bravo, making progress!
> However, you are obligated to be discreet about it in public.
Oops, perhaps not. If it can happen spontaneously, for obscure reasons, it's
not bad or wrong, and the person is not acting in a sexual or lewd manner, why
is he obligated to be discreet (used in this sense discreet meaning to hide or
cover it, not meaning ignore it and continue as normal) about it?
> AFAIK, all healthy erections are sexual. See a physician to diagnose
> the cause of any non-sexual erections.
That depends on how you define sexual, if you include things such as natural
functions of the body that can cause spontaneous erections (mostly in youth), a
cool breeze, etc. (which can be very sensual), unconscious thoughts, etc., then
yes, I totally agree with you. If you don't include such things, I don't.
While erections caused by direct sexual arousal can happen in a nudist
environment (since we are sexual beings interacting with other sexual beings) I
believe they happen far, far less in a nudist environment then a textile one.
This is because I believe the nudist environment is honest about the body while
a textile one (especially a textile beach or pool) tantalizes by keeping parts
of the body hidden. (here's a thought, do some nudists want to try to ensure
that erections are sexually tantalizing be insisting that they be covered?
hmm.)
I've said this before in other threads, but if it was known that erections are
not an issue in nudist environments and that someone would not be ostracized
simply for having one. They would still be rarely seen, because the penis is
flaccid most of the time and nudist beaches, pools, etc. are simply not as
sexually tantalizing as textile ones. The main and most important difference
is what would be communicated about body acceptance, ESPECIALLY to male youth.
Do nudists believe that nudity is non-sexual enough to not be offended by an
occasional erection rather then lewd or sexual behavior (some of which seems to
be accepted at some "nudist" clubs)?
Sometimes I feel like people make an issue of this because they think "if we
don't insist males cover erections, they'll be all over the place. If we don't
control it, every man will have one!" ROTFL That kind of thinking is stupid
and makes me wonder how truly non-sexual do some nudists really believe nudism
is?? It won't happen, nothing to fear, even if given a totally green light,
erections would still be rare in a non-sexual nudist environment. Again the
difference would be what is communicated about body acceptance, including the
idea that nudists aren't threatened by an occasional erection, that they
realize that what is important is how a person conducts them self.
David B.
> cyndiann wrote:
>
> > > > There were no sexual expectations in this situation.
>
> > > I was making a more general comment. People shouldn't go to naturist
> > > sites with sexual expectations. Suffering may result.
>
> > You are speculating here. You have no idea if this teen had any "sexual
> > expectations".
>
> Neither of us can be certain either way.
Now that is very true, no one can be certain whether an erection is caused by
sexual arousal, expectations, or intentions, except for the person that has it.
I absolutely agree with that. The only thing others can be certain of is
behavior. If a person is behaving in a lewd or sexual way they should not be in
a non-sexual nudist environment.
But once again an erection itself is not a behavior. Flaunting it is a negative
behavior. Since it can be and is often (especially in youth) a spontaneous body
reaction, covering it as if it is wrong (which you have yourself said it's not)
or lewd, is also a negative behavior.
David B.
> 2)
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1998/05/98/the_human_body
> /newsid_110000/110183.stm
>
> Erections
>
> And, as if expanding testes are not enough to cope with, teenage boys
> also face the terror of involuntary erections and wet dreams.
Thanks Kelly for a great post (from the percentages of women posting on this NG
it seems they are far less threatened by erections then men are. funny). The
terror of involuntary erections is real for teen boys, it should be far less so
for nudist teens if the body is truly acceptable. Unfortunately it is even
more so for nudist teens, which is why so few go to clubs, or aren't nude
outside the pool if they do go. I remember this well, although I have been
attracted to the body positive ideals of nudism since the age of 12, I have
hated this body negative aspect of the reality of it.
Bill Thompson
Patrick Dewey wrote:
Just like some people think nudity is sexual no matter what and that
discretion in public is still advisable and should always be covered. Right?
STEVE
If you want to discuss the hypocrisy of nudists, you might first consider
how many voyeurs and exhibitionists participate in nudism. After reading
through another rec.nude erection thread, you can't conclude much else.
-STEVE
David B.
Bill Thompson wrote:
> It doesn't really matter
> > if it was involuntary. Discretion in public is still advisable.
> >
> > Patrick
>
> Just like some people think nudity is sexual no matter what and that
> discretion in public is still advisable and should always be covered. Right?
Yep, I think that just about covers it. <G> Certainly sounds like what he's
saying to me. (And like many of the public, in regards to nudity, whether it's
accompanied by lewd, sexual behavior or not.)
David B.
> Sigh. You and cyndiann both confuse cause with effect. It doesn't
> matter whether the stimulation was cold air, emotions, bladder pressure,
> or something rubbed against. It doesn't matter whether it was
> intentional or accidental. The result, a healthy erection, is still
> sexual. It's not unreasonable to expect discretion regardless of the
> original intent.
>
> Patrick
And in another post:
> Thanks for the research but you completely misunderstood my point. A
> healthy erection is sexual whatever the cause. It doesn't really
> matter
> if it was involuntary. Discretion in public is still advisable.
>
OK, If you include things such as cold air, emotions, bladder pressure,
something rubbed against, and accidental as "sexual" I would agree with you.
We are sexual beings and "sexual" arousal in this sense can be caused by more
than direct conscience sexual desire. You could call it "sensual" stimuli,
but with a teen male even that often doesn't seem to be needed, at least not
in a directly recognizable sense. This is not a bad or lewd thing, apart from
lewd behavior.
Would you agree with me, as I stated in an earlier post, that erections due
to "direct" sexual arousal are less likely to occur in a nudist environment
then in a textile one such as a beach or pool, because there is more honesty
and less teasing and titillation regarding the body in the nudist
environment? If so what's the threat, or even inappropriateness, of an
occasional erection without it being hidden (as long as there is no lewd
behavior)?
I have seen much lewd behavior in clubs (like wearing sexy lingerie, genital
jewelry, lewd behavior on the dance floor, in the hot tub, lewd behavior
caused by intoxication), even put on by clubs (such as best buns and boobs
contests, sexual flirting contests, and lets not get NF started on vanilla
pudding!) that disgusted me. This is accepted, while a male (even a teen)
can be booted out for having an erection with no lewd behavior at all! That
my friend is hypocrisy and it's wrong!
Funny, I have a problem with all the types of lewd behavior listed above, yet
I don't have a problem with erections when there is no lewd behavior. I
firmly believe that the right and appropriate place for sex is in a loving,
committed marriage relationship, still I don't have a problem with erections,
as long as their is no lewd behavior. In fact I have a problem with
insisting erections be covered and treated as if they themselves are lewd! I
recognize that erections happen, that they in themselves are not wrong. It's
what some one does with it that can be wrong (including, dare I say hiding
it).
In fact it seems to me that hiding an erection is an admission of guilt
(i.e. You know that it was caused by direct, conscious sexual arousal.
That's why your self-conscious about it and trying to hide it.) In this vain
there are times when I've had erections and didn't like feeling that I had to
hide it, because I knew it was spontaneous, natural, and should be accepted
as such. Then there are other times that even if it had been accepted not to
hide it, I would have hidden my erection anyway, because I knew that, that
situation I saw, or that attractive lady I saw turned me on, and I was very
self-conscious of it.
Patrick you said:
> You misunderstand. Of course I agree that puberty is a time of
> heightened sexuality. It's ridiculous to claim that it's not or that
> healthy erections are anything other than sexual in nature. No doubt
> that causes extra embarrassment for teens.
>
OK fine. So should a nudist environment that promotes body acceptance be one
that increases their anxiety and embarrassment, making them even more
self-conscious about what is happening to their body because of the nudity?
Or should it be one that supports them, lets them know that their feelings
and what their body is doing is natural? One that teaches them to accept
what their body is doing and be responsible with what they are feeling (which
doesn't mean hiding what their body is doing as if there is something wrong
with it).
Looking forward to your answer.
Patrick Dewey
"David B." wrote:
> > However, you are obligated to be discreet about it in public.
> Oops, perhaps not. If it can happen spontaneously, for obscure reasons, it's
> not bad or wrong, and the person is not acting in a sexual or lewd manner, why
> is he obligated to be discreet (used in this sense discreet meaning to hide or
> cover it, not meaning ignore it and continue as normal) about it?
Ultimately, you should be discreet enough to avoid negative consequences
(ie, suffering). It's not easy to gauge the sensitivities of people who
you don't know well. So, isn't it more considerate to err on the
conservative side?
> > AFAIK, all healthy erections are sexual. See a physician to diagnose
> > the cause of any non-sexual erections.
> That depends on how you define sexual, if you include things such as natural
> functions of the body that can cause spontaneous erections (mostly in youth), a
> cool breeze, etc. (which can be very sensual), unconscious thoughts, etc., then
> yes, I totally agree with you. If you don't include such things, I don't.
I wasn't really concerned about the cause, only the resulting state.
People using the same words with differing focus generate some
outrageous misunderstandings.
Patrick Dewey
Allan Beatty wrote:
> > An erection is usually a sign of sexual arousal. It can happen
> > spontaneously, for obscure reasons.
> Perhaps it's obscure to you, but plenty of others posting here
> seem to be familiar with the phenomenon.
The ten thousand causes are not the phenomenon.
> > AFAIK, all healthy erections are sexual. See a physician to diagnose
> > the cause of any non-sexual erections.
> Normal teenage males are victims of priapism?
No. Normal teenage males are victims/beneficiaries of sexual urges.
> Or maybe it's not the nature of erections that is in dispute
> here -- perhaps we are using different definitions of
> "sexuality." If by the term you mean something like "anything
> involving the genitals," then I'd have to agree that all
> erections are sexual.
Sexuality isn't restricted to the genitals and genital functions aren't
all sexual. Biologically, though, healthy erections are sexual
functions.
Patrick
David B.
> Of course not. Very few nudists I know are going to be bothered by
> a brief erection or frequent teenage erections.
Then my feeling is, you are lucky to know some exceptional nudists that are
secure about body acceptance.
> But I think most would
> find it inappropriate for an adult to walk around with a 12-hour erection.
Totally agreed.
> Saying that erections are perfectly natural (yes, most are) and should
> therefore be accepted, is absurd. It throws the door wide open for perverts
> to walk thru.
How, if you look at behavior. Perverts usually expose themselves quite quickly
in a nudist environment. You, yourself just differentiated between a brief
(which most erections not caused by direct, conscious, sexual arousal are) and
a 12-hour (or in case you meant to say this, I would even say a 1/2-hour) adult
erection.
> I'm not saying that people should be thrown out for having an erection,
> but (unfortunately) there needs to be a limit on what is acceptable.
> But finding the right place to draw the line is not an easy task.
>
> Bill.
Yep, that's why this topic is so frequently discussed. I must also say that
this time it also seems to be being discussed quite reasonably and rationally
without getting dragged down into all sorts of heated name calling etc.. For
that I thank everyone involved. It's nice to see that people here can agree to
disagree and still be at least somewhat civil about it. <g>
Patrick Dewey
"David B." wrote:
> Bill Thompson wrote:
> > It doesn't really matter
> > > if it was involuntary. Discretion in public is still advisable.
> > > Patrick
> > Just like some people think nudity is sexual no matter what and that
> > discretion in public is still advisable and should always be covered. Right?
Naturists should set a good example to demonstrate that social nudity is
compatible with sexual responsibility.
Patrick Dewey
"David B." wrote:
> OK, If you include things such as cold air, emotions, bladder pressure,
> something rubbed against, and accidental as "sexual" I would agree with you.
Accidental stimulants aren't sexual; the resulting erection is.
> We are sexual beings and "sexual" arousal in this sense can be caused by more
> than direct conscience sexual desire. You could call it "sensual" stimuli,
> but with a teen male even that often doesn't seem to be needed, at least not
> in a directly recognizable sense. This is not a bad or lewd thing, apart from
> lewd behavior.
True.
> Would you agree with me, as I stated in an earlier post, that erections due
> to "direct" sexual arousal are less likely to occur in a nudist environment
> then in a textile one such as a beach or pool, because there is more honesty
> and less teasing and titillation regarding the body in the nudist
> environment?
I can't judge the relative likelihood of erections occurring in co vs
textile beaches. Most of the people at our local nude beach seem well
behaved. It doesn't matter how many erections they have as long as they
aren't showing them off.
> If so what's the threat, or even inappropriateness, of an
> occasional erection without it being hidden (as long as there is no lewd
> behavior)?
Lewd behavior is in the eye of the beholder. It's best to be discreet
and considerate of others.
> I have seen much lewd behavior in clubs (like wearing sexy lingerie, genital
> jewelry, lewd behavior on the dance floor, in the hot tub, lewd behavior
> caused by intoxication), even put on by clubs (such as best buns and boobs
> contests, sexual flirting contests, and lets not get NF started on vanilla
> pudding!) that disgusted me. This is accepted, while a male (even a teen)
> can be booted out for having an erection with no lewd behavior at all! That
> my friend is hypocrisy and it's wrong!
Doesn't the sexiness of lingerie depend on your mood, or attitude? When
is affectionate behavior, like kissing and hugging, lewd? Is genital
jewelry lewd because it catches the eye and causes one to look at
genitals? Is it always lewd to look at genitals? How about drawing or
photographing them? When is it lewd to play with your food? Which is
more obviously sexual -
clothes/jewelry/dancing/touching/buns/boobs/pudding or an erection?
BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just trying to sort
things out.
