Beach etiquette (UK)

[jbeegoode]

When someone else is drawn into the sexual act it is voyeurism, or exhibitionist. Somebody is getting off on pushing themselves into my life, my space.

Because of the societal outlook on sexuality, involving children produces a deep sense of shame, guilt, loss of trust. People carry these things from childhood. It gets into molestation, which underlies most substance abuse. I could go on and on.

Sex isn't naked body unless, some person with a textile context or perspective makes it so.

Personally I don't care to see other people having sex unless, I'm a part of it, and having become monogamous, I don't now care for that. To me, it is too emotionless, dehumanized to just watch f**ing.

Someone playing with themselves while they look at you is offensive and direct confrontation. Having sex in public instead of just being a tad less discrete is exhibitionism for most, that is why it is done, it is not casual. There is a time and place for frisky, as it is very overt behavior. A nude human body is simply benign, because sex is only a part of what one would do naked.
Jbee

[eyesup]

Thoughts and observations on reading these recent posts.

On naked outside:
The 1st time I was ‘naked in nature’ was when I was a kid and when I 1st began intentionally hiking naked, about 22 years ago. It wasn’t about glorifying anything. It was an exploration into something that I was aware was, not so much prohibited but, not ‘spoken of’. I was learning something new. My intent was to find what I am looking for on a hike. Peace, quiet and participation in the landscape around me. Not wearing clothes remove the last vestiges of the engineered experience pushed on us by corporate sport equipment companies. I don’t need those devices to amplify my sensations.

Why do most people avoid doing anything naked not associated with sex? Maybe there is a tendency to follow along without question. We probably all do this on occasion, usually because there is no good reason not to, as opposed to simply being ornery. Although there is nothing wrong with being ornery on occasion also. Sometimes it’s the appropriate response.

On body acceptance:
Our bodies are roadmaps of where we have been, what we’ve seen and experienced. A well used road map will be folded, creased and worn with ragged edges. It will have coffee or other stains on it with debris caught in the folds from the places it’s been. Is it perfect? Nope! So why speak ill of some ones appearance. To alter or change that is to deny everything you’ve done. We get old and bent and wrinkled with spots and other markers of where we’ve been. I see these things on people and I am intrigued. There is a story there.

A chasing of the wind is the idea of perfection. The lady in the article said that, ‘Our idea of perfection has become skewed’. I have never sought perfection. It’s impossible, and I wouldn’t want it if I imagined I saw it. I see it proclaimed at times that, “You are perfect! Your body is beautiful!” What a load of hooey! I hope I never come to that conclusion. I am, as those of an artistic bent love to say when discussing what they’re doing, ‘A work in progress’. Constantly getting rid of bits that didn’t work out. More of a hodge-podge. I am not perfect but am made as a human is supposed to be made, able to manage in life as well as if not better than those imagined as perfect. Warts and all.

Dealing with others:

I also don't think that "body acceptance" is necessarily a good thing. It's another way of say, let yourself go

That’s not the meaning. For me it means, “no one else is in control of those decisions”. I am not about to allow someone to dictate whether my body is acceptable, what my view of it is or my choices of how I take care of it. If you accept another’s definition, you have relinquished authority. You’ve accepted someone else’s decision. Body acceptance simply means that you accept that it is your responsibility and that is your choice.

When I meet a differing opinion I am more interested in why. What’s the reason? I don’t understand the visceral, “f’***em” response when others encounter opposition. If I encounter a barrier, I find a way around or an explanation to why they think that way. Then I’ll tell them I disagree. It’s a free country.

I can’t conform to a multitude of differing opinions of what I should be doing or how I should be behaving. That is an unreasonable demand. If the average person has no ability to be emotionally and intellectually adept at adapting to change, then the fault lays with them. I am weary of being expected to be aware of what everyone is thinking. I cannot read minds and would refuse to even if I could, as I have a fear of dark and empty spaces.

It’s not that I don’t care.  I can’t care about that many different people. I wish I could. But I am not blessed with that gift. I try to discern my responsibilities and see to that.

Relying on groupthink:
I tend to shy away from movements and other organized groups. I have participated in them at times, but I eventually drift away from all the organized activities. Don’t much care for regimentation. I can take only a certain amount of the bullet-point lifestyle.

Lotta interesting stuff flying around there!

Duane

[BlueTrain]

With some of these things in mind, let me take this in a different direction, seeing as how there are contributors here from the U.S. and the UK, at least, and perhaps other places.

Are there differences between nudists and nudism in different places? Do people behave very differently in those different places? Someone once wrote that American (maybe it was the French) nudists were always looking over their shoulder, worried about what people would think. The Germans, on the other hand, were bold and daring in their approach. But those descriptions may be dated.  But the U.S. is so large and varied that we ourselves may be different from place to place. I doubt, for example, that any nudist in Texas would want to be compared to a nudist in California or Vermont.

