Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Naturistplace

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 26, 2019, 08:48:00 AM »
Naturistplace, maybe in the blogging world you’re used to saying whatever you want and having a veto over whatever anyone says in response. Out in an open forum, you’re responsible for getting your facts right and defending what you say, if you can. You’ve made it clear that you did know about the role of exhibitionists in the San Francisco defeat, yet you chose to describe the situation differently. I’d still like to know why you did that. “You’re offending me” isn’t much of an explanation.

"you chose to describe the situation differently"

Yes, I chose to describe the situation accurately, but differently from the way this person prefers - because there was much more involved. Apparently that isn't permissible.

This person's arguments (such as they are) are wrong since they focus on only one cause of a particular outcome, The reality in the issue under discussion is that there are a number of causes, several of which I named. The person requested an explanation and was given a very good one, consisting of several different points. I was quite clear, and it's unfortunate he couldn't understand. People, in general, won't understand what they are motivated to not understand.

If this discussion continues, I know how it will go. On one side will be someone who seemingly prefers to write only about men wearing cock rings, even though there are far more serious problems. On the other side there will be rational examination of all the other factors that are relevant here.

2
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 24, 2019, 09:49:17 PM »
JBG, you don't seem to be geting this. The people who did the damage in San Francisco weren't naturists in any sense, confrontational or not--they were exhibitionists. The state of the law allowed them to show their penis rings in public, and that's what they did. When their rights were taken away along with everyone else's, they stopped. We can say what we want to about that city law, but it accomplished its purpose.

Now Naturistplace, you evidently have some knowledge about the San Francisco events, so why did you talk about "naturists exercising their rights"? If there's some strategy that calls for us to pass false information around, maybe you can explain it.

I claim that the best thing we can do is bring attention to any problems that occur on the fringes of nudism, which usually means someone acting out sexually. We shouldn't be hesitant about demanding a stop to this stuff! If we don't, we'll make it seem as if the people looking for sexual thrills are part of our movement, and that where we go, they'll be going too. We'll never get public support that way.

Naturistplace, I want to agree with your statement "And they must recognize and call out all of the enemies of naturist rights, not just a few rather addlepated exhibitionists." If there were other people causing trouble in San Francisco, then certainly naturists should have denounced them too! I agree that the exhibitionists were a pretty crazy bunch, but they led to this sad loss, and my recollection from that time is that naturists couldn't find much to say about it, which I think was a mistake. Whoever is doing us harm, we should say clearly what the problem is.

"so why did you talk about "naturists exercising their rights"?"

That's a good place to start. It's simple. The key controversy in 2012 was about people who were going naked in San Francisco's Jane Warner Plaza and places nearby. I don't know the exact details since all my information is second hand. But what I believe is that some of these people were simply naked, which is completely naturist, and was completely legal at that place and time. Some other people were not only naked but also behaving lewdly. That's of course not naturist, and wasn't legal under California law either. I don't know whether or not the latter people claimed to be naturists, but they certainly weren't, and no legitimate naturist would condone the lewdness. Those who weren't behaving lewdly were absolutely, positively exercising their rights.

As is always the case, the news media and the general public have only vague conceptions of the finer distinctions. Could those who were simply naked have somehow stopped the behavior of those who were lewd? Only someone who knew the people involved could, realistically, answer that.

Although the people who were behaving lewdly were the proximate cause of the problem, it escalated the way it did because of many other actors with their own selfish interests who got a city law passed that banned all nudity (with certain specific exceptions). People like that, in my opinion, are the real enemies of naturism we need to focus on. This includes people who just don't like nudity at all, or think it hurts their financial interests, or are in law enforcement and don't want the responsibility to make tricky decisions about what is or is not "lewd", as California law requires (even though it's their job to do that).