> Funny, I have a problem with all the types of lewd behavior listed above, yet
> I don't have a problem with erections when there is no lewd behavior.
Neither do I.
> I firmly believe that the right and appropriate place for sex is in a loving,
> committed marriage relationship, still I don't have a problem with erections,
> as long as their is no lewd behavior. In fact I have a problem with
> insisting erections be covered and treated as if they themselves are lewd! I
> recognize that erections happen, that they in themselves are not wrong. It's
> what some one does with it that can be wrong (including, dare I say hiding
> it).
I wouldn't make a stink unless the guy was showing it off.
> In fact it seems to me that hiding an erection is an admission of guilt
> (i.e. You know that it was caused by direct, conscious sexual arousal.
> That's why your self-conscious about it and trying to hide it.)
It wouldn't be so much a matter of guilt as of trying to avoid
embarrassment.
> In this vain
> there are times when I've had erections and didn't like feeling that I had to
> hide it, because I knew it was spontaneous, natural, and should be accepted
> as such. Then there are other times that even if it had been accepted not to
> hide it, I would have hidden my erection anyway, because I knew that, that
> situation I saw, or that attractive lady I saw turned me on, and I was very
> self-conscious of it.
At the beach I can be unself-conscious about being nude but anything
that begins to stir the loins makes me self-conscious and careful.
Thus, potential embarrassment is averted.
> So should a nudist environment that promotes body acceptance be one
> that increases their anxiety and embarrassment, making them even more
> self-conscious about what is happening to their body because of the nudity?
> Or should it be one that supports them, lets them know that their feelings
> and what their body is doing is natural? One that teaches them to accept
> what their body is doing and be responsible with what they are feeling (which
> doesn't mean hiding what their body is doing as if there is something wrong
> with it).
> Looking forward to your answer.
Sex is natural too, but I don't want it getting out of control in venues
for nude recreation. There shouldn't be harsh punishments for minor
transgressions but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Patrick
Jenny6833A
The "erections-are-natural" group seems to be desperately trying to find a
rationale to justify parading of erections. And, yes, there seem to be some
who are eager to watch the parade.
At the other extreme, some seem to think that a glimpse of an erection will
scar them for life.
I continue to think that the sneeze analogy applies. No one ought to be upset
by a sudden, uncontrollable occurrance. Accidents happen. Ho hum.
On the other hand, no one should have to endure the inevitable dolts who would
impose extended sneezing fits on others.
I told my son the same thing about erections as I did about sneezes: if it
happens, it's not a big thing -- but etiquette requires that you cover your
nose/erection, excuse yourself, and move away until you're back in control.
It's quite irrelevant why the sneeze/erection occurred. It's as silly to argue
that some erections aren't sexual as to argue that some sneezes don't spread
germs. Yes, erections can result from a variety of non-sexual stimuli just as
sneezes can result from allergies and other non-contagious stimuli. But, so
what?
Are we going to analyze the drippings to decide which is which?
Once the initial "uncontrollable accident" moment has passed, it's as
ridiculous to insist that people continue to accept (allegedly) non-sexual
erections as to continue to accept being sprayed with (allegedly) germ-free
snot.
Nudists have traditionally adopted the middle ground: accidents happen;
accidents are ignored and excused. But, if the individual doesn't promptly
cover up and move away, it's reasonable to assume that it wasn't an accident --
or isn't an accident any more.
Jenny
Patrick Dewey
Jenny6833A wrote:
> I continue to think that the sneeze analogy applies. No one ought to be upset
> by a sudden, uncontrollable occurrance. Accidents happen. Ho hum.
> On the other hand, no one should have to endure the inevitable dolts who would
> impose extended sneezing fits on others.
> I told my son the same thing about erections as I did about sneezes: if it
> happens, it's not a big thing -- but etiquette requires that you cover your
> nose/erection, excuse yourself, and move away until you're back in control.
> It's quite irrelevant why the sneeze/erection occurred. It's as silly to argue
> that some erections aren't sexual as to argue that some sneezes don't spread
> germs. Yes, erections can result from a variety of non-sexual stimuli just as
> sneezes can result from allergies and other non-contagious stimuli. But, so
> what?
A very apt analogy.
Thank you, Jenny!
Patrick
David B.
I have heard a sneeze/erection analogy before, but not the way you just put it.
While I think that teens in particular would be more sensitive to how others react
to spontaneous sneezes, then to spontaneous erections, as Pat has pointed out that
can be handled differently in family and smaller more private situations, to put
them more at ease with what is happening with their body.
The AANR and clubs typically respond to the question of erections along the
standard line of: "nudist parks are not sexually stimulating, erections don't
happen" This is BS and mostly what I object too. Most men read or hear something
like that and go "ya, right" We nudists do know that nudist parks are in fact far
LESS sexually stimulating then most textile situations, but we also know that we
are still sexual beings, that bodies are sexual, and life is sexual. We also know
that erections can be caused by reasons other then direct sexual arousal.
Now if clubs and the AANR would take more of the approach that you just did and
basically say something perhaps along the lines of "We realize that erections can
happen for a number of reasons, however, just as it is polite to cover a sneeze in
public, it is also polite and expected that you will cover an erection in public"
I would not have an issue with the AANR or clubs of hypocrisy on this issue. That
type of statement communicates a completely and fundamentally different message
then "nudist parks are not sexually stimulating, erections don't happen".
I also think that if your type of message was communicated by the AANR and clubs,
teen males might be much more comfortable spending more time nude. They might be
more at ease, realizing that others aren't in fact going to label them a pervert
and kick them out if they see the teen with an erection, as long as they see the
teen is being responsible to cover it in a timely and responsible manner.
Unfortunately what that means can lead to a whole other debate. If a teen walks
from the pool to his campsite nude, should he have a pair of shorts in hand "just
in case"?
Thanks again for a most excellent post. I think it was the most sensible one in
this entire thread (including mine <g>)
David B.
Jenny6833A wrote:
> The "erections-are-natural" group seems to be desperately trying to find a
> rationale to justify parading of erections. And, yes, there seem to be some
> who are eager to watch the parade.
>
> At the other extreme, some seem to think that a glimpse of an erection will
> scar them for life.
>
> Are we going to analyze the drippings to decide which is which?
>
> Once the initial "uncontrollable accident" moment has passed, it's as
> ridiculous to insist that people continue to accept (allegedly) non-sexual
> erections as to continue to accept being sprayed with (allegedly) germ-free
> snot.
>
> Nudists have traditionally adopted the middle ground: accidents happen;
> accidents are ignored and excused. But, if the individual doesn't promptly
> cover up and move away, it's reasonable to assume that it wasn't an accident --
> or isn't an accident any more.
>
> Jenny
--
RazzleDzl
that they are male or female, erect or not. Then we have nudist who are
offended by males with erections but not nude people without errections. So
within the nudist there are people who are even offended. In my opinion the
question is, is nudity offensive or is it not. Not are erections offensive or
not. If one isn't offended by a penis then it shouldn't matter if it is erect
or not. I would say that having sex on the beach in public is wrong and
playing with one's penis would be wrong but if a guy has an erection it's no
big thing. Erections will eventually fall.
If I wasn't a nudist I would find all public nudity offensive not an erect
penis. I mean erect or not, the question is, is nudity wrong. If you don't
think so then so what an erect penis. All us girls are gonna be afraid, right?
No.
Crystal
STEVE
<snip>
> I also think that if your type of message was communicated by the AANR and
> clubs, teen males might be much more comfortable spending more time nude.
> They might be more at ease, realizing that others aren't in fact going to
> label them a pervert and kick them out if they see the teen with an
erection, > as long as they see the teen is being responsible to cover it
in a timely and > responsible manner. Unfortunately what that means can
lead to a whole other
> debate. If a teen walks from the pool to his campsite nude, should he
have a > pair of shorts in hand "just in case"?
<snip>
> David B.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Would you care to explain why in all of your posts on this topic there
seems to be an unusual interest and concern for the erections of teen
males? I'd hate to make the wrong assumption about you. -STEVE
STEVE
razz...@aol.com (RazzleDzl) wrote:
> Okay what about this. Some of you might be offended by the site of an
> erection but what about the site of an anus? I'm not making a joke here.
>
> When I first went to a nude because I only expected to see people in the nude
> but didn't expect to see people's anuses. I'm sitting there then some woman
> is in front of me bending over picking something up and I glance up and see an
> anus. No big deal now but at first I was surprised that people didn't care if
> people saw the poop shoot. I mean I thought that I wouldn't care if someone
> saw me butt naked, breast, butt and even private part but I thought that the
> anus is a place that is an embarasing part for people to see but I see people
> bending all over the place and the poop shoot is right there looking straight
> at me. Hopefully it's not loaded and ready to go...:).
>
> Point is I was not prepared to see such a thing and I was not offended but I
> see many nudist just bend and the pooper is just there at eye level to see.
> Now many nudist aren't offended by that part of the anatomy but what if there
> were some that were since that part isn't usually seen unless one bends over
> and it is exposed. So if an erection is very offensive then why is the anus,
> the outlet that is used to expel human waste not offensive to see? Not
> offensive to me but point is if an erection is an offense then why isn't an
> anus? Nudist don't care if someone is bent over and the pooper is at eye
> level with another person.
>
> Any of you offended by the anus being shown at a nude beach when someone bends
> over to pick up something? Any of you careful enough not to bend over because
> someone might see it and you might be embarrassed by someone seeing your
> pooper?
>
>
> Crystal
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I never embarrass myself at a nude beach because I never lose control of
either my penis, or my anus. And they're both loaded and ready to go.
;-) -STEVE
David B.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Would you care to explain why in all of your posts on this topic there
> seems to be an unusual interest and concern for the erections of teen
> males? I'd hate to make the wrong assumption about you. -STEVE
Very simple, but I do think I've already explained that. 1. Teens have far
more frequent spontaneous erections then older males so it is more of an issue
for them. 2. It is an issue for me because I very well remember what it was
like being a teen and young adult male nudist (single too!) with erections
frequently, spontaneously popping up when I in no way wanted them too, and
being fearful that people would label me a pervert and kick me out if they saw
me with one.
Now why did I have that fear? Because of what the clubs, literature,
organizations communicated about erections. I.E. that erections don't happen
in nudist clubs because the nudity is non-sexual, the easy conclusion being
erections are sexual so if you get one at a nudist club, you're some kind of
sexual pervert. Now if the clubs, literature, and organizations had
communicated something more along the lines of Jenny's excellent post I doubt I
would have had the fears of of what might happen at a club if someone spotted
me with a spontaneous erection when I was younger, or that I would have an
issue about this subject today.
RazzleDzl
Jenny6833A
>Jenny, thank you very much for an excellent post! :-)
Flattery will get you anything except a change of opinion or style. <G>
>The AANR and clubs typically respond to the question of erections along the
>standard line of: "nudist parks are not sexually stimulating, erections don't
>happen"
I don't pay much attention to AANR's purple PR prose, but what I recall is,
"nudist parks are not sexually stimulating, erections *rarely* happen."
I agree with that. In nearly 25 years, I've seen six. ONE at an AANR park and
five at beaches. I'd estimate that those six erections were visible for a
total of about ten seconds, or less than two seconds each.
Of course, I'm not searching for little things to become upset about, so I've
undoubtedly missed some too.
>This is BS and mostly what I object too. Most men read or hear
>something like that and go "ya, right."
Most non-nudist men are so focused on their own self-exaggerated sexual
prowess, and so sure that nudity equals sex, that they refuse to believe they
can stay calm: 999 out of 1000 non-nudist men are SURE they'll get an erection
at a nudist place, 998 of them don't, and 997 are secretly disappointed.
> We nudists do know that nudist parks are in fact far
>LESS sexually stimulating then most textile situations, but we also know that
>we are still sexual beings, that bodies are sexual, and life is sexual.
True, but so what?
It makes no sense to waste energy producing erections that can't/won't be used.
Real men learn to ... er ... husband their ever-so-limited energy for the real
thing.
[As hubby tells it, two bulls were watching a large herd of cows in the
distance. The young one was jumping up and down, breathing hard, snorting, and
all ready for sex. He shouted excitedly, "Let's run over there and screw one."
The mature bull just stood there quietly, head down, breathing easily. "Calm
down, son, be sensible" the mature bull said. "Let's *walk* over there,
slowly, then screw them all."]
> We also know
>that erections can be caused by reasons other then direct sexual arousal.
It's still good etiquette, and respectful of others, to back off and cover up.
"Naturism is a way of life in harmony with nature characterised by the practice
of communal nudity, with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for
others and for the enviroment." International Naturist Federation
Note the part about respect for others.
>Now if clubs and the AANR would take more of the approach that you just did
>and
>basically say something perhaps along the lines of "We realize that erections
>can
>happen for a number of reasons, however, just as it is polite to cover a
>sneeze in
>public, it is also polite and expected that you will cover an erection in
>public"
>I would not have an issue with the AANR or clubs of hypocrisy on this issue.
I think that's just about what AANR does say.
Still, I don't think what the ANNR flaks say is all that relevant. It's what
we nudists tell each other, and what we do in each other's presence, that's
important. Only about one in 25 nudists are now, ever have been, or ever will
be members of AANR. And, at least half of AANR members are unwilling, highly
unenthusiastic members who pay the dues only because they're required to -- and
who otherwise ignore the Kissimmee crew and its regional minions.
>That type of statement communicates a completely and fundamentally different
>message then "nudist parks are not sexually stimulating, erections don't
happen".