[jbeegoode]

I notice that when folks start shuckin' clothes, they become more alike. They become less Texas, less California, less political and more just people living in their moment. They get comfortable with it in relatively a short time. They are naked people and the window dressing falls off with the dressing, that is their identities and other world perceptions of themselves are irrelevant for awhile. That's why psychological encounter groups used nudity as a tool to get past those "games."
Jbee

[eyesup]

I agree, Jbee. I suspect that removal of clothes is the great equalizer. There is no reason to try to figure out what someone does or believes by simple observation. It will always require a conversation. A much better method.

BlueTrain, as for dealing with people comparing me to someone or something else, I can’t worry about that since I have no control over or effect on them. I don’t have the time.

Duane

[nuduke]

Could I just register my hearty general approval of Duane's long post below especially the bits on body acceptance and dealing with others.  There speaks a true thoughtful, inclusive, pluralistic liberal. Obviously I say this because it chimes in with my general outlook! but it seems to me that mutual consideration is the key to cooperative living.  That's an ideal of course but what's wrong with ideals ....OK, Bob, as I wrote that I realised that some people's ideals are absolutely horrific! Let's say positive ideals relating to the common good....but then views of what's common good may vary.  Anyway, general liberal outlook for me.

That is not to say that every other possible kind of ugly or deviant human behavior is also acceptable or educational.

I'd agree with that too, Bob although I suspect we might differ somewhat in the degree of what we define as unacceptable or uneducational.

John

[BlueTrain]

"BlueTrain, as for dealing with people comparing me to someone or something else, I can’t worry about that since I have no control over or effect on them. I don’t have the time."

I'm retired. I have all the time in the world. However, when I've seen a group of naked people, they sure don't all look alike to me.

[eyesup]

There speaks a true thoughtful, inclusive, pluralistic liberal.

I’ll accept that last one with the little “L”.

Duane

[BlueTrain]

No offense to anyone but this is a form of an organized group with some norms of its own, as vague and as well-enforced as any other group. There is group think here, I think, too. This is a sort of community, a community of the blind, in a manner of speaking (since for the most part we can't see one another, even in spite of the pictures, so the communication is not entirely complete.

I'm not really sure if I'm liberal or conservative but I try not to be radical and mostly I'm not.

[Greenbare Woods]

Facebook has me categorized as "Liberal."   Some others would call me "conservative."   I think of myself as mostly Libertarian.  Freedom first. Government last. 

[Safebare]

Labels, I disagree with most. I am very conservative with regards to government, which is why I get so disgusted with 'conservatives' that inact legislation on private matters (abortion, marriage, bathrooms, sex habits, etc.). But very liberal in my acceptance of others. Live and let live. I agree that government has obligations to the governed in making sure we all have access to basic human needs, and recognize that has socialistic aspects, but that's where it ends. Public, ie.my money, should not go to schools for advantaged kids or advanced education.
If I have to have a label, I guess independent fits well.

[BlueTrain]

I imagine that's why college tuition is fifty times more expensive now than when I went to college. But I agree that labels are problematic. They usually tend to be accurate but by nature, are limiting. You are a lot more than what one word can describe, or at least I hope so. But you probably aren't as independent as either you wish or you think. Taxes are another discussion, probably best not discussed here.

[nuduke]

In the Parliamentary hive,
Liberal or Conservative —
Whig or Tory — I don't know —
But into Parliament you shall go!
W.S.Gilbert, Iolanthe A1
John

[BlueTrain]

I think Churchill pointed out that the design of Parliament compared with other legislature assembly halls produces politics in which there are no degrees. You're either on one side or the other. But in typical semi-circular arrangements, there are degrees, hence the left and right in politics. It isn't a straight line, either, but more like a horseshoe magnet in which the opposite polarities are close to one another. Of course in some countries, there is only one party and deviation is not allowed.

[Greenbare Woods]

I think Churchill pointed out that the design of Parliament compared with other legislature assembly halls produces politics in which there are no degrees. You're either on one side or the other. But in typical semi-circular arrangements, there are degrees, hence the left and right in politics. It isn't a straight line, either, but more like a horseshoe magnet in which the opposite polarities are close to one another. Of course in some countries, there is only one party and deviation is not allowed.

From watching Parliament on BBC one sees a lot of yelling and shouting of agreement or disagreement.  Over time there have been serious disagreements.  I don't know if that's the design or just the custom.  The PM announces his decision and its met with cheers or boos or both. Electing the PM on a party line vote seems to be their only real function. 

The US Congress does not allow yelling or shouting. Its against the rules even to address your remarks to another member.   The US Congress only rarely assembles.  Most of the time the staff is there, and only 3 or 4 people for and a like number against some issue are taking turns speaking.  The remainder of the house is empty.  They take votes late in the day. The members all come in, vote, and leave.  No floor discussion is allowed during votes. 

Both arrangements have advantages and disadvantages.