CO in DC - from a women's magazine

[Peter S]

http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a44654/naked-in-trumps-dc/

Interesting and thoughtful article

peter

[Greenbare Woods]

Thanks for the link, Peter. 

American women are being told we're too sexually threatening to eat dinner alone—fully clothed—with the vice president.

Total rubbish.   The VP only said that he respects his marriage by not going out with other women.  Liberal females who write for Elle seem to find conventional morals offensive.  The only kind of sexual behavior this writer seems to find offensive is a straight man who doesn't cheat on his wife.   

The first questions friends asked when I said I was going to a nudist dinner party were, generally, about erections. (For the record, in the two parties I went to, I saw one, across the room.

She was watching and observing male parts throughout the evening.  Even those men across the room.

single men are banned

 

But not women or gay couples men, apparently.   Discrimination pervades.

I also met a dom/sub pair Steve had met through a swingers group. The dom was a buxom blond woman wearing a rabbit-fur wrap around her hips and a long bead necklace; her sub was a retired Virginian lawyer with a stiff-shouldered gait. She related to me her long and eventful sexual history, going back to her first threesome at age 18.

Now he and Sarah, who are both bisexual, often go to a nearby LGBT nudist campground together. They're not so into the more AANR-standardized, family-oriented nudist stuff. "Can't make so many dick jokes," Eric told me.

"It wasn't a good party," he told me. "I was thinking, I wish I didn't have to do this." Steve has traveled a winding sexual pathway, driven by both a need for variety ("I realized I was bored with a strictly gay lifestyle")

It really doesn't sound like a party I would go to or a crowd I would associate with.  It seems to be more about "variety" for those who are "bored with a strictly gay lifestyle" of bisexual swinger parties. 

It is said that "all publicity is good publicity."  I suppose that even this kind of nude party is overall good for public nudity, but really.   

I'm sure I'm not the intended readership of Elle magazine. 

[eyesup]

Even though the article shows how some of the benefits of nudity do in fact exist, the absence of a sexual overtone (for the most part) and  the easing of anxiety about being in a room full of naked people.

Although it as Bob said, geared toward the gay community and swingers. The host appears to follow his own rules ad hoc. Apparently single men are banned except for the one "Mike" who seemed to be unattached.

What's up with that?

I pretty much agree with Bob. I wouldn't intentionally go to a party like that but wouldn't leave if I, through happenstance, found myself in one.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

American women are being told we're too sexually threatening to eat dinner alone—fully clothed—with the vice president.

Total rubbish.   The VP only said that he respects his marriage by not going out with other women.  Liberal females who write for Elle seem to find conventional morals offensive.  The only kind of sexual behavior this writer seems to find offensive is a straight man who doesn't cheat on his wife.   

You got a smirk out of me when you pointed out that"The only kind of sexual behavior this writer seems to find offensive is a straight man who doesn't cheat on his wife." Great observation. However, i think that this writer is probably concerned about "good 'ol boy" constructs in business and politics. It is unequal for women when they can't have a one on one conversation with an influential man and other men can develop that relationship. It is unequal when a woman uses her sexuality to get advantage, too. In the practical case of a public figure like a VP, rumors can be as damaging as facts, and they are both victims. Being associates, or friends, or golf pals is not dating. It is wrong and an inequality that affects women as well as men and we all need to put light on it. This probably won't change if opposite sexes stay attracted to each other and form other types of relationships as attraction and manipulation will be. It is temptation. There is also respect and self-control available to mitigate and I think that people need to value that and practice it.

Most nudist naturist resorts or parties are not swinger parties. These sexual things need to be out-front and honestly dealt with, so there are no misunderstandings. It seems to be another of those complex social situations.
Jbee

[Kayaker2]

This was an interesting article, and quite candid in observation.  I found the author to be interested in the motivations of the attendees to this event, not so much the male/female/gender fluid basis but more from the searching for community and connection perspective.  Each small interaction yielded a hint of the driver for commonality.  It seemed evident to the author that the equalizing influence was the nudity itself, despite such a wide variety in lifestyle preferences.  The author confesses to her own uncomfortable edges stretched by the mere presence at the meetup, but is willing to step beyond the edge to understand and inquire of others what drives them to commune in this way.  I found the comments by "Mike" to be most poignant.  The host has his own demons but by virtue of hosting provides safe harbor for those attending.  I'm curious what the host would have considered a "good" party based on the comment quote.  Regardless of the extremes in sexual orientation presented for shock value or to satisfy reader presumptions, I do think the natural state was presented as the common ground and freeing basis for interaction between those extremes.   Subtle, but making the equality point nonetheless.  " no rank or hierarchy here."   The fact that the backdrop locale is the most politically charged environment makes it even more striking.  Searchers all, for a safe harbor from that environment.  There will always be predators stalking their prey - but I got the impression the attendees mentioned were seeking community despite their differences.