I don't think AANR says that erections don't happen.
>I also think that if your type of message was communicated by the AANR and
>clubs,
>teen males might be much more comfortable spending more time nude. They
>might be
>more at ease, realizing that others aren't in fact going to label them a
>pervert
>and kick them out if they see the teen with an erection, as long as they see
>the
>teen is being responsible to cover it in a timely and responsible manner.
All the teens I know have been given the above message.
>Unfortunately what that means can lead to a whole other debate. If a teen
>walks
>from the pool to his campsite nude, should he have a pair of shorts in hand
>"just
>in case"?
No. That's one of the many uses of the ever-present towel.
>Thanks again for a most excellent post. I think it was the most sensible one
>in
>this entire thread (including mine <g>)
More flattery. I love it!
Jenny
Guy Lachance
Mike J Oropeza wrote:
> > Methinks you protesteth too much
> > about the non-sexuality of erections.
>
> Yeah. I get that sense too. A pure mind needn't worry about the thoughts
> and reactions of others.
Only a sick (and uncaring) mind try to investigate the purity in others, and
put them on trial, accusing them of having bad thoughts, as revealed by the
size of their penis.
Inquisition, witch hunt...remember ?
GL
>
> --
> Mike J Oropeza
> Those who hear not the music, think the dancers mad ~{';'}~
Dan McEwen
>If I wasn't a nudist I would find all public nudity offensive not an erect
>penis. I mean erect or not, the question is, is nudity wrong. If you don't
>think so then so what an erect penis. All us girls are gonna be afraid, right?
> No.
I tend to agree. There's a big difference between someone having sex,
stroking themselves, or even wearing a cock ring (something I've seen)
than simply having an erection. As you said, the erection is going to
fall. So what if the guy is erect for a few minutes? It truly is
just something that happens.
Dan #1617
Dan McEwen
>
>If you want to discuss the hypocrisy of nudists, you might first consider
>how many voyeurs and exhibitionists participate in nudism. After reading
>through another rec.nude erection thread, you can't conclude much else.
No doubt, but wouldn't you consider a voyeur/exhibitionist to be a
very different group than nudists/naturists? Those others are in it
for the sexual aspect. A nustist/naturist is not, and that should
definitely be taken into account when considering an erection.
Dan #1617
Dan McEwen
>Would you care to explain why in all of your posts on this topic there
>seems to be an unusual interest and concern for the erections of teen
>males? I'd hate to make the wrong assumption about you. -STEVE
I bet I can answer the question, and it's based on his initial post on
the subject. David said that he was at a nudist resort where a family
was thrown out because a teen male had an erection -- which obviously
embarassed the boy and which he tried to cover up as best he could.
Dan #1617
Dan McEwen
<patric...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>cyndiann wrote:
>> You are speculating here. You have no idea if this teen had any "sexual
>> expectations".
>
>Neither of us can be certain either way.
Considering that this particular teen was there with his family, and
was embarassed with his erection, it's a safe bet to say he didn't go
to the naturist resort with "sexual expectations". I don't know about
you, but the last thing I'd be expecting to do would be to have sex in
the company of my family.
>> I don't understand how you could forget your own teen years, or were you
>> hatched full size?
>
>Not unless false memories of growing up were implanted afterward. I
>dimly remember a certain 9th grade fascination with the girls in their
>mini-skirts. But that was a long time ago. I could be misremembering
>how it was. Nah. It doesn't take much to pop one when the hormones are
>flowing. That's nature.
And that's precisely the point. It really doesn't take much to get an
erection, particularly when you are young. Does that mean you
actively chose to get an erection? No.
Dan #1617
David B.
> Accidental stimulants aren't sexual; the resulting erection is.
That may be. Still what is offensive about it as long as there is no lewd
behavior?
> Lewd behavior is in the eye of the beholder. It's best to be discreet
> and considerate of others.
Agreed, again an erection, itself, is not behavior.
> Which is
> more obviously sexual -
> clothes/jewelry/dancing/touching/buns/boobs/pudding or an erection?
>
> BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just trying to sort
> things out.
From what I've observed at some clubs the clothes/jewelry/dancing/touching/buns
and boobs contests/pudding are often much more obviously sexual than a simple
erection. BTW I don't consider affectionate behavior, like kissing and hugging to
be lewd. What I've seen in a couple hot tubs at "family" nudist clubs went well
beyond that. I've also heard of situations at other clubs worse then what I've
seen.
> Sex is natural too, but I don't want it getting out of control in venues
> for nude recreation. There shouldn't be harsh punishments for minor
> transgressions but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
>
> Patrick
I agree and have said elsewhere that there is a difference between a brief
spontaneous erection (I'd say that most erections that are not due to conscience
sexual arousal are fairly brief, even for teens) and one that lasts a 1/2 hour or
more.
Actually at this point I think we are in more agreement then it even sounds like
from my responses to your statements in this post. <g> That is due largely to
Jenny's outstanding post. I had heard erections compared to sneezes before, but
it was basically you cover your mouth when you sneeze, so you should cover an
erection. Not very good, however I think Jenny's more more detailed comparison
was really quite good.
The major beef I have on this issue isn't as much covering erections, as to WHY
cover them. And what is being communicated about body acceptance in that "why".
The standard line that given by most clubs, AANR, nudist literature, and many web
sites basically goes something like "nudist clubs are non-sexual, so erections
don't happen". That's illogical BS. 1. many erections happen due to other then
direct sexual arousal, as you yourself have agreed. 2. Although I believe nudist
clubs, for the most part, are less sexual then many textile environments, we don't
become asexual when we take off our clothes. 3. It leaves people with the feeling
that if someone gets an erection at a nudist club, it's because they are a sexual
pervert (at least that's how that type of reasoning leaves me feeling). I believe
the explanation Jenny gave is much more sound and logical. To me it doesn't have
the connotations the standard lines I've seen for so long have. I wish clubs,
literature, nudist web sites, AANR, etc. would adopt her explanation. Perhaps
she'll put up a web site with it on it?
David B.
wanted to be so direct about my strategy, but here goes...
The "hypocrisy" thread started with a post involving a teen and his family being
kicked out of a club due to an erection. When I saw that I felt that, since it is
known that teens have more frequent, spontaneous erections then older males here
was a better chance to possibly have a less emotional, more logical discussion of
the erection issue if teens were kept at the center of it.
I feel that strategy has worked pretty well, I think there has been less
accusations, name calling, heated emotions, etc. in this erection thread then any
I recall seeing before. Also more communication and understanding then I've seen
on these threads before. Perhaps even some helpful results. For the most part it
has been a very good discussion. It would be great if all discussions on this NG
where at least this good or better.
Related to #2 to I also know some families with teen males that have pretty much
gone through the same type of emotions regarding erections at nudist clubs, that I
did when younger. (at least they had or have family that are also nudists,
supportive and understanding)
"David B." wrote:
> STEVE wrote:
>
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> > Would you care to explain why in all of your posts on this topic there
> > seems to be an unusual interest and concern for the erections of teen
> > males? I'd hate to make the wrong assumption about you. -STEVE
>
> Very simple, but I do think I've already explained that. 1. Teens have far
> more frequent spontaneous erections then older males so it is more of an issue
> for them. 2. It is an issue for me because I very well remember what it was
> like being a teen and young adult male nudist (single too!) with erections
> frequently, spontaneously popping up when I in no way wanted them too, and
> being fearful that people would label me a pervert and kick me out if they saw
> me with one.
>
> Now why did I have that fear? Because of what the clubs, literature,
> organizations communicated about erections. I.E. that erections don't happen
> in nudist clubs because the nudity is non-sexual, the easy conclusion being
> erections are sexual so if you get one at a nudist club, you're some kind of
> sexual pervert. Now if the clubs, literature, and organizations had
> communicated something more along the lines of Jenny's excellent post I doubt I
> would have had the fears of of what might happen at a club if someone spotted
> me with a spontaneous erection when I was younger, or that I would have an
> issue about this subject today.
>
cyndiann
Jenny6833A <jenny...@aol.com.org.net> wrote in message
news:20000318230202...@nso-cv.aol.com...
>
> Most non-nudist men are so focused on their own self-exaggerated sexual
> prowess, and so sure that nudity equals sex, that they refuse to believe
they
> can stay calm: 999 out of 1000 non-nudist men are SURE they'll get an
erection
> at a nudist place, 998 of them don't, and 997 are secretly disappointed.
>
I am saving this one.......
Drums1953
week????....tommorow????....23 minutes
after I post this???? See ya, Kevin
Bill Hunsicker
You're ignoring the point that was made here, which I think is the main
point of the thread.
Bill Thompson wrote [very well, I think]
> > Just like some people think nudity is sexual no matter what and that
> > discretion in public is still advisable and should always be covered. Right?
Your response:
> Naturists should set a good example to demonstrate that social nudity is
> compatible with sexual responsibility.
presumes that a simple erection is by-itself to be considered sexual,
which you have made clear to be your stance. But you have not clarified
why you think that stance is any more justified than the non-nudists
stance that simple nudity is by-itself sexual.
David B.
> "David B." <dbl...@efn.org> says
>
> >Jenny, thank you very much for an excellent post! :-)
>
> Flattery will get you anything except a change of opinion or style. <G>
>
> >The AANR and clubs typically respond to the question of erections along the
> >standard line of: "nudist parks are not sexually stimulating, erections don't
> >happen"
>
> I don't pay much attention to AANR's purple PR prose,
Ouch! Ha, Ha!
> but what I recall is,
> "nudist parks are not sexually stimulating, erections *rarely* happen."
You may be correct, but a change in one word (don't to rarely) does virtually
nothing to change what is communicated by that type od standard nudist line
regarding erections. Your post regarding the same subject does, big time.
> I agree with that. In nearly 25 years, I've seen six. ONE at an AANR park and
> five at beaches. I'd estimate that those six erections were visible for a
> total of about ten seconds, or less than two seconds each.
>
> Of course, I'm not searching for little things to become upset about, so I've
> undoubtedly missed some too.
>
> >This is BS and mostly what I object too. Most men read or hear
> >something like that and go "ya, right."
In more then 25 years, I believe I have seen less (perhaps because I don't go to
beaches much) so why is that and why is this an issue for me? 1st. why is that -
because the penis is naturally flaccid most of the time, because social nudism is
non sexual, and possibly also because many males fear the consequence of being
kicked out and ostracized if they are seen with one. Which is why this is an
issue for me. I have had far more then six spontaneous, unwanted erections (NONE
intentional and wanted) in a nudist setting, as far as I know none of them were
seen by others. Although I still don't feel that an erection should be an issue
if there is no lewd behavior, that is mostly due to discretion on my part. If
what had been communicated to me about erections (from a nudist view) had been
more positive, I think I would have still likely covered them in most settings
(perhaps not in situations where I knew all the people around, but I think
definitely in settings where I didn't, which goes to something Patrick has spoken
too). What is communicated about them in a lifestyle that is supposed to be about
body acceptance and understanding is where my major beef is.
> Most non-nudist men are so focused on their own self-exaggerated sexual
> prowess, and so sure that nudity equals sex, that they refuse to believe they
> can stay calm: 999 out of 1000 non-nudist men are SURE they'll get an erection
> at a nudist place, 998 of them don't, and 997 are secretly disappointed.
ROTFL! :-) That's great and I think you're right on. So if most men don't
believe it won't happen, why till them that it "rarely does, because nudism is a
non-sexual environment" (maybe I'm out of touch on this but I still see that as
the standard type of line, most often used). Instead, simply tell them something
like "erections can be caused by many different things, just simply please be
discreet and cover it if it happens, as you would if you sneeze". Then let them
be disappointed when it doesn't, without adding concerns about expulsion, etc. if
it does. Add concerns of expulsion in regards to lewd unacceptable behavior.
> > We also know
> >that erections can be caused by reasons other then direct sexual arousal.
>
> It's still good etiquette, and respectful of others, to back off and cover up.
>
> "Naturism is a way of life in harmony with nature characterised by the practice
> of communal nudity, with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for
> others and for the enviroment." International Naturist Federation
>
> Note the part about respect for others.
OK fine. It's also good etiquette and more respectful for nudist individuals,
clubs, and organizations to frame what they communicate about erections in a more
positive way, such as you have done.
> >Now if clubs and the AANR would take more of the approach that you just did
> >and
> >basically say something perhaps along the lines of "We realize that erections
> >can
> >happen for a number of reasons, however, just as it is polite to cover a
> >sneeze in
> >public, it is also polite and expected that you will cover an erection in
> >public"
> >I would not have an issue with the AANR or clubs of hypocrisy on this issue.
>
> I think that's just about what AANR does say.
Since I'm not currently a member of AANR or one of it's clubs (discomfort with
peoples frequent intoxication and lewd behavior at one of AANR's top clubs being
major reasons) I may not be current on what AANR is communicating on this
subject. Literature I have (about 3 years old) has the same standard (clubs
non-sexual, rarely happens, BS line), as far as I can see AANR's web site says
nothing about it.
> Still, I don't think what the ANNR flaks say is all that relevant. It's what
> we nudists tell each other, and what we do in each other's presence, that's
> important. Only about one in 25 nudists are now, ever have been, or ever will
> be members of AANR. And, at least half of AANR members are unwilling, highly
> unenthusiastic members who pay the dues only because they're required to -- and
> who otherwise ignore the Kissimmee crew and its regional minions.
ROTFLMAO!!! Thanks I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while! ;-) You are
absolutely right!