What should naturists be doing about this kind of problem? In my opinion, it's short-sighted to think that just strongly denouncing people who behave lewdly is sufficient to address the problem. Ideally, there would be enough naturists in the population to actively curtail lewd behavior that could reflect badly on naturists who aren't being lewd. That's what happens at successful nude beaches like Haulover.

So my conclusion is that the real long-term solution is: More Naturists. That will make much more possible than simply curtailing lewd behavior. It will also - most importantly - make it possible to politically oppose people who insist, for their own selfish reasons, on passing or defending laws against naturist nudity.

This is precisely the strategy that succeeded for gay rights. Although there weren't actually more people who were gay, the result of so many gay people "coming out" was that the public perception of the real number changed significantly. 

"If there's some strategy that calls for us to pass false information around, maybe you can explain it."

If you are implying that was a strategy I advocated, that is insulting, and I expect an apology.

"We shouldn't be hesitant about demanding a stop to this stuff!"

You can make demands until you're blue in the face. Perhaps this makes you feel better and more righteous, but as a strategy it flops. Political action is the only thing that eventually makes a significant difference. This is what NAC is set up for, but it's limited by the rather meager amount of financial and other support it gets from the naturist community. Maybe if there were More Naturists....

An example of significant successful naturist political action may be British Naturism's efforts with regard to British laws on naturism and nudity. I haven't studied this closely, but my impression is that advocacy on behalf of naturism by BN resulted in a more lenient approach to nudity in British law. Here's a document that spells out the current situation: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance-handling-cases-naturism If this had been applied in the San Francisco case, the outcome would have been much better.

"Whoever is doing us harm, we should say clearly what the problem is."

I completely agree with that - with strong emphasis on the "whoever" part. That includes far more than just a few crazy exhibitionists.

3
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 23, 2019, 08:56:08 PM »
Even in the few places that are already tolerant of nudity, people can come along and make it harder. That happened in San Francisco in 2012. Why? Simply because some naturists were exercising their rights - and people who didn't like that came along and got the law changed. And it's not just naturist rights that get taken away. Labor rights have been under attack for years. Women's rights (abortion and contraception in particular) are constantly under attack.

Freedom is not free.

As my father used to say,  "Can't never did anything."

We aren't going to get anywhere if we feed each other propaganda and accept it without question, then act as if we're in possession of  complete facts. We did NOT lose our rights in San Francisco because "naturists exercised their rights"! That debacle occurred because men were gathering in a particular location in San Francisco and making sexual displays--I'm referring to penis rings designed to stimulate or simulate an erection. Naturists, at least the Naturist Action Committee, said that this should be dealt with by enforcement of state law against public lewdness. But the local police said they weren't willing to try to make the distinction between lewd nudity and the innocent kind. So the city passed a law againt nudity, and that dealt with the problem. We had a chance to denounce the people who were our enemies in this case, and we failed to do it. Now some of us are falsifying the situation after the event.

Time after time, we've lost naturist venues when they were used for sexual activity. We seem to be very reluctant to make an honest assement of what's occuring, and clearly identify the people who are costing us our rights. It's got to change.

Yes, let's by all means not be "falsifying the situation" and not "feed each other propaganda and accept it without question, then act as if we're in possession of complete facts." That would be shameful. But sadly, some of us are still singing the same lugubrious, oh-poor-me ballad that seems to be all they know but doesn't recognize the simple truth: Naturists are too few and too weakly organized to defend their own rights. Thanks for providing an opportunity to face that unfortunate issue.

Naturists will always have enemies. Those include economic interests who fear that naturists will harm their profits or their property values, religious pressure groups that hate all nudity, law enforcement agencies always desirous to avoid making reasonable distinctions, legislators who listen only to the squeakiest wheels, politicians who need a "moral" issue to campaign on, and exhibitionists who make themselves the flashpoint for problems that are seized upon by.all of our other enemies as excuses to pursue their real agenda - which is suppressing nudity of any sort. Fighting all such enemies takes significant resources and people willing to support the effort.

