Encounters...what to do?

[nuduke]

......You used the W word, jbee*!!!!!!!!
I can't recall it being used in all my years of SN conversation.
Mind you I have advanced my education in that I now know the expression is the same both sides of the pond!

John

PS *Well done!

[jbeegoode]

As I recollect, it was used once at TSNS.

I don't want to mislead. The word is probably not used on this side. I suspect that most people would recognize it, but as a British term. The topic is rarely brought up. I used it just because the formal term sounded...too formal. Using one of the two "J" words seemed, at the time, too crass, but I wanted to use something that fit the image that would be suspected. Here, it is most often expressed as just a hand motion for someone who wastes time, energy or is in an illusion. After that, the derogatory "jerk" has been completely disassociated from the original use. If you had a perfect imitation of any American accent, and you used W properly, people would probably turn to each other and say, "Who's the English dude?"

There have been two instants at the parking area of Redington Pass, when I have bumped into a guy diddling, or playing with and I didn't appreciate it. While I advocate free range nudity, body freedom and naturist activities, public sex is my line to be drawn. Public affection is okay with me and I grew up in a world where that just didn't happen, tsk tsk, OMG. I don't want to see it. It disrupts the process of acceptance of the rest of body liberation. It is what the laws are about.
Jbee

[nuduke]

That's an interesting conundrum, jbee.  What is the 'point of shear' of open minded tolerance?  I tend to agree with you in respect of drawing the line at public sex.  This is because, as you observe, it gets in the way of public acceptance of the choice of nudity.  For myself, if I were at a public, naked tolerant place e.g. Reddington or AHG and came across someone wanking (there! I've used the word myself now. How liberating!) or people engaging in sexual activity, my tendency would be to toleration and recognising their freedoms.  Live & let live if it does no real harm.  However I would be concerned that others may be offended, even fellow naturists, by the imposition of public sight of what many think is a private activity.  I would favour recommending restraint therefore in the interests of maintaining a happy and unconcerned environment which could not be criticised for tolerating antisocial standards.  Of course I recognise that censure of some in the interests of harmony of the majority is hegemonic and really the answer is changing the majority to be more tolerant.  But then that doesn't seem like a practical or pragmatic way forward.

The naturist case, it's PR and the vehement insistence from most naturists is that it is not a sexual thing in any way.  This I would tend to side with.  I personally have found naturism to be something other than a sexual thing.  However, I read an article recently from the Telegraph, I think, reproduced in one of the Flipboard naturist magazines that took the position that really this non-sexual position of naturists is a bit overly purist and there mainly to help them gain acceptance in ssociety.  'Come on, pull the other one' it said.  Sex and nudity were linked, sex and the rest of life are intertwined and so why not admit sex into the life of naturism in the same proportion and stop denying normal sexual content in naturism.  A reasonable position I felt.  However, what the article leaves out is that perhaps naturism is an activity which is not in fact sexually connected any more than shopping, sport or gardening.  Naturism is a type of recreational and life choice that does, as the article asserted, pervade a wide range of activity.  So sex need not appear in it any more than in the above activity.  So a wanker amongst naked hikers is no more relevant or welcome than a wanker in the supermarket or the football pitch.  A proper place for everything and everything in it's proper place is the obvious conclusion.

Thinking about it, and muddying the waters of the above clarity (sort of!), I'd feel more tolerant of a wanker or people having it off in when in a naturist enviroment than when in the above mentioned textile contexts.  But I don't know why I feel like that but I do; yet, as I have said above, public demonstration of sex activity is not tolerable in the wrong context.

John

[jbeegoode]

Where to draw that line? I think I know how. Sex is on the minds of most all, much of the time. Thoughts come and go. There is generally healthily not much egoic control of them. Thinking can be disassociated from action.
How one dresses is not so much an activity. One can do about any activity dressed in about any fashion. Nudity is a style of dress. Sports, dance, work, or sex are activities that can have nothing to do with dress. Sex does not require nudity, any more than any other activity requires nudity. It is just a choice of dress, basically. It is simple nudity. Therefore nudity isn't about sex anymore than any other dress form.

Nudity can be disassociated from sex, or visa versa. To say that sex doesn't occur at all to a nudist is kinda silly. Thought happens. From my own