> >I also think that if your type of message was communicated by the AANR and
> >clubs,
> >teen males might be much more comfortable spending more time nude. They
> >might be
> >more at ease, realizing that others aren't in fact going to label them a
> >pervert
> >and kick them out if they see the teen with an erection, as long as they see
> >the
> >teen is being responsible to cover it in a timely and responsible manner.
>
> All the teens I know have been given the above message.
Then those teens are far more fortunate then I was. The teens you know that you
would likely be thinking of in relation to this discussion all very likely have
nudist parents, I didn't (don't), far from it. I basically had what nudist
literature had to say about the subject to go by (and because of how most of that
dealt with the subject, I wasn't brave enough to discuss the subject with other
nudists for many years, well past may teens) Many teens today are looking at
nudism via the internet also don't have nudist parents. I have seen the standard
(clubs non-sexual, rarely happens, BS line) on many nudist web sites. The type of
reasoning you used (or something like it) should be on all of them instead.
> >Unfortunately what that means can lead to a whole other debate. If a teen
> >walks
> >from the pool to his campsite nude, should he have a pair of shorts in hand
> >"just
> >in case"?
>
> No. That's one of the many uses of the ever-present towel.
Touché <g>
> >Thanks again for a most excellent post. I think it was the most sensible one
> >in
> >this entire thread (including mine <g>)
>
> More flattery. I love it!
>
> Jenny
Your welcome, where were you when I was a teen nudist? I think you could have
saved me a lot of aggravation!
STEVE
<cyndiann...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Jenny6833A <jenny...@aol.com.org.net> wrote in message
> news:20000318230202...@nso-cv.aol.com...
> >
> > Most non-nudist men are so focused on their own self-exaggerated sexual
> > prowess, and so sure that nudity equals sex, that they refuse to believe
> > they can stay calm: 999 out of 1000 non-nudist men are SURE they'll get
> > an erection at a nudist place, 998 of them don't, and 997 are secretly
> > disapointed.
> >
> ROFLMNAO!!!!!
> I am saving this one.......
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It's more like this girls... Most non-nudist men are relatively
unfamiliar with the female body except through standard reference
material such as Playboy and Sports Illustrated. Since the images there
are designed to incite a specific response, it's understandable that
these men are anxious about how they'll react in the presence of actual
nude women. Once confronted with the reality of naked, natural female
bodies as usually displayed at nudist venues, they soon discover there's
nothing to get excited about. Are they disappointed, and wish it was
otherwise? Of course, just like nudist men do too! ;-) -STEVE
(smiley inserted as legal disclaimer)
David B.
> I bet I can answer the question, and it's based on his initial post on
> the subject. David said that he was at a nudist resort where a family
> was thrown out because a teen male had an erection -- which obviously
> embarassed the boy and which he tried to cover up as best he could.
>
> Dan #1617
Thanks Dan, but I'm not the one that was at that resort in that particular
situation (although I have witnessed similar and been told about other
such situations) or posted that story, I just responded to it, and
responded, and responded, and...
Also just before this thread started there was another on the moderated NG
about a similar situation with a nine year old that was forced to put on
shorts by an event organizer and not even allowed to take them off again
after the boy's erection had subsided. Guess you could say I saw a theme
in which this issue could be discussed, perhaps in a bit different way
then I had seen it done before.
David B.
> >I never embarrass myself at a nude beach because I never lose control of
> >either my penis, or my anus. And they're both loaded and ready to go.
> >;-)
>
> Okay here is a scenario. Someone is in front of you about 5 feet a head of
> you. Bends over and sneezes and the anus is loaded. The sneeze causes a
> missle too shoot out of that person's butt right at you. See I don't see why
> people make a big deal about an erection but no one cares if the anus is
> pointing at people. I'm careful to not bend over in front of people.
Perhaps you've witnessed something like that, but I never have, even remotely.
Although the image presented may be taken by some as somewhat amusing, to me it
feels like quite a stretch for a scenario and is rather (if not completely)
unlikely. (the missile part, not the someone in front of you bending over,
seen that lots of times) There's no need to stretch things like that, (I think
doing so invalidates your argument) try to keep it real.
Thanks
--
David B.
Redeeming the Body
http://www.homestead.com/b_redemption/body.html
P.S. For a laugh. - If I remember this right <g> I heard about an online
publishing company that was testing different names in focus groups to see
which one people remembered. The one they came up with had the highest
retention that had ever been tested, it is fathead.com. Will I bet if someone
named themselves buttmissile.com that would be rather hard to forget too! LOL
(I do like fat head much better though.)
RazzleDzl
STEVE
razz...@aol.com (RazzleDzl) wrote:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You better be careful not to bend over in front of someone with an
erection! -STEVE
yea...@webtv.net
closely related to a hiccup......because it doesnt necessarily spread
viral germs......the unusally large long penis i have found is subject
to consversation in nudist environments by adults as well as children
but i have not known of any negative effects stemming from such
instances......arent we as nudist just trying to cover up and repress
facts and truths from the non nudist world.....
Patrick Dewey
Bill Hunsicker wrote:
Sex ed 101: An erection is what happens when a man is sexually aroused.
It's best to be discreet about sex at naturist/nudist venues. Simple
nudity is not a problem.
Patrick
Kelly
says...
Patrick, I asked you soem questions in an earlier note, but I don'r
recall seeing your answers. If you answered, and I missed them, I
apologize.
Here were the questions:
1) If erections are sexual, as you say, and they should not be seen at
resorts, does that apply to infants as well? Are infant's erections
sexual in nature? I'm not up on this info, but maybe infants manufacture
sperm....not sure :)
2) On the assumption that you will have a realistic answer for #1 above,
then at which age is an erection sexual?
3) Based on your statement above re: "be discreet about sex", how does
that relate to the visible signs women show when aroused. Everyone knows
that women's nipples can become erect from a cool breeze, as well as
sexual stimulation. How do you know what caused that nipple to
become erect? Or is it that you may enjoy the sight of women in such a
state, it is acceptable? Or is it a matter of inches, with a nipple
generally less than one inch, and a penis longer? Would you ban those
too, or does this only apply to men/boys/infants? Define your double
standard please.
Here's a new one. If as some feminists say that rape is not about sex at
all, but about power, then is there a chance that an erection is not
about sex at all? If by your claim that all erections are sexual, then it
is contrary to feminist propaganda on the issue of erections with regards
to rape. Either one of you, or both of you, is wrong.
Kelly
says...
>
> Bill Hunsicker wrote:
>
> > You're ignoring the point that was made here, which I think is the main
> > point of the thread.
>
> > Bill Thompson wrote [very well, I think]
> > > > Just like some people think nudity is sexual no matter what and that
> > > > discretion in public is still advisable and should always be covered. Right?
>
> > Your response:
> > > Naturists should set a good example to demonstrate that social nudity is
> > > compatible with sexual responsibility.
>
> > presumes that a simple erection is by-itself to be considered sexual,
> > which you have made clear to be your stance. But you have not clarified
> > why you think that stance is any more justified than the non-nudists
> > stance that simple nudity is by-itself sexual.
>
>
> Sex ed 101: An erection is what happens when a man is sexually aroused.
>
> It's best to be discreet about sex at naturist/nudist venues. Simple
> nudity is not a problem.
>
>
> Patrick
>
And it goes well beyond merely being discreet. Masturbation and sex
should not occur in full view of others.
But, I suspect that most puritan naturists, if walking down a path
somewhere, noticed a couple making love, they would likely turn and walk
away. Not say anything. I suspect that the same couple walking along the
same path, noticing an adult male masturbating, would run straight back
to the clubhouse to report "that pervert on the path". That is my
opinion. Especially at a so-called resort with the majority being
swingers.
What is your opinion on that, Patrick? Would you report both occurances,
or is it ok if the guys has a girl?
I think many of us have seen couples make out and don't say anything. But
men don't get that break. I guess you need to have a woman for any sexual
behavior to be acceptable. I can't imagine what would happen if it were 2
gay men enjoying themselves on that path. Think there'd be a posse? :)
Patrick Dewey
> Patrick, I asked you soem questions in an earlier note, but I don'r
> recall seeing your answers. If you answered, and I missed them, I
> apologize.
> Here were the questions:
> 1) If erections are sexual, as you say, and they should not be seen at
> resorts, does that apply to infants as well?
No. Responsibility increases gradually with maturity. It's up to
parents/guardians to gauge their child's maturity and give him age
appropriate responsibilities.
> Are infant's erections
> sexual in nature? I'm not up on this info, but maybe infants manufacture
> sperm....not sure :)
There are some causes of priapism (non-sexual erection) in children.
But healthy (ie sexual) erections occur at all ages. The testes don't
produce sperm until puberty.
> 2) On the assumption that you will have a realistic answer for #1 above,
> then at which age is an erection sexual?
Sexual development begins with the fetus; puberty marks the onset of
sexual maturity. See above.
> 3) Based on your statement above re: "be discreet about sex", how does
> that relate to the visible signs women show when aroused. Everyone knows
> that women's nipples can become erect from a cool breeze, as well as
> sexual stimulation. How do you know what caused that nipple to
> become erect? Or is it that you may enjoy the sight of women in such a
> state, it is acceptable? Or is it a matter of inches, with a nipple
> generally less than one inch, and a penis longer? Would you ban those
> too, or does this only apply to men/boys/infants? Define your double
> standard please.
I respect the differences between men and women. Nipples are the ducts
on mammary glands from which infants draw sustenance. Your attempt to
compare nipples with penises is strange.
> Here's a new one. If as some feminists say that rape is not about sex at
> all, but about power, then is there a chance that an erection is not
> about sex at all? If by your claim that all erections are sexual, then it
> is contrary to feminist propaganda on the issue of erections with regards
> to rape. Either one of you, or both of you, is wrong.
Rape is an abuse of power using forced sex.
Patrick
Patrick Dewey
David B.
> You're ignoring the point that was made here, which I think is the main
> point of the thread.
>
> Bill Thompson wrote [very well, I think]
> > > Just like some people think nudity is sexual no matter what and that
> > > discretion in public is still advisable and should always be covered. Right?
>
> Your response:
> > Naturists should set a good example to demonstrate that social nudity is
> > compatible with sexual responsibility.
>
> presumes that a simple erection is by-itself to be considered sexual,
> which you have made clear to be your stance. But you have not clarified
> why you think that stance is any more justified than the non-nudists
> stance that simple nudity is by-itself sexual.
Thanks Bill good question, I have made my stance that I am far more concerned about
what is communicated about this natural, spontaneous body function in regards to
body acceptance then I am whether or not it is "accepted" in nudist clubs. But from
both perspectives this is an excellent question that needs to be answered in a
serious way.
Many non-nudists seem to feel that nudity is sexual because it's sexual, period, end
of discussion. But nudists (and some others) know that it is the context, and the
actions or behavior that determines whether or not nudity is sexual. So if an
erection, (that we have agreed can be caused by non-sexual stimuli) happens in a
non-sexual context, and there is no sexual behavior or actions, why should it still
be considered sexual?
David B.
> In article <8b2q0c$gsi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "cyndiann"
> <cyndiann...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Jenny6833A <jenny...@aol.com.org.net> wrote in message
> > news:20000318230202...@nso-cv.aol.com...
> > >
> > > Most non-nudist men are so focused on their own self-exaggerated sexual
> > > prowess, and so sure that nudity equals sex, that they refuse to believe
> > > they can stay calm: 999 out of 1000 non-nudist men are SURE they'll get
> > > an erection at a nudist place, 998 of them don't, and 997 are secretly
> > > disapointed.
> > >
> > ROFLMNAO!!!!!
> > I am saving this one.......
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> It's more like this girls... Most non-nudist men are relatively
> unfamiliar with the female body except through standard reference
> material such as Playboy and Sports Illustrated. Since the images there
> are designed to incite a specific response, it's understandable that
> these men are anxious about how they'll react in the presence of actual
> nude women. Once confronted with the reality of naked, natural female
> bodies as usually displayed at nudist venues, they soon discover there's
> nothing to get excited about. Are they disappointed, and wish it was
> otherwise? Of course, just like nudist men do too! ;-) -STEVE
> (smiley inserted as legal disclaimer)
Although I think I might have phrased it a bit of that differently, you make an
excellent point regarding the conditioning in this society regarding the body,
nudity, and sex. Jenny spoke to that conditioning as well when she said "and
so sure that nudity equals sex". Point this societies conditioning regarding
nudity and sex leaves men with the expectation that they would have erections
in a nudist environment, when most in actuality won't.
My big beef is that the standard nudist line regarding erections doesn't set
the mind of those concerned about this at ease, if anything, it makes them even
more concerned about what would happen if they got a spontaneous erection. If
erections (for whatever reason) continue to be deemed unacceptable, under any
circumstance, at a nudist club, (except briefly while someone covers with
towel, turns over, jumps in cold pool, etc..) an approach like Jenny used would
be far more positive then the standard one I've seen used for so long.
David B.
> Bill Hunsicker wrote:
>
> > You're ignoring the point that was made here, which I think is the main
> > point of the thread.
>
> > Bill Thompson wrote [very well, I think]
> > > > Just like some people think nudity is sexual no matter what and that
> > > > discretion in public is still advisable and should always be covered. Right?
>
> > Your response:
> > > Naturists should set a good example to demonstrate that social nudity is
> > > compatible with sexual responsibility.
>
> > presumes that a simple erection is by-itself to be considered sexual,
> > which you have made clear to be your stance. But you have not clarified
> > why you think that stance is any more justified than the non-nudists
> > stance that simple nudity is by-itself sexual.