Mark Haskell Smith in his book reports on his interview with Scott Wiener, the ambitious, gay politician who led the effort to curtail naturist rights in San Francisco. Smith makes several salient points. Wiener's legislation was broader than it needed to be. It passed by just a single vote. Many on the board of supervisors objected strongly to the proposal. But, as Smith points out, "other members of the board of supervisors, notably from tourist-heavy districts like Fisherman's Wharf, supported the ban." These latter folks made the difference, but weren't directly impacted by what the exhibitionists were doing. They simply didn't want naked people coming into their territory and scaring away the tourists.

Naturists need to face the reality that no amount of strong denunciations of one tiny portion of our enemies will be enough to protect our rights. That's not how politics works. When one side loses a political battle, it's because that side is the weaker one. There need to be more real naturists actively defending their rights. They must fight so that any legislation is sufficiently narrowly designed to target the actual problem. And they must recognize and call out all of the enemies of naturist rights, not just a few rather addlepated exhibitionists.

That is what must happen if we really and truly "make an honest assement of what's occuring, and clearly identify the people who are costing us our rights".

4
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 23, 2019, 01:39:11 AM »
The way the political process works is not that laws get changed because "it's the right thing to do". In most jurisdictions, public nudity (in a local park or even in your own yard) just isn't legal. There are either specific statutes about this (state or local), or public nudity is automatically considered "indecent exposure". So in almost all cases it's necessary either to change existing laws, or else get a new law that clarifies the legality of public nudity.

And getting any political action of this kind requires convincing anything from a local council to the state legislature to do something that probably won't be politically popular. There are almost certain to be people who object to such a change. They may even be few in number but they will do their best to stop any changes that make nudity more tolerated. Guaranteed.

It's just dreaming to think that things will get better for naturism without a lot of effort of some kind or other. Didn't happen with civil rights or gay rights or women's rights or labor rights or almost any other sort of rights you can think of. And it won't happen any more easily for naturist rights either.

Even in the few places that are already tolerant of nudity, people can come along and make it harder. That happened in San Francisco in 2012. Why? Simply because some naturists were exercising their rights - and people who didn't like that came along and got the law changed. And it's not just naturist rights that get taken away. Labor rights have been under attack for years. Women's rights (abortion and contraception in particular) are constantly under attack.

Freedom is not free.

5
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 22, 2019, 08:23:51 AM »
Here's something else to think about. The couple responsible for what's probably the most popular naturist blog (Naked Wanderings) just found out that their Instagram account was removed. (https://www.nakedwanderings.com/naked-wanderings-banned-from-instagram/) Instagram, like its owner Facebook, has very anti-naturist policies (no visible genitals or female nipples) found Nick and Lin's Instagram account in violation. The couple claims they tried very hard to observe the rules. To no avail.

This is not how the Internet was supposed (initially) to work. It was for the unrestricted exchange of information (unless it's actually illegal). We can forget about that now, since the Internet is mostly controlled by about half a dozen huge monopolies. And those genitals and nipples are a problem, because advertisers - who have the final say - think they hurt business. That's what happened to Tumblr just 2 months ago. Business comes first on the Internet these days. To heck with sharing honest information. (Bot armies that circulate all sorts of lies and conspiracy theories are OK, though.)

Naturists are badly hurt by these policies (just ask Nick and Lins). Because exposed genitals and nipples are somehow no different from pure porn. How are people supposed to be able to see the difference between nonsexual nudity and porn if they aren't allowed to see either? People can't really understand naturist lifestyles, because actually showing how naturists live their lives is, somehow, dangerous to children and the moral fiber of the nation. That's a big loss for us, since a picture is worth a thousand words - but only if it's allowed to be seen.

I don't know what naturists can do about this problem either. About 60 years ago we got some relief when it was decided (by the country's highest courts) that nudist magazines and books could legally be sent through the mails. The First Amendment guaranteed that. Unfortunately, private entities (like Facebook) aren't bound to observe the 1st Am. And these private entities now control the primary information channels these days.