[Greenbare Woods]

However, i think that this writer is probably concerned about "good 'ol boy" constructs in business and politics. It is unequal for women when they can't have a one on one conversation with an influential man and other men can develop that relationship. It is unequal when a woman uses her sexuality to get advantage, too. In the practical case of a public figure like a VP, rumors can be as damaging as facts, and they are both victims. Being associates, or friends, or golf pals is not dating. It is wrong and an inequality that affects women as well as men and we all need to put light on it. This probably won't change if opposite sexes stay attracted to each other and form other types of relationships as attraction and manipulation will be. It is temptation. There is also respect and self-control available to mitigate and I think that people need to value that and practice it.
Jbee

With all the false accusations of "sexual harassment" being used to take down men lately, it has become DANGEROUS for any man in any public position to be anywhere in the company of any woman.   It is UNEQUAL when a female can destroy a man's life and career with a false accusation of "sexual harassment" that even is true only amounts to saying that her "feelings" were hurt because she didn't like what he said.  She has become far too dangerous for men in positions to ever be with unless there is other witnesses and documentation.

Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Athletes, or TV personalities, they can take down any man they choose to attack by one or two unverified and unverifiable or false accusations of "sexual harassment."   

Even for men not in positions of power, ordinary men, false "harassment" or "rape" accusations happen any time some woman regrets her decisions.  There are many young men who install video recordings in their homes and bedrooms because of false "rape" accusations.  The culture and the sexist courts made women far too dangerous for men to be around.   

The last job I worked before I retired all the men were afraid to talk with the women.  Men would only speak with each other in hushed tones so we couldn't be overheard by females.  We would limit any speaking with women to strictly necessary business communications and then only a few short sentences. It created a hostile work environment for men.  One study by the US Army found that combat effectiveness is reduced because men are so afraid of being accused of "harassment" or worse by their female soldiers that needed communication has been cut off in many cases.

And yes.  The hateful prejudice (bigotry) of Elle magazine against normal straight men is part of the problem.

Bob

[jbeegoode]

I used to come up against very uncomfortable situations back when I was teaching junior high. The girls knew that they had this power of accusation. They were so young that they didn't know just how serious their action could be, and old enough to be cocky enough to try it. At one school, a very small school, 110, there was a group of girls, one of which had a half-baked dad on the school board. A couple of them began to make innuendos to me as if I might be predatory. I had to go to the principle about it and even then the response was uncomfortable.

It has been very much like witch hunt, but I think that things are beginning to tone down from the hysterics. I just don't know how these celebrities get away with actual harassment for so long until they topple.

The mere act of being nude is taken as an act of sexual harassment by many. We here all know that story.
Jbee

[eyesup]

One thing I got from the article was the whole safe-nesting response of the partyers to the recent unpleasantness. I picked up on that in the article and was wondering if she was reporting what she saw or what she interpreted.

I don't get the fear of politicians I'm seeing in the media today.
You vote 'em in and vote 'em out. Pretty straightforward.
We are lucky we have the structure in America to do that.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

Wobbly structure. I'll say no more.
Jbee

[eyesup]

Yes, maybe a bit wobbly, but still standing!

Duane

[Greenbare Woods]

Wobbly structure. I'll say no more.
Jbee

I was born in Seattle.  People still occasionally talked about Wobblies. Especially the Seattle General Strike, and the Everett Massacre.  Those were landmarks in an attempt to have a communist revolution in the US. 

[jbeegoode]

I'd forgotten about those Wobblies. I always thought of them as more socialists, and unionist like on steroids. From Wikipdeia:"The town of Spokane, Washington had outlawed street meetings, and arrested Elizabeth Gurley Flynn,[19] a Wobbly organizer, for breaking this ordinance. The response was simple but effective: when a fellow member was arrested for speaking, large numbers of people descended on the location and invited the authorities to arrest all of them, until it became too expensive for the town. In Spokane, over 500 people went to jail and four people died. The tactic of fighting for free speech to popularize the cause and preserve the right to organize openly was used effectively in Fresno, Aberdeen, and other locations. In San Diego, although there was no particular organizing campaign at stake, vigilantes supported by local officials and powerful businessmen mounted a particularly brutal counter-offensive."

I was just saying that the supporting legs of our democratic system have become less stable, or compromised. Sorry to mislead. Too political anyway. My bad.
Jbee

[eyesup]

I was just saying that the supporting legs of our democratic system have become less stable, or compromised.

More like still gettin' yer legs under you and learning to walk. Sometimes I don't believe people understand just how new and innovative the formation of this country was.
Compared to world history, were still a kid.

Duane