>
> Sex ed 101: An erection is what happens when a man is sexually aroused.
>
> It's best to be discreet about sex at naturist/nudist venues. Simple
> nudity is not a problem.
>
> Patrick
COME ON Patrick! You seem to me to be very intelligent, don't you have any better
responses then that?? I'm positive you can do better. You can't seem to come up with
any reason why erections are sexual besides something like "it just is"! That' what
non-nudists say about nudity! It just is!! We know it's sexual, because we think
it's sexual, have been taught and conditioned to think it's sexual, so it's sexual.
Sex ed 101 also is: Nudity is sexual and the ONLY reason people get nude together is
for sex. (Heck everyone knows that, no one is going to convince us otherwise!)
You must come up with a far more valid, logical reason why erections are always ( I'll
grant that they usually or most often are, but neither of those are the same as
"always") sexual then you have, *IF* you expect others to understand why you take that
position. A statement like "An erection is what happens when a man is sexually
aroused" doesn't cut it. You have agreed that an erection can be caused by non-sexual
stimuli. You have not given a reason why an erection resulting from non-sexual stimuli
is sexual besides that, it is. So again, why must the resulting erection always be
considered sexual? (Please don't come back yet again with another version of "because
it is", that is taking this discussion no where)
To attempt to move things forward a bit. If you came back with something along the
lines of "whether erections are sexual or not, they are perceived to be sexual by most
people, so we should be discreet about them" I would say that is a much more logical
and truthful statement that I would, for the most part, agree with. However I would
also ask that just as many (unfortunately it seems not all) "nudists" have come to
realize that nudity can be non-sexual and are comfortable with nudity in non-sexual
situations. Doesn't it seem possible to you that many have also come to accept that
erections can be non-sexual and aren't uncomfortable with them in a non-sexual, nudist
context? If you agree to that it then comes down to the rules established or what is
accepted in various non-sexual nudist environments. And for me if spontaneous
erections aren't accepted in a nudist environment (which I feel they most likely won't
be) what is said about why. How is the "why" handled, is it done in a way that
undermines body acceptance or in more a positive way?
cyndiann
insults. I have you killfiled so I have been missing them unless there is a
response by another person. If you would continue to post this way, I would
bet you'd come out of a lot of killfiles around here.
cyndiann
David B.
> Kelly wrote:
>
> > Patrick, I asked you soem questions in an earlier note, but I don'r
> > recall seeing your answers. If you answered, and I missed them, I
> > apologize.
>
> > Here were the questions:
>
> > 1) If erections are sexual, as you say, and they should not be seen at
> > resorts, does that apply to infants as well?
>
> No. Responsibility increases gradually with maturity. It's up to
> parents/guardians to gauge their child's maturity and give him age
> appropriate responsibilities.
I agree that responsibility increase with age and children should be given age
appropriate responsibilities. But you didn't answer the question regarding
erections.
> > Are infant's erections
> > sexual in nature? I'm not up on this info, but maybe infants manufacture
> > sperm....not sure :)
>
> There are some causes of priapism (non-sexual erection) in children.
> But healthy (ie sexual) erections occur at all ages. The testes don't
> produce sperm until puberty.
agreed
> > 2) On the assumption that you will have a realistic answer for #1 above,
> > then at which age is an erection sexual?
>
> Sexual development begins with the fetus; puberty marks the onset of
> sexual maturity. See above.
Agreed, but since you said above that "healthy (ie sexual) erections occur at
all ages" you still didn't answer the basic question.
> > 3) Based on your statement above re: "be discreet about sex", how does
> > that relate to the visible signs women show when aroused. Everyone knows
> > that women's nipples can become erect from a cool breeze, as well as
> > sexual stimulation. How do you know what caused that nipple to
> > become erect? Or is it that you may enjoy the sight of women in such a
> > state, it is acceptable? Or is it a matter of inches, with a nipple
> > generally less than one inch, and a penis longer? Would you ban those
> > too, or does this only apply to men/boys/infants? Define your double
> > standard please.
>
> I respect the differences between men and women. Nipples are the ducts
> on mammary glands from which infants draw sustenance. Your attempt to
> compare nipples with penises is strange.
While I agree that breasts and nipples are not exclusively sexual, by saying
that "Nipples are the ducts on mammary glands from which infants draw
sustenance." you seem to be implying that they are not sexual. That is not
true, if that is your experience, you've been missing something wonderful.
Like wise a penis is also not exclusively sexual, in fact I would say that it
primary use is in the elimination of body waste in the form of urine. As a
penis can become erect by a cool breeze and/or sexual arousal, the same is
true of nipples for both sex's. So it is a valid comparison that can't be
simply dismissed as much as you may like too.
> > Here's a new one. If as some feminists say that rape is not about sex at
> > all, but about power, then is there a chance that an erection is not
> > about sex at all? If by your claim that all erections are sexual, then it
> > is contrary to feminist propaganda on the issue of erections with regards
> > to rape. Either one of you, or both of you, is wrong.
>
> Rape is an abuse of power using forced sex.
>
> Patrick
Your statement regarding rape is valid, but it does not answer the question
asked regarding erections, it avoids it.
TOMMY BOY
everywhere race to nab the perpetrator. Kick him out? No way-we'll take
care of it here and now. Tie him to a post. He's to receive 20 lashes at
high noon-guess where? That's right-direct on his lewd pee-pee! While
we're at it let's round up all those other terrible "single men" and
take care of them too once and for all! **************Big Lotto
nudistfamily
<yea...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20752-38...@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> in comparing an erect penis with a sneeze i find that it would be more
> closely related to a hiccup......because it doesnt necessarily spread
> viral germs......the unusally large long penis i have found
Where did you find it? [certainly not in YOUR pants!]
> is subject
> to consversation in nudist environments
Indeed, many naturists, too, consider themselves conservationists.
newbie
becoming a man" when ever he would get an erection. I
can remember one time he was fully erect, held one of his
hands from his body & tapped his penis with her fingers
to demonstrate his firmness. I think that was a little
overboard, but it does demonstrate that in that family
an erection was certainly not treated as a bad thing.
My nephew was about 11-15 years old when she was doing
this.
Most of the time, we ignore erections.
jenny...@aol.com.org.net says...
>The "erections-are-natural" group seems to be desperately trying to find a
>rationale to justify parading of erections. And, yes, there seem to be some
>who are eager to watch the parade.
>
>At the other extreme, some seem to think that a glimpse of an erection will
>scar them for life.
>
>I continue to think that the sneeze analogy applies. No one ought to be
upset
>by a sudden, uncontrollable occurrance. Accidents happen. Ho hum.
>
>On the other hand, no one should have to endure the inevitable dolts who
would
>impose extended sneezing fits on others.
SNIP
Patrick Dewey
"David B." wrote:
> I agree that responsibility increase with age and children should be given age
> appropriate responsibilities. But you didn't answer the question regarding
> erections.
The answer was no. Babies are not expected to have self-control. Adult
males are not expected to act like babies.
nappieb...@aol.com.invalid
one!
Jenny6833A wrote:
"I continue to think that the sneeze analogy applies. No one
ought to be upset by a sudden,uncontrollable occurrance.
Accidents happen. Ho hum. On the other hand, no one should have
to endure the inevitable dolts who would impose extended sneezing
fits on others.
I told my son the same thing about erections as I did about
sneezes: if it happens, it's not a big thing -- but etiquette
requires that you cover your nose/erection, excuse yourself, and
move away until you're back in control. It's quite irrelevant why
the sneeze/erection occurred. It's as silly to argue that some
erections aren't sexual as to argue that some sneezes don't
spread germs. Yes,erections can result from a variety of
non-sexual stimuli just as sneezes can result from allergies
and other non-contagious stimuli. But, so what?"
Two postulations that condemn this analogy in my mind are:
(1)An erection is a natural function of a man's body...so is
sneezing once or twice... but continuous sneezing is not natural
and is difficult, if not impossible, for others to ignore -
unlike frequent erections.
(2) Assume for a moment that a woman naturalist is lying face up
at a nude resort. It is early Spring and a chill breeze
occasionally wafts through the sunning area causing our subject's
nipples to harden at frequent intervals. This happens
continually throughout the day. According to the sneeze analogy
the lady would have to "..excuse yourself, and move away
until you're back in control". Obviously an absurd requirement.
Finally, I would like to endorse the sentiments (expressed in a
related posting) of Kelly, David B., cyndiann, Guy Lachance,
Goodby Kodak, and Razzle Dzl. I'm envious of Kelly's experience
of associating with a group of nudists who acted completely
naturally. That's what naturism is all about.
In article <20000318142121...@nso-cv.aol.com>,
jenny...@aol.com.org.net (Jenny6833A) wrote:
>cr...@mailcity.com (STEVE ) says
>
>>If you want to discuss the hypocrisy of nudists, you might
first consider
>>how many voyeurs and exhibitionists participate in nudism.
After reading
>>through another rec.nude erection thread, you can't conclude
much else.
>>-STEVE
>
>
>The "erections-are-natural" group seems to be desperately trying
to find a
>rationale to justify parading of erections. And, yes, there
seem to be some
>who are eager to watch the parade.
>
>At the other extreme, some seem to think that a glimpse of an
erection will
>scar them for life.
>
>I continue to think that the sneeze analogy applies. No one
ought to be upset
>by a sudden, uncontrollable occurrance. Accidents happen. Ho
hum.
>
>On the other hand, no one should have to endure the inevitable
dolts who would
>impose extended sneezing fits on others.
>
>I told my son the same thing about erections as I did about
sneezes: if it
>happens, it's not a big thing -- but etiquette requires that you
cover your
>nose/erection, excuse yourself, and move away until you're back
in control.
>
>It's quite irrelevant why the sneeze/erection occurred. It's as
silly to argue
>that some erections aren't sexual as to argue that some sneezes
don't spread
>germs. Yes, erections can result from a variety of non-sexual
stimuli just as
>sneezes can result from allergies and other non-contagious
stimuli. But, so
>what?
>
>Are we going to analyze the drippings to decide which is which?
>
>Once the initial "uncontrollable accident" moment has passed,
it's as
>ridiculous to insist that people continue to accept (allegedly)
non-sexual
>erections as to continue to accept being sprayed with
(allegedly) germ-free
>snot.
>
>Nudists have traditionally adopted the middle ground: accidents
happen;
>accidents are ignored and excused. But, if the individual
doesn't promptly
>cover up and move away, it's reasonable to assume that it wasn't
an accident --
>or isn't an accident any more.
>
>Jenny
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
ksbhhb
and unremarkable.
-Kathy
newbie <new...@teleramp.com> wrote in message
news:8b6ovv$n4$1...@news.cyberhighway.net...
> My sister used to comment & show off how her "son was
> becoming a man" when ever he would get an erection. I
> can remember one time he was fully erect, held one of his
> hands from his body & tapped his penis with her fingers
> to demonstrate his firmness. I think that was a little
> overboard, but it does demonstrate that in that family
> an erection was certainly not treated as a bad thing.
>
> My nephew was about 11-15 years old when she was doing
> this.
>
> Most of the time, we ignore erections.
>
>
>
> jenny...@aol.com.org.net says...
a
> >rationale to justify parading of erections. And, yes, there seem to be
some
> >who are eager to watch the parade.
> >
> >At the other extreme, some seem to think that a glimpse of an erection
will
> >scar them for life.
> >
> >I continue to think that the sneeze analogy applies. No one ought to be
> upset
> >by a sudden, uncontrollable occurrance. Accidents happen. Ho hum.
> >
> >On the other hand, no one should have to endure the inevitable dolts who
> would
> >impose extended sneezing fits on others.
>
Peter Riden
> Clay Steiner wrote:
>
> > gtwi...@prodigy.net (George M. Gumbert III) wrote:
> >
> > <snip previous quotes>
> >
> > >
> > > There's a brand new one in the general area that was a long time
> > > travel club. Darn if I remember the name, but it's linked via the
> > > AANR webpage http://www.aanr.com .
> > >
> > > George
> > > Kentucky Campus Nude Recreation
> > > http://higbee.cots.net/KCNR
> >
> > Found it -- The Grand Forest. Home page says it's near Versailles,
> > which puts it in Morgan County (if this former Columbia, MO resident's
> > memory can be trusted). Shows a PO Box in Gravois Mills, so it might
> > be safe to guess that the land is somewhere between.
>
> That name bugs me. Sounds to much like a place in another country that
> tries to market itself as nudist. I hope that the name is the only
> similarity.
> David B.
>
> Redeeming the Body
BARN???
As soon as THE WORLDWIDE AFFILIATE NETWORK and its main home base location is being
mentioned it seems that the "In Christ" guys starT to feel bugged.
David Blood is no exception and it's no David Ball, for sure.
Of course, the usual lying Pattern of a self-appointed Christian redeemer of "Jesus
knows what" comes and tries to guard the "fidels" against the "infidels" and, of course,
will blatantly lie as is their proven modus operandi. As I wrote before, when one of
those zealots bites the dust, the next one comes to keep the "Holy Bi-bull" missionary
agenda to try outing the alleged Devil/Satanic Menace.
Sorry but, in your usual lies, you say that the non- "In Christ" bugging place "tries to
market itself as nudist..."
If you refer to TGB, that is a false statement. Then you can't be referring to TGB or
else that makes of you a proven liar. That we welcome Nudism as one of the many positive
lifestyles, yes, but it's an outrageous lie to even suggest TGB would even think of
marketing itself as such.
> "I hope that the name is the only similarity."
Nude Recreation is what we're about. Nude Resort could still fit the profile but
absolutely not the Nudist-only type of destination. We've never been stating this,
although many rightly believe that we would be the best example as what true
non-discriminating Nudism should be about. Mostly without the "In Christ" zealots we see
infiltrating Nude Recreation. The few who have attacked us know who they are. But even
as few as they are, one of their kind is one too many.
And I know that David Blodd speaks for those few "In Christ" zealots, out there. And
yes, we're at the opposite side of the spectrum. And all similarities between TGB and
TGF are intended for those of the non-zealot, non-conservative kind.
Again, for those who want an alternative to the "In Christ" conservatism displayed by
our bugged David B. and alike, look us up, including THE GRAND FOREST...;-)
In Friendship & Universality
Peter Riden
*****************************************************************
THE GRAND BARN Home of THE WORLDWIDE AFFILIATE NETWORK
and its publication THE AFFILIATE
777-Net Barb Road
Vankleek Hill,ON
K0B 1R0
CANADA
Website: http://www.the-grand-barn.com
e-mail: Affi...@the-grand-barn.com
*****************************************************************
David B.
> news:8b6ovv$n4$1...@news.cyberhighway.net...
> > My sister used to comment & show off how her "son was
> > becoming a man" when ever he would get an erection. I
> > can remember one time he was fully erect, held one of his
> > hands from his body & tapped his penis with her fingers
> > to demonstrate his firmness. I think that was a little
> > overboard, but it does demonstrate that in that family
> > an erection was certainly not treated as a bad thing.
> >
> > My nephew was about 11-15 years old when she was doing
> > this.
> >
> > Most of the time, we ignore erections.
I think "showing off" like this and especially mom tapping it, is very
overboard. I think it could make the youth as self conscience about it as
having to cover it. Talking to your child in a positive way, about what is
happening to his body, one on one, or in a private family situation is one
thing, "showing off" that your son is becoming a man by "pointing out" his
erections to others is quite another. Why did she have to hold one of his
hand's away from his body? Could it be because he was trying to stop her?
You said "Most of the time, we ignore erections." that seems the better way.
ksbhhb wrote:
> That was a bit overboard. In our family, erections are completely accepted
> and unremarkable.
> -Kathy
That's what erections should be "completely accepted and unremarkable" apart
from any lewd behavior.
--
David B.
Redeeming the Body
http://www.homestead.com/b_redemption/body.html
David B.
I agree that adults are not expected to act like babies and young children. Young
children will try to hide if they know they have done something wrong. You've said
that an erection itself isn't wrong, so we finally agree then that males shouldn't
have to hide it! LOL
You're not getting off that easy, by sipping and avoiding most of the post while
still not giving a logical, well reasoned answer as to why the resulting erection
is always sexual even if (as has been established) it's cause isn't, and there is
no lewd behavior!
I don't believe you can give such an answer.
David B.
> Regarding the "Sneeze Analogy", it's a clever analogy.. but a bad
> one!
No analogy is perfect. It is highly unlikely that erections will be accepted
at nudist resorts (without comment or opposition) for some time to come, just
as non-sexual nudity isn't likely to be accepted by society for some time to
come (which means more education in both areas is needed). While the "Sneeze
Analogy" isn't perfect to explain why to cover erections at a nudist resort, I
feel it is far, far better and more body positive then the standard lines I've
seen and heard over the years.
> An erection is a natural function of a man's body...so is
> sneezing once or twice... but continuous sneezing is not natural
> and is difficult, if not impossible, for others to ignore -
> unlike frequent erections.
I have hay fever which unfortunately for me means at a certain time of year
(which is getting very close, yuck!) continuous sneezing for me is natural and
unavoidable (hate it, just as I hated getting frequent spontaneous erections
that I felt I had to cover, or risk getting kicked out, at nudist resorts when
I was younger). Unfortunately, as you said, it is also difficult, if not
impossible, for others to ignore - unlike frequent erections. A sneeze is a
loud audible sound that causes the whole body to jerk, it's hard not to notice
close, far, in front, to the side, or behind, whether you had been talking to
the person who sneezed or hadn't even noticed them until then. An erection
won't be noticed unless someone is looking directly at it.
So as I said the analogy isn't perfect, but as an advocate of body acceptance I
can live with it (in order to not offend those who feel erections are
unacceptable in a nudist setting) far more then I can "erections rarely happen
because erections are sexual and nudist clubs aren't" type of BS, that I feel
is counter productive to promoting true body acceptance.
Ian
My family and I have visited many resorts in Europe and this discussion is just juvenile.
Last summer my family and I stayed at Club de Plongee de Belezy - Provence. While at this resort my 13yr old daughter and I were sunbathing between swims around the pool. My daughter told me to look over to a family about 4 meters from us. The 7yr old had just awaken and as he stood up he had an ERECTION !!!!!!!!!!! What should his mother do..... cut it off; slap him until he is marred for life; or just do nothing: This mother did not pay any attention to the little guy. He was very proud of his erect penis and had his sister thumb it at least twice. Running around showing anyone that was interested his new thing. (I did not understand all his french but he was proud of himself as any little kid could be) At that time many in the US would have cut it off and been very proud they protected the community from the corruption of a 7yearold HARD penis. Most of that Ilk are in the religious right or the over 60++ and envious. They are the protectors of everyone from the perverted 7yearold boy. His mother finally had enough after about 5 minutes of him displaying his "boyhood" and picked him up and dropped him in the swimming pool that was about 72F. That ended that BIG event no schooling or guilt and shame trip for him. He might grow up normal and not perverted as his mother knew that this is a completely natural experience. No one ever said anything to his mother and there were about 100+ hundred people around the pool. All families.
How many people have ever reared boys?????? When changing nappies/dypers where do you stand; at his head or his feet, if you don't know you haven't had any boys..
I remembers that we changed sheets more often on the our sons
bed than on our daughters. Wet dreams + wet dreams + wet dreams
I don't know when he got any sleep some nights..........in school I think.
After they were about 15 he started taking the sheets to the laundry room
and wash them with out asking, what a relief
When I was growing up between 14 - 20 I cannot remember NOT having spontaneous erections many times a day. My big sister and I took baths together, (I was 7 and she was 8) my parents stopped it after she repeatedly would pull my skin back and you can guess the rest. ( I was uncut) We still slept in the same room until she I was 15yrs. Nudity is not a problem even now.
I have read posts by people that apparently have no children or have never had reared any boys. My kids know boys have erections and girls don't. My boy has had many and the only time he has ever been chastised is in the US by some old envious person. My girls understand what happens to boys and hopefully they would not embarrass the guy, if he is over 14 he knows what is going on and he is the one that has to deal with it. When someone make anything of an erection that boy will never come back to that "club" if possible and if he is brought back he will never remove anything. I just hope my kids are not mean enough to embarrass a boy front of allot of people. That is just what happens to boys with until they are 25+. My girls are much kinder than the old adults, trying to keep the purity of the club. Are hey jealous or envious?? My boy wakes up with a piss hard almost every morning I have had that problem up until about 5 years ago..........
When the adults do not make a big deal over a natural thing it won't grow into a big problem.
My girls complain about not being able to meet teenage boys at most
of the
naturist clubs in the US. They have a much better time in Europe
with the Dutch, German and Sloviean kids. Most clubs in the
US have a problem with boys 12 - 18 yrs and the clubs are the real losers,
Where will the new members come from?????????
In Europe there are not any clubs as most in the US understand clubs. There are very fine resorts and many camping grounds that are excellent and much better that most of the "clubs" in the US.
At Belezy there were ONLY families with children and they had over 1000 camping places and rental units with 3 swimming pools, 3 full time fine French restaurants and activities from bow and arrow ---- scuba diving, there was an open market in the little town of Bedoin on Sunday. A much more open and accepting attitude "clubs" in the US. A teenage Disco and club every night.
Cheers
Ian
ksbhhb wrote:
That was a bit overboard. In our family, erections are completely accepted
and unremarkable.
Kathy
newbie <new...@teleramp.com> wrote in message
news:8b6ovv$n4$1...@news.cyberhighway.net...
> My sister used to comment & show off how her "son was
> becoming a man" when ever he would get an erection. I
> can remember one time he was fully erect, held one of his
> hands from his body & tapped his penis with her fingers
> to demonstrate his firmness. I think that was a little
> overboard, but it does demonstrate that in that family
> an erection was certainly not treated as a bad thing.
>
> My nephew was about 11-15 years old when she was doing
> this.
>
> Most of the time, we ignore erections.
>
>
>
David B.
I knew that there is far more youth involvement in naturism in Europe
and figured that a much more relaxed attitude about things such as
erections is a main reason why. Europeans seem to take much more in
stride then we do. It would be great to hear from other Europeans on
this and other subjects in this news group but it doesn't seem many post
here.
--
David B.
Redeeming the Body
http://www.homestead.com/b_redemption/body.html
nudistfamily
1000 families with kids at one resort!!!!!
In the US, we are lucky if we have 10!
And I agree that many of the "clubs" here are
truly ratty compared to textile facilities.
The problem is that there are too few nudists
to support "nice" facilities except in a few
special locations. So it's a vicious circle---how
do you attract more people into nudism when
the facilities are often unattractive (compared
to textile places).
I think the reason why so many nudists
in the USA object to flagrant/excessive/?? erections
is that some adults occasionally try to turn otherwise family-oriented
locations into adult/sexual ones. And if that happens or is
PERCEIVED to happen, then the location is in legal
jeopardy.
I too worry about the lack of teen nudist males for our daughters, one
of whom is about to turn 12. I am a big advocate of getting all the
pre-teen kids together at some point and explaining, in mixed company,
erections and periods, and telling them that they are NO BIG DEAL,
nothing to worry about, just don't go around intentionally "showing off",
and
don't TEASE anyone about them.
nappieb...@aol.com.invalid
attitude and a "pre-education session" for teens and pre-teens is
a wonderful idea.
As far as improving the state of the various resorts is
concerned, there is an obvious "chicken-and-egg" problem
regarding attendance and financial incentives. I suggest that
this could be alleviated by assembling a group of investors to
provide funds for needed refurbishings at any particular resort.
I'm a CPA and would be glad to assist in such an effort.
John
Jenny6833A
>Regarding the "Sneeze Analogy", it's a clever analogy.. but a bad
>one!
>Two postulations that condemn this analogy in my mind are:
>(1)An erection is a natural function of a man's body...so is
>sneezing once or twice... but continuous sneezing is not natural ...
Balderdash! Ever hear of hay fever, or food and spice allergies?
>and is difficult, if not impossible, for others to ignore -
>unlike frequent erections.
Oh, I see. If the thing is hanging over my soup, I'm supposed to ignore it?
If I can track the owner thereof by the oozings on the clubhouse floor, I'm
just supposed to ignore it?
If it's an inch from my nose as I sit on the clubhouse steps, I'm just supposed
to ignore that too?
If it's being paraded around camp by some guy who regards it as his supreme
accomplishment (usually because he's incapable of accomplishing anything else),
I'm supposed to ignore that too?
You can say you don't mean the above kind of situations, but just where do you
draw the line? The best answer in all cases and for all causes is, "cover up
and move away until you're back in control."
>(2) Assume for a moment that a woman naturalist is lying face up ...
"Naturalist"! Do you perhaps mean "naturist"?
>at a nude resort. It is early Spring and a chill breeze
>occasionally wafts through the sunning area causing our subject's
>nipples to harden at frequent intervals. This happens
>continually throughout the day. According to the sneeze analogy
>the lady would have to "..excuse yourself, and move away
>until you're back in control". Obviously an absurd requirement.
Errect nipples aren't two or three inches long.
Erect nipples don't drip.
You can't tell an erect nipple on one woman from a "flaccid" nipple on another.
[If a woman is lactating, and is oozing/dripping, I'd expect her to add pads to
avoid making a mess. Every woman I've ever noticed has done so, as have I.]
I don't see women here demanding the right to drip. The right-to-drip movement
appears to be men only.
I expect that the next fad thread will be about every male's right to drool,
with all the same justifications.
Hey, guys, we're talking sanitation.
Jenny
(who suspects Mr Nappie hasn't heard of the ever-present towel, or doesn't
understand why nudists sit on one)
***********
>In article <20000318142121...@nso-cv.aol.com>,
>jenny...@aol.com.org.net (Jenny6833A) wrote:
>>The "erections-are-natural" group seems to be desperately trying
>to find a
>>rationale to justify parading of erections. And, yes, there
>seem to be some
>>who are eager to watch the parade.
>>
>>At the other extreme, some seem to think that a glimpse of an
>erection will
>>scar them for life.
>>
>>I continue to think that the sneeze analogy applies. No one
>ought to be upset
>>by a sudden, uncontrollable occurrance. Accidents happen. Ho
>hum.
>>
>>On the other hand, no one should have to endure the inevitable
>dolts who would
>>impose extended sneezing fits on others.
>>
Kelly
jenny...@aol.com.org.net says...
> Nap...@aol.com writes:
>
> >Regarding the "Sneeze Analogy", it's a clever analogy.. but a bad
> >one!
>
> >Two postulations that condemn this analogy in my mind are:
> >(1)An erection is a natural function of a man's body...so is
> >sneezing once or twice... but continuous sneezing is not natural ...
>
> Balderdash! Ever hear of hay fever, or food and spice allergies?
>
> >and is difficult, if not impossible, for others to ignore -
> >unlike frequent erections.