Even worse than being excluded from the predominant information channels is the fact that this exclusion, by itself, leads people to think that the excluded material should be excluded, because it's "bad".

We still have direct person-to-person communication to rely on, which is what I've been emphasizing. It's a slow process, and like trying to defend oneself with both hands tied. But what choice do we have?

6
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 22, 2019, 05:06:56 AM »
In any social movement for change, it doesn't take the entire population to make the change. For example during the civil rights era of the early sixties, there were something like 20 million black Americans. We know that only a relatively few participated enough, to make the significant news and actions. The marches were not millions, but thousands, the core was fewer and many of those were other races.

[deletions]

So, how can that be harnessed and organized and what activities would be most effective and when?

Actually, there was the Million Man March in 1965, which involved mostly black men.

MLK's "I have a dream" speech was at a 1963 march that had "only" about 250,000 people.

Unfortunately, the naturist movement doesn't have (and never had) leaders with MLK's eloquence and charisma. The environmental movement of the 50s and 60s had David Brower (of the Sierra Club and similar organizations). He was a very prominent leader at the time. Naturists could really use someone like him.

Let's not forget, too, that many people died - both white and black - in the Civil Rights struggle of the 60s. Later that decade there was Kent State, which was a different sort of turning point. We don't need a repeat of that.

The naturist "cause" isn't quite analogous. There isn't, to be honest, quite as much at stake. We probably need a different approach from either the Civil Rights or the Gay Rights movement.

I wish I knew "what activities would be most effective and when". So far the best I've come up with is the incremental "build critical mass" approach. 17 million gays and 20 million blacks got attention. The number of naturists now isn't in the same ballpark.

But note that the incremental approach yields benefits right away: Find more naturists in your local area, and you have more people to share social nudity with. That's at least something.

7
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 21, 2019, 11:50:39 PM »
I tend to disagree with your estimate of "1% or 2%" would be active naturists "(even in their own homes)." Active social situations on an ongoing basis maybe. People who don't wear clothes in their homes is going to be a varying degree of practice, but I do know, from talking around that a surprising number do. It is of course often to sometimes.

For concreteness, let's say that 7% of the (adult) U. S. population is gay. I don't know where the number comes from, but assume it for the sake of discussion. What does it actually mean? There are degrees of gayness. It wouldn't surprise me if 50% of the population has tried gay sex at some point or other. But that doesn't mean much. The actual distribution of gayness is bimodal. That means most of the population is at one end of the scale or the other. (Much less on the gay end, of course.) But if you figure the midpoint is where people have gay rather than hetero sex about half the time, I could believe that 7% is about the right number for the gay side. That's still a lot. It means about 17 million U. S. adults are on the gay side.

The situation with naturists is, I think, quite different. The distribution is unimodal, with a peak close to the non-naturist side, and a long declining tail on the naturist side. So exactly how does one measure the degree to which a person is naturist? That's a very interesting question I'll get to in a moment. I could easily believe that 30% of the population has skinny-dipped in mixed company at some time or other. But that doesn't make them naturists, and in particular, it doesn't mean they will support the naturist "cause" or recommend naturism to others. There could be 10 or 15% who go naked occasionally at home. But I still don't think that makes them naturists or likely to recommend naturism to others. If anything, most of those people probably wouldn't volunteer to tell others they go naked at home sometimes.

So we need to have some sort of numerical scale that measures the degree of naturist interest and activity. As it happens there is such a thing: the "N-scale". I wrote about it 20 years ago: http://www.naturistplace.com/wnl-0202.htm. It's not my idea, but I think it's useful.

However, I don't think it's fine-grained enough. More detail is needed at levels of 5 and above. That's the point where a person might engage in naturist activities, although somewhat secretively. Things such as naked hiking where not likely to be seen, or visiting a nude beach occasionally (where nudity is the norm). So I expanded the N-scale to include more detail, and I wrote about that: http://www.naturistplace.com/wnl-0203.htm. I think that 5.8 might be the point where one might be considered a "real" naturist. (You'll need to read the article for more details.) This is the level of naturist activity that I am guessing corresponds to my 1 or 2% estimate of the number of naturists. It's also the point at which I think a person might admit of an interest in naturism to open-minded friends and even suggest they consider it themselves. Such people can actually be helpful in promoting naturism. That's still about 5 million people (based on the 2% number), though that may be too optimistic.

Why too optimistic? Consider some other numbers. There are somewhat more than 1 million members of the Sierra Club. That's a very mainstream organization, and there are probably tens of millions of people in the U. S. who sympathize with the organization's goals. But people these days just aren't joiners. Consider members of the two U. S. naturist organizations, TNS and AANR. Both are somewhat secretive about how many members they have, but based on past information, 20,000 is about tops for TNS and 50,000 for AANR. Even taken together, that's only a bit more than 1% of the 5 million who might be "real" naturists. People aren't joiners, but even so it might be a stretch to guess that there are even 2.5 million "real" naturists. That would be around 15% of the number of gay people and about 1% of the adult population.

Getting to higher percentages means lowering the bar for who is considered a naturist. That extra 1% might well be the best people to target first for persuasion to become more active naturists. If we could identify them. There may be ways to do that. In principle, it could be done by sending surveys to people who might be open-minded enough to consider naturism seriously. The surveys would ask them about things like being naked at home. Responses would be anonymous, of course, in the research phase. From that better estimates could be made. (There would also be questions that indicate open-mindedness.) However, this is all blue-sky stuff. What organizations would attempt this sort of thing? There are market research firms that do this sort of thing, but I doubt they're inexpensive. Actually, as long as this is just speculating, I guess Facebook data could be usefully mined. But that's controversial, and not inexpensive either.

So, this is all mostly guesswork. There simply are far too few studies that are designed to quantify naturist numbers - let alone to use some scale like the N-scale to make it possible to get some idea of the distribution of interest levels in naturist activities. We're really in the dark at this point. And that's not a good thing, because that fact in itself deters people from having an interest in naturism, because they have no way of knowing how popular or unpopular it actually is. And people are reluctant to associate with things that seem "unpopular".

8
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 20, 2019, 10:40:58 PM »
How did gays make so much headway and is there a correlation? They surely faced the same population density and minority problems.

The solid core, although stats vary are about 6 to 7% of the population. Then, there are those in the grey areas of the spectrum of the solid core to the straight people. There are like 20% who might be part time gay. There are those that have had one gay experience. There are those that have primary relationships that switch sexes during a lifetime. There are bisexual. This runs into something like 50% of the population depending on who you reference. And that amounts to lots of sisters, brothers, family and friends.

I think there are several fairly obvious differences between the gay and naturist situations. You mention one in noting that it's easier for gays to identify each other. The major difference is that being gay is largely a biological thing. To some extent, sexual identity is flexible, as with transgender people. But mostly it's not. By the time of the mid-teens, most gay people (I think, not being gay myself) know they're "different". This just isn't the same with being naturist. Although I found being naked felt good when I was young, I was over 30 before I became seriously interested. Some people, apparently, don't develop an interest until much later. So it's much more of a volitional issue. 

This fact makes it a lot harder to estimate the number of "naturists" in the population. Although some surveys show that perhaps 20% or more of the U. S. population have tried skinny-dipping at some time or other, the number of "active" or "practicing" naturists (even in their own homes) is almost unknowable (so few scientific surveys), but I'd expect the number is under 1%, or 2% tops. If anyone is aware of more reliable figures, I'd love to know.