>
> Oh, I see. If the thing is hanging over my soup, I'm supposed to ignore it?
Your experiences sound quite unique. You may wish to choose a club where
the memberships might be a bit loftier.
> If I can track the owner thereof by the oozings on the clubhouse floor, I'm
> just supposed to ignore it?
Erections ooze? All or some? Do you have a number, or is it the members
at your club again?
> If it's an inch from my nose as I sit on the clubhouse steps, I'm just supposed
> to ignore that too?
You make an erection sound like it is *always* some sort of sexual
exhibition. Clearly you know little about this subject.
> If it's being paraded around camp by some guy who regards it as his supreme
> accomplishment (usually because he's incapable of accomplishing anything else),
> I'm supposed to ignore that too?
Ah, your penis envy is showing.
> You can say you don't mean the above kind of situations, but just where do you
> draw the line? The best answer in all cases and for all causes is, "cover up
> and move away until you're back in control."
Having an involuntary erection is not about losing control. Pissing
yourself on the clubhouse floor is losing control. Do you see the
difference, or are you blind to truths about the penis?
> >(2) Assume for a moment that a woman naturalist is lying face up ...
>
> "Naturalist"! Do you perhaps mean "naturist"?
Perhaps he even meant *swinger* which is often synonymous with
*naturist*.
>
> >at a nude resort. It is early Spring and a chill breeze
> >occasionally wafts through the sunning area causing our subject's
> >nipples to harden at frequent intervals. This happens
> >continually throughout the day. According to the sneeze analogy
> >the lady would have to "..excuse yourself, and move away
> >until you're back in control". Obviously an absurd requirement.
>
> Errect nipples aren't two or three inches long.
So it's a matter of length then? Smaller erections are ok?
> Erect nipples don't drip.
That's a lie. You know it.
> You can't tell an erect nipple on one woman from a "flaccid" nipple on another.
Duh? Really? Where do you get this stuff from?
> [If a woman is lactating, and is oozing/dripping, I'd expect her to add pads to
> avoid making a mess. Every woman I've ever noticed has done so, as have I.]
>
> I don't see women here demanding the right to drip. The right-to-drip movement
> appears to be men only.
What's with the exaggerations? You have no argument, that's why. The
right not to be treated differently simply because of being male, is
quite different from wanting to drip all over you. But on the other hand,
perhaps you have had much experience in that regard, and it could be a
sore spot with you.
> I expect that the next fad thread will be about every male's right to drool,
> with all the same justifications.
What's with the body fluid thing you have on your mind? Is this some sort
of fetish? If so, we would be better off not knowing about it please.
> Hey, guys, we're talking sanitation.
So in your experiences you've sene guys dripping (in close proximity to
your nose), on the floor, etc....wow...amazing. I bet you're the only
one.
It is not about sanitation Ms. Myopia. It is about natural, healthy
bodily functions. Got it? The fact that you may feel threatened by an
erection, does not make that erection evil, dirty, or have "bad intent".
It is not there to spray you, hose you, douse you, nor is it there to
stir your soup with. It is "just there". And I repeat just for you, that
it is not about losing control, the exact same as nipple erections are
not about losing control.
> Jenny
It is puritanical nudists/swingers such as yourself that prevent nudism
from being accepted more wholeheartedly and seen less as a sexual
adventrue rather than enjoyment on other levels.
You do not see more teenaged males because of people like you.
Later in their lives they may once again attend a resort or club, and the
ole sexual connotations will come around again because YOU eforced it on
them with your biases. If they were accepted as normal, and became
acclimatized to the nudity, you might just see less sexual erections.
But to be told not to "drip in my soup" (as if it ever happened) chases
them away and tells them that erections are all bad or naughty or
whatever, then what kind of stereotyping are you enforcing on them?
It's bad enough to be inundated with today's media constantly selling
products with sex, you have to decondition yourself to that. Some adults
today have a problem with that because of the way they were brout up.
Your attitude raises that in another form.
You speak nudism on the one hand, yet preach something else entirely.
> (who suspects Mr Nappie hasn't heard of the ever-present towel, or doesn't
> understand why nudists sit on one)
I think you should keep an eye on your soup.
RazzleDzl
doesn't masturbate or doesn't approach women for sex but only has an erection
that will of course go away within minutes is it really that a big of deal?
Is the question not, "is nudity in public okay?". If it is then can we all
agree that sex in nude recreation areas wrong? Can we agree that masturbation
should not occur? If so then if someone with an erection can control his
actions by not masturbating or trying to have sex with the women on the beach
what is the big deal?
Erections rise and they fall and as long as the person isn't toying with his
unit in front of people then what is the problem? Sure if he covers up it
would be great but even if he doesn't then it will go away soon enough.
I have yet to see a guy on the beach with an erection anyway. I think it must
be rare.
Kelly
25030002...@ip22.vancouver10.dialup.canada.psi.net>,
BAr...@istar.ca says...
> In article <MPG.134597be5e37d9798969b@news>, i-am...@home.com (Kelly) wrote:
>
> > In article <20000324115812...@nso-fq.aol.com>,
> > jenny...@aol.com.org.net says...
> > > Nap...@aol.com writes:
> > > If I can track the owner thereof by the oozings on the clubhouse floor, I'm
> > > just supposed to ignore it?
> >
> > Erections ooze? All or some? Do you have a number, or is it the members
> > at your club again?
>
> Some? Definitely.
>
> Is that a deciding factor in all of this??? I don't see how.
> A flacid penis could be dripping, too, and I don't think Jenny wants
> that over her soup either.
Jenny has gone from discussing erection etiquette down into implying that
erections are unsanitary, for a lot of farfetched situations. Those
situations are rather cartoonish, and I doubt they happen. Maybe they
have, in her experiences, so I could be wrong. But it makes nudism out to
be a joke.
> > > If it's an inch from my nose as I sit on the clubhouse steps, I'm just
> supposed
> > > to ignore that too?
> >
> > You make an erection sound like it is *always* some sort of sexual
> > exhibition. Clearly you know little about this subject.
>
> Clearly, you should read what people write.
Clearly, your comprehension skills may need upgrading. Follow this:
1) there is an erection, as has been discussed in this thread
2) Jenny mentions if one is in her face....
3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not then sexual? Or is the guy's
laser pointer busted?
4) Eureka! I hope you now understand!
Turning a mention of an erection into a sexual scenario, is what Jenny
was doing.
> > > If it's being paraded around camp by some guy who regards it as his supreme
> > > accomplishment (usually because he's incapable of accomplishing
> anything else),
> > > I'm supposed to ignore that too?
> >
> > Ah, your penis envy is showing.
>
> Very mature, Sigmund.
Nice of you to point out Jenny's psychoanalytical abilities as well,
Bill. Oh, I see, you're here to defend Jenny's viewpoint. Forgive me.
> > > You can say you don't mean the above kind of situations, but just
> where do you
> > > draw the line? The best answer in all cases and for all causes is,
> "cover up
> > > and move away until you're back in control."
> >
> > Having an involuntary erection is not about losing control. Pissing
> > yourself on the clubhouse floor is losing control. Do you see the
> > difference, or are you blind to truths about the penis?
>
> Are you saying that you are "in control" when you have an *involuntary*
> erection? "Involuntary" *means* you aren't in control.
Let me understand this. Are you saying that every time a male has an
erection, he is out of control? How very sexist and stereotypical. The
way I see an involuntary erection is that it was not caused purposefully.
>
> Pissing on the clubhouse floor is losing control only if you don't
> mean to do it! (And hopefully you didn't mean to do it!!!)
Who didn't mean to do it? You mean you actually know someone who did
that?
> > > >(2) Assume for a moment that a woman naturalist is lying face up ...
> > >
> > > "Naturalist"! Do you perhaps mean "naturist"?
> >
> > Perhaps he even meant *swinger* which is often synonymous with
> > *naturist*.
>
> "Swinger" is *never* synonymous with "naturist", though some idiots and
> uninformed people may *think* they are synonymous. It's possible for
> individuals to be both a swinger and a nudist, but other individuals
> may be non-swingers or non-nudists.
Ya know Bill, ultimately you are guilty by association. There are plenty
of resorts and clubs that call themselves "nudist" yet actively promote
the so called swinging lifestyle. I am sure there are many non-swinging
nudists at those places too, but how do you tell which is which? I can't
tell. Can you, or are we both idiots then?
If I was a mechanic and spent a lot of time with, or amongst car thieves,
wouldn't it be logical that some, or many, might view me as a car thief
rather than a mechanic?
> > > >at a nude resort. It is early Spring and a chill breeze
> > > >occasionally wafts through the sunning area causing our subject's
> > > >nipples to harden at frequent intervals. This happens
> > > >continually throughout the day. According to the sneeze analogy
> > > >the lady would have to "..excuse yourself, and move away
> > > >until you're back in control". Obviously an absurd requirement.
>
> That's a frequent but stupid argument.
It is a stupid argument to those that don't want to admit the
similarities. Both the erect penis and nipple can be viewed in a sexual
manner. Both have multiple causes, sexual and non-sexual. Yet the erect
nipple is never soncidered sexual to nudists. That's a double standard,
Bill.
> It is *easy* to make nipples
> erect in a non-sexual context. It is *much* harder (no pun intended)
> to make a penis erect in a non-sexual context.
So? If erections were easier to get, would they then be ok?
> Think about it...the
> main function of an erect nipple is non-sexual. Feeding a baby.
Then why do women without children have them too?
> The main (only) function of an erect penis is sexual.
The human male has a wide range of responses to certain situations.
Flight, fear, etc. Some men have erections when they are afraid. Some men
had erections when they were hung by the neck to die. How are those
erections sexual, Bill? Do you think the guy on the gallows is thinking
of getting laid?
> > > Errect nipples aren't two or three inches long.
> > So it's a matter of length then? Smaller erections are ok?
>
> I don't understand that statement either.
>
> > > Erect nipples don't drip.
> > That's a lie. You know it.
>
> Huh???? It only a lie if the woman is lactating and Jenny addressed that.
> You even quoted her!
Read her again. She made the statement that erect nipples don't drip. If
the purpose of the erect nipple is to feed, then how can you say it
doesn't drip?
> > > You can't tell an erect nipple on one woman from a "flaccid" nipple on
> another.
> > Duh? Really? Where do you get this stuff from?
>
> In some cases (not many!) that is probably true. It's probably true of some
> penises, too.
Jenny did not say "some". She made some sort of blanket statement as if
it were fact, which clearly it is not.
> > It is puritanical nudists/swingers such as yourself that prevent nudism
> > from being accepted more wholeheartedly and seen less as a sexual
> > adventrue rather than enjoyment on other levels.
>
> "Puritanical nudists/swingers"????? I'm glad to see that you are doing your
> part to make nudism "accepted...wholeheartedly" and "less...sexual". :-(
I am in the former, but mainstream nudists are the latter. If men all
behave within a limited framework, then it is non-sexual to you folk, but
if they are normal (occasional erections) then they are sexual?
They can't see their own hypocrisy, Bill.
> Bill.
> --
> Clothing-Optional British Columbia
> http://home.istar.ca/~barnett/cobc.shtml
> =====================================================================
> Bill Arnett Consulting BAr...@istar.ca
> P.O. Box 32593, Aberdeen Centre P.O., Richmond, B.C., Canada V6X 3S1
> ============== "The future is not what it used to be" ===============
>
nudistfamily
sounds like this thread is a candidate for the RNIOTY award.
x@y.z
>If I can track the owner thereof by the oozings on the clubhouse floor
Oozings????
>Erect nipples don't drip.
Often they squirt.
>I don't see women here demanding the right to drip. The right-to-drip
>movement appears to be men only.
>
Drip... drip... drip... like that???
>I expect that the next fad thread will be about every male's right to drool,
>with all the same justifications.
>
Drool? Drip?
>Hey, guys, we're talking sanitation.
Well, yeah... I can see you not wanting somebody dripping in your soup,
or having to worry about slipping in a big pool of it, or gagging on
it in the pool.... sanitation indeed!
But if as you say you've seen about six boners in 25 years, and only for
a few seconds... how many of them were "dripping"?
Dunno... My erections don't "drip". Is there something wrong with me?
Indeed, my flaccid penis is far more likely to drip (such as right
after sex or urination) than my erect one.
So if it's "dripping" you're worried about, maybe you should be more
worried about flaccid penises, and feel relieved when you see an erect
one. Because if I'm like other men, my erections don't drip.
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
RazzleDzl
a lady nudist saw it and was upset that this guy was walking around the beach
with an erection without even covering up so she went up to him and grabed his
penis and squeezed and maybe even twisted it really hard in hopes of hurting
him. Don't know if the guy actually got the message and covered up but at
least the lady tried to do something about it. I hear she was screaming mad at
this guy for displaying his erection like that.
Ever hear about this?
Crys
Kelly
26030004...@ip109.vancouver10.dialup.canada.psi.net>,
BAr...@istar.ca says...
> In article <MPG.134699eeb9889ed198969c@news>, i-am...@home.com (Kelly) wrote:
>
> > In article <BArnett-
> > 25030002...@ip22.vancouver10.dialup.canada.psi.net>,
> > BAr...@istar.ca says...
> > > erection? "Involuntary" *means* you aren't in control.
> >
> > Let me understand this. Are you saying that every time a male has an
> > erection, he is out of control?
>
> Look them up in a dictionary.
>
> > How very sexist and stereotypical. The
>
Not willing to debate, huh?