And this low percentage is the heart of the critical mass problem. Since being gay is mostly biological, the percentage has always been about the same (for many thousands of years). What's different in recent decades is that so many gays are now "out". That is something that's voluntary (sort of, though it's now much easier than it used to be). And I expect it's partly a result of person-to-person efforts among gays, beginning a few decades ago, to take that step. If my assumptions about critical mass are correct, it appears that 7% of the population is sufficient - while 1% or 2% isn't.

I do not think that the success that gays have had "just happened" without lots of pressure among gays to decide to "come out". It wasn't because the general society, all by itself, became more tolerant or more aware of the fact that being gay isn't merely a choice. It was because enough gays persuaded others to publicly insist on their rights. And keep in mind that, in contrast to potential naturists, gay people - almost by definition - know at least one other who's gay, and often many more than one.

Likewise, for naturists, I don't think we'll get more tolerance and rights by waiting for society to come to its senses. We need to actively find others who are open-minded enough and able to appreciate the pleasures of social nudity and persuade them to become practicing naturists. Gays didn't need to be persuaded about their orientation. In the naturist case, I think some reasonable persuasion is necessary.

9
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 20, 2019, 07:56:55 AM »
Here is one very small thing you and anyone you know could do to help naturism. There's a petition started by the Tampa Area Naturists to request approval for more naturist use of area beaches.

Just go to tinyurl.com/tandip

You can choose to be anonymous (if you wish). You'll also be asked for a contribution, but you can politely decline. I generally don't think petitions like this accomplish very much, but it's worth a shot. If all local naturist groups did this sort of thing, it would bring more attention to naturism. This group wants 10,000 signatures, and they already have 9,879.

You could ask friends to sign, even if they aren't naturists. It would be one way to start a discussion with them on the subject.

Haulover Beach in Miami has been a noteworthy success for 25 years.

Here's a brief description:

Quote
Tampa Area Naturists (TAN – TANFL.com ), in alliance with B.E.A.C.H.E.S. Foundation Institute (beachesfoundation.org - the non-profit organization co-mentoring Haulover Beach with South Florida Free Beaches – sffb.com ) and its 25-year Tallahassee government affairs firm, Maury Management, seeks to replicate the successes at Haulover Beach in Miami and Blind Creek Beach in Fort Pierce where strong family values, amenities, parking and Beach Ambassadors are the norm.  To re-establish naturist use at Florida State Park beaches, starting with Honeymoon Island near Tampa, TAN needs YOUR immediate support and signing of our petition!

10
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 20, 2019, 04:36:17 AM »
Getting on track, we attempting to have a discussion about how to bring revolutionary change to American sociability, at least something. We are also discussing in this thread how to fit this in to a global scale and catch up with European victories and promote more change everywhere. We're strategizing a body freedom revolution.

[deletions]

What anyone have to add to any of these discussions, topic, or further strategies?
Jbee

There really are many avenues naturists can explore to improve the public acceptance of naturism - and to encourage others to try it.

For example, it would help a lot if there were many more opportunities to be naked when doing "ordinary" things (outside one's home). Things like yoga, many sports (bowling, swimming, running, etc.), hiking, camping, gardening, using public beaches, body painting, attending theatrical performances, visiting museums, etc., etc. But the problem is how to help this happen. I don't really have good general ideas - except to start with efforts to increase the number of naturists. The more there are, the higher the demand for such things.

The biggest problem for naturists right now, in my opinion, is that they are too small a portion of the general population to have "critical mass". There are several problems as a result of this. One is the too low probability a naturist will be friends with - or even know of - another naturist, who's close enough to enjoy naturism with on a frequent basis. (Outside of immediate family, perhaps.) For the same reason, there will be few people nearby who aren't naturists but know of one or more naturists and don't disapprove of the lifestyle. The probability is even lower that there are naturists or potential naturists who may be seen almost daily (for instance because they work in the same place). This limits the number of people who might be persuaded to try naturism. Another problem is that other naturists who one knows may live so far away that opportunities for enjoying naturism together are limited.

There's some evidence that opportunities for enjoying naturism are directly related to the overall population density in a given region. For instance, the population density in England (excluding Scotland and Wales), is over a thousand per square mile. That's 10 times the population density of, say, Texas. So, any other factors aside, a naturist in England is about 10 times more likely to know other naturists or potential naturists than a naturist in Texas. And in fact, the average naturist in England has about 3 times more clubs or resorts to visit conveniently than a naturist in Texas. The travel time is also a lot shorter. (This is based on less than exact data on the number of available clubs, but is still a reasonable estimate.) Texas naturists would be at even a greater disadvantage, except that their climate is much more favorable for outdoor naturism than that of English naturists. So the availability of clubs and resorts is somewhat more likely. I've compared other U. S. states to England and found similar results. (The population density in the U. S. as a whole is even less than in Texas.) Note that this situation also affects free range naturists, not just those who visit clubs.

The conclusion that I draw from these observations is that individual naturists need to expend more effort to encourage people they know who might enjoy naturism to actually try it, in order to correct the insufficient "critical mass".

How much more effort is required? I don't know. Those of us who bother to discuss these things seriously online are doing more than the average naturist. However, I think that the effort required is, minimally, to discuss the subject with others who might be persuaded to try naturism - preferably one-on-one. That is more than just discussing the topic with other naturists.

11
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 17, 2019, 11:59:11 PM »
It might be said that none of us will be truly free until we cease to be attracted to other people. Only then will bodies and how they look be important. Unless we become anchorite hermits, that will only happen when we no longer recognize another person as being male or female, young or old and even clothed or unclothed.

Going a bit too far there, no? How about we take a middle way, and start teaching kids from an early age that sex and attraction to the (opposite or same) sex are perfectly OK - BUT, just as with other impulses (e. g. greed, hatred, anger, etc.), learning when and how it is acceptable to express them is very important. Parents, schools, popular media, etc. all need to get on the same page about this. Probably no human societies have quite accomplished this yet. (Just read the daily news.) However, it's a bit less drastic than everyone becoming hermits (and so ending the species entirely).

12
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 17, 2019, 07:52:30 PM »
Even the Governor is apparently still deliberately dressing to raise questions.  Human psychology is very complex.

"Human psychology is very complex."

Yes, absolutely.

"the motives of females are not well understood."

Yes, again. But that's exactly as true of the motives of males. Females and males are equally human. The psychologies of both are equally complex and difficult to understand.

That said, isn't it a problem to assume that all (or most) females have similar motives even in the narrow sphere of naturism? And equally a problem regarding the motives of males?

Best way to proceed? I'd say that would be to consider the varying motives (and fears and other relevant factors) of people in general with respect to naturism. That's what makes promoting naturism tricky - the message has to be tailored for different cases. (Including many where the conclusion is "don't bother".) And if one simply wants to enjoy naturism without promoting it to others, that's fine too (as long as you're satisfied with your current options).

13
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 16, 2019, 09:59:01 PM »
I'm going to suggest that many women post nude photos on more sexually oriented sites.   Maybe "non-sexual" naturism isn't sexy enough to get women to post photos.

[deletions]

I haven't made any attempt to count the number of sites and women but it appears to be a never ending stream of women who want to show off.

[deletions]

What @Naturistplace observed about  Australians is that all those women seem to just want to show off.   It may take more sexual content to get women excited.  Maybe ordinary nudism is too boring. 

This may be entirely wrong, but there is a never ending stream of naked women on amateur porn sites.  Far more than on nude sites.   What do you guys think?

"I'm going to suggest that many women post nude photos on more sexually oriented sites.   Maybe "non-sexual" naturism isn't sexy enough to get women to post photos."

It's not always easy to figure out who posts the pictures on the "sexually oriented sites". Could be the women themselves or whoever took the picture. In any case, there's not much doubt about the orientation of most visitors to such sites. Likewise - surprise - many men, too, "post nude photos on more sexually oriented sites". Not much doubt about the orientation of visitors to those sites either.