> > way I see an involuntary erection is that it was not caused purposefully.
>
> Oh, maybe you *do* understand the concept of "not in control"...
Oh, I understand the concepts, just not how you are applying them.
> > > Pissing on the clubhouse floor is losing control only if you don't
> > > mean to do it! (And hopefully you didn't mean to do it!!!)
> >
> > Who didn't mean to do it? You mean you actually know someone who did
> > that?
>
> Sigh....I hate it when sarcasm is wasted...
When there is no more debate, sarcasm results.
> "pissing on the clubhouse floor" was your thing, not mine.
>
> > If I was a mechanic and spent a lot of time with, or amongst car thieves,
> > wouldn't it be logical that some, or many, might view me as a car thief
> > rather than a mechanic?
>
> Sure. But that doesn't mean that they would perceive other mechanics as
> car thieves! And it certainly doesn't mean that "mechanic" is *synonymous*
> with "car thief"! You better work on your analogies....
Sure they would. You cannot apply your standards across the board. I
indicated that "some, or many, might view" the mechanic as car thief. The
naturist movement has much work to do, and the hypocrisy within it's own
membership hinders that.
> > > > > >at a nude resort. It is early Spring and a chill breeze
> > > > > >occasionally wafts through the sunning area causing our subject's
> > > > > >nipples to harden at frequent intervals. This happens
> > > > > >continually throughout the day. According to the sneeze analogy
> > > > > >the lady would have to "..excuse yourself, and move away
> > > > > >until you're back in control". Obviously an absurd requirement.
> > >
> > > That's a frequent but stupid argument.
> >
> > It is a stupid argument to those that don't want to admit the
> > similarities. Both the erect penis and nipple can be viewed in a sexual
> > manner. Both have multiple causes, sexual and non-sexual. Yet the erect
> > nipple is never soncidered sexual to nudists. That's a double standard,
> > Bill.
>
> Men have erect nipples, too. Theirs aren't considered sexual either.
> So there is no double standard.
Erect male nipples never crop up in discussions of erections, until you
just did now. They are a non-factor.
> I can guarantee that 99% of the people who swim at Wreck Beach will emerge
> from the water with erect nipples. And that includes the men. The water
> is so bloody cold it would be virtually impossible for the nipples not to
> be erect. But the penises are not erect. In fact they are *smaller* than
> normal.
I will have to take your word on your study. I've not examined the
genitalia of all emerging swimmers to know one way or the other.
> > > It is *easy* to make nipples
> > > erect in a non-sexual context. It is *much* harder (no pun intended)
> > > to make a penis erect in a non-sexual context.
> >
> > So? If erections were easier to get, would they then be ok?
>
> Maybe. But the point is, while erections occur for non-sexual reasons,
> such erections are a rare occurance when compared to erect nipples for
> non-sexual reasons.
I would think that in order to make such a statement, you'd need to offer
up some sort of study, or other scientific evidence in that regard. I do
not believe that your experiences qualify as validity of such a claim.
> > > Think about it...the
> > > main function of an erect nipple is non-sexual. Feeding a baby.
> >
> > Then why do women without children have them too?
>
> see below.
>
> > > The main (only) function of an erect penis is sexual.
> >
> > The human male has a wide range of responses to certain situations.
> > Flight, fear, etc. Some men have erections when they are afraid. Some men
> > had erections when they were hung by the neck to die. How are those
> > erections sexual, Bill? Do you think the guy on the gallows is thinking
> > of getting laid?
>
> No. I never said that was the only time they occured.
But you did say their only function was sexual.
> I said that was
> the only *function*. *You* said that erect nipples are analogous to
> erect penises.
Others have made that analogy too.
> I pointed out that the *purpose* of erect nipples is to
> feed a baby and the *purpose* of an erect penis is to procreate.
> Therefore, they are *not* analogous.
Not in a physiological way, but in a nudist setting, the analogy could
apply quite well. We haven't even touched on displays of sexually aroused
female genitalia.
> Whether or not each can occur for
> unproductive reasons is not relevant. The productive reasons are *not*
> the same.
The key to this entire thread is the reasons they occur.
> > > Huh???? It only a lie if the woman is lactating and Jenny addressed that.
> > > You even quoted her!
> >
> > Read her again. She made the statement that erect nipples don't drip. If
> > the purpose of the erect nipple is to feed, then how can you say it
> > doesn't drip?
>
> And then she said that lactating women should use pads to catch drips.
> (or something like that.) Non-lactating nipples do not drip.
She made a statement that erect nipples do not drip. She was wrong, so
now you have veered from her statement by changing the context.
> > > In some cases (not many!) that is probably true. It's probably true of some
> > > penises, too.
> >
> > Jenny did not say "some". She made some sort of blanket statement as if
> > it were fact, which clearly it is not.
>
> Gee, you're not even happy when I agree with you!
I was commenting on Jenny's original statement.
> > I am in the former, but mainstream nudists are the latter.
>
> I have *no* idea what you mean by "former" or "latter".
By snipping the context of my statement, your line above has no meaning.
> > If men all
> > behave within a limited framework, then it is non-sexual to you folk, but
> > if they are normal (occasional erections) then they are sexual?
>
> I don't know about sexual/non-sexual. Appropriate/non-appropriate is
> much more relevant. I consider erections to be on a par with farting.
> Both are natural bodily functions that can't always be controlled, but
> efforts should be taken to not demonstrate them in front of others....
> when possible.
And that is another difference ther, Bill. There is a presumtion that an
erection in and of itself is a display. Why?
>
> > They can't see their own hypocrisy, Bill.
>
> Sometimes it is impossible to avoid hypocrisy completely.
> I presume you are refering to accepting nudism which 90% of
> our population considers sexual and inappropriate, while
> rejecting erections which 99% of our population considers
> sexual and *very* inappropriate. Sometimes a compromise serves the
> goals better than idealism.
And therein lies the hypocrisy. Tell me, is there vaginal etiquette?
Kelly
razz...@aol.com says...
Sounds like assault to me. Hopefully she was charged.
nudistfamily
"Kelly" <i-am...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1347e1bd7742f96e98969e@news...
That might depend on whether it was "oozing" or "dripping".
SHEESH.
grady philpott
I am in favor of the nuditst lifesyle and admire those who are
comfortable with it, but it would seem to me that this discussion
epitomizes some of the reasons homo sapiens began clothing themselves in
the first place I can imagine a debate of this nature occurring several
millenia past and someone chiming in with something like: "I know.
Let's just clothe ourselve in public. We do it to stay warm when the
weather is cold, anyway."
Kelly
nudist...@hotmail.killspam.com says...
Perhaps you should take that up with Jenny, as she was the one that
introduced oozing and dripping into the discussion.
Ian
Read the history of Hawaii. When the "white" people found Hawaiians wore no clothes and were happy. The christen NUTS saw this as a sin against ???? they promptly shamed them into covering up there sinful bodies in order to prevent ?????. (the christians probably had to cloth them in order to prevent the christians from acting on there lustful thoughts) After they gave them the BIG guilt trip, they promptly killed off almost all the native Hawaiians by giving them measles and other "better western ways" more diseases.............
The Europeans have a healthily attitude about body acceptance.
It may be because all the religious zealots were sent to the new world.
??
grady philpott
AARONLIFE
reality. If a teenage boy is getting an erection, he should be allowed to have
an erection, regardless of why he is getting it. As soon as people project
their own prudishness/sexual thoughts onto him, for fear of dealing with their
own discomfort, or fear of others becoming uncomfortable, an opportunity for
everyone to loosen up and accept our human nature is LOST and a teenage boy now
has to deal with the closed-mindedness of others in himself, and struggle to
not judge his own erection as cause for embarassment. It is up to us to either
accept everything, and be fine with it, even proud of it, or not accept it, and
if we don't accept it, we are stuck, until we do. That is not liberation. As
long as the behavior is sane, and not lustful (which is just confused desire),
it should be regarded as sane. Many men probably get erections easily because
some doctor lobbed the end of our penises off when we were babies I used to
get erections riding the school bus home every day for NO REASON when I was a
teenager. Sometimes in math class it would just throb FOR NO REASON. This kid
wasn't masturbating in front of everyone, he just had blood in his penis, it is
too bad his parents didn't just say, That's ok son, it's normal, it's not
sexual, and even if it was, it is normal to have sexual emotions, they are a
part of life. As long as people judge sex, especially naturists, naturism will
struggle to go mainstream. Last year I was at a nude beach and my girlfriend
leaned over and gave me a small kiss and rubbed my back and it wasn't sexual,
it was love, and yet, surprise, my penis started to get erect. I covered it
up, not out of embarassment, but so I wouldn't be asked to leave, but it would
have been so nice if I could have felt that it was socially acceptable to just
let it be erect. Nature is beautiful, sexuality is beautiful, there is NOTHING
TO BE ASHAMED OF OR EMBARASSED ABOUT.
ksbhhb
-Kathy
AARONLIFE <aaro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000328095024...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
Bfr1832306
Here, here!
The same people that preach "body acceptance" in that its OK to be fat, out of
shape, deformed, etc, who say "we are what we are - its natural!" (and I agree)
are some of the first to shout "Throw a towel over that!"
We can all agree that there is a big difference between some wanking gawker and
a spontaneous erection. Yet the "sexless at any cost" naturists treat it the
same.
People belch, hiccup, fart, sneeze and twitch without a hidden agenda. Why do
we IMMEDIATELY assume the same for an erection? If it happens, and it wasn't
'induced' for display, lets accept it and move on.
-----------------------------------
"Why, without your clothes, you're naked"
Gary Wescom
newsgroup. So far, many of the things I have read on the subject (current
thread excepted, of course) have been pretty silly. Let me tell you my
perspective.
My wife and I have been going to resorts with nude beaches and such for
nearly 20 years now. During that time I vaguely remember only a couple times
when I developed an erection in a public setting. As I remember, all I did
was just roll over onto my belly and wait a while. From this, you can
understand that I am not really concerned that I will embarrass myself or
anyone else with an untimely erection. That does not mean I am happy with
the incongruity of the naturist attitude toward erections.
What bugs me is that I have to worry about it at all. I find that I am not
at all comfortable even taking a nap in a public nudist setting. At 53 years
old, I am certainly no longer a teenager with teenage hormones raging
through my system but I do become erect frequently while I sleep. If I
didn't, I would be abnormal or ill. This is not a question of "loss of
control", it is purely and absolutely involuntary. Only emotional stress or
cold water can override this natural function of my body.
In my mind, the correlation is not between erect nipples and erect penises.
To me it is more like the argument that women should be allowed to go
topless wherever men are. As naturist, we all believe that women should not
have to hide their breast simply because they are a primary sexual
characteristic. They are part of a woman and it is the whole woman we should
respect. We should not make her hide part of her body as if it is "dirty".
I have no solution to the problem of male exhibitionist who sometimes
inflict their erections and masturbation on those of us who would rather not
be imposed upon. I don't know how to craft a rule that would allow me to
feel unconcerned about developing an involuntary erection but protect us
from perverts. What I do know is that the subject will always be a sore
point with me and probably many other very moral and respectful men.
Please remember this short dissertation when considering the problem. It is
not a simple black or white issue and it is not just perverts who have an
interest in the outcome of these discussions.
Gary
Richard Schroeder
should accept, enjoy and celebrate our physical selves. We live mostly in
our heads, thanks to this big brain of ours, and that's wonderful, of
course. As far as we know, we're the only species that does that.
Unfortunately, we have a long history of separating our minds from our
bodies, since our minds (souls?) are "spiritual" and our bodies are "only"
animal. For me, nudism is about body acceptance, mine and yours.
AARONLIFE <aaro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000328095024...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> The whole point of enjoying a clothing-free lifestyle is to be accepting
of
> reality. If a teenage boy is getting an erection, he should be allowed to
have
> an erection, regardless of why he is getting it. As soon as people
project
> their own prudishness/sexual thoughts onto him, for fear of dealing with
their
> own discomfort, or fear of others becoming uncomfortable, an opportunity
for
> everyone to loosen up and accept our human nature is LOST and a teenage
boy now
> has to deal with the closed-mindedness of others in himself, and struggle
to
> not judge his own erection as cause for embarassment. It is up to us to
either
> accept everything, and be fine with it, even proud of it, or not accept
it, and
> if we don't accept it, we are stuck, until we do.<snip> long as the
Guy Lachance
I agree.
Erections are natural.
No one should be forced to run for cover when it happens. We cannot (and should
not) make assumptions about what the person is thinking about when he had an
erection. And what if he were thinking about something sexual??? Aren't we free to
think about whatever we want? We are supposed to control our thoughts now? That
sounds like communist China to me.
Behaviour is what's important. Some nudists seem to think that the average male is
a dangerous sexual beast when erect. This is ridiculous.
Guy
AARONLIFE wrote:
> The whole point of enjoying a clothing-free lifestyle is to be accepting of
> reality. If a teenage boy is getting an erection, he should be allowed to have
> an erection, regardless of why he is getting it. As soon as people project
> their own prudishness/sexual thoughts onto him, for fear of dealing with their
> own discomfort, or fear of others becoming uncomfortable, an opportunity for
> everyone to loosen up and accept our human nature is LOST and a teenage boy now
> has to deal with the closed-mindedness of others in himself, and struggle to
> not judge his own erection as cause for embarassment. It is up to us to either
> accept everything, and be fine with it, even proud of it, or not accept it, and
> if we don't accept it, we are stuck, until we do. That is not liberation. As