And in any case, the site originally under discussion was a non-sexual naturist site (a particular Instagram account). Unless, that is, one considers any pictures of naked people to be "sexual". Should either women or men be under suspicion of... something... for letting their pictures be there? Or for not letting their pictures be there? The ratio was close to 50-50 after all. Or is it only the women whose pictures are there that are under suspicion? So confusing...

"I haven't made any attempt to count the number of sites and women but it appears to be a never ending stream of women who want to show off."

Women often make the point, and I think it's valid, that there are questions frequently raised (or merely wondered about) regarding how they dress and their possible motives. There was a news story just yesterday about the Governor of Michigan (a woman). In response to news reports about the way she had been dressed for an official government speech, she tweeted "Boys have teased me about my curves since 5th grade." What prompted this was a report about comments on social media that said things like “she’s showing off her cans” and “I’d hit it.” The point here is that women continually have to put up with questions raised about their intentions for dressing the way they do - even if it's well within norms, let alone in a naturist context.

"What @Naturistplace observed about  Australians is that all those women seem to just want to show off.   It may take more sexual content to get women excited.  Maybe ordinary nudism is too boring."

I don't think I made any such observation "that all those women seem to just want to show off". I did say the pictures were "lighthearted and humorous". I also said the women had "the intention of their picture being shown". I. e., they expected and thought it was good for the picture to be shown - because it displays an approval of nudity, not exhibitionism. (Naturists are too often accused of the latter.) Interpreting that as "showing off" might be an example of the point I made just above. And the pictures in question were in a nudist/naturist context. Which contradicts the notion that "ordinary nudism is too boring" for the women. But it seems that women get criticized no matter what.

"there is a never ending stream of naked women on amateur porn sites.  Far more than on nude sites"

Huh? "naked women on amateur porn sites"? What a surprise. There are also a lot of naked women at strip clubs too. Imagine that! Now, if you substitute "men" for "women" the same things are true. It's just that the audiences are different. And are there naked women on "nude sites" (naturist I presume)? The complaint I see most often (from naturists) is that the pictures at such sites are mostly of women. It seems - again - that women get criticized no matter what.



14
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 15, 2019, 10:47:55 PM »
Several quick things.

1. What I wanted to point out in the post was an example of how to make naturist ideas viral. It might be objected that could easily be done by showing lots more pictures of naked women rather than men. But that's not the case here. (See next point)

2. I haven't counted every picture on the IG page (~2000 total), but it sure seems close to 50-50 men and women.

3. This doesn't seem to be an example of men deliberately posting pictures of naked women that were found somewhere. Instead, unless this is a deliberate hoax, almost all the women are (a) posing voluntarily with the intention of their picture being shown, and (b) new to naturism and not paid models (white tails).

4. Facebook nudist/naturist groups are notorious for a preponderance of naked men posting pictures of themselves. If any of that is "pervy", it's the men. But this IG thing is dramatically different.

5. Quite a few of the pictures are very lighthearted and humorous. Most seem to be having a really good time. If you saw any half dozen of these pictures in a naturist publication, they would not seem at all out of place. (Except for how few faces are shown.) Compare to most of the naked men on Facebook.

15
Free Range Naturism / Re: Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism
« on: February 15, 2019, 08:34:01 PM »
"I also notice among the photos that nobody looked to be my age (72)"

Of course. This is all about what young people are doing. By the age of 72 almost everyone has decided whether or not they're interested in naturism. (And they've probably never heard of Instagram either.)

"most, but not all, had white butts (whitetails!)"

Of course. This is all about people trying naturism for the first time. Aren't we interested in new people trying it?

"the whole thing looks to be more of a lark than anything else."

Of course. Merriam-Webster: "lark: a source of or quest for amusement or adventure" Is there something wrong with that?


Pages: [1] 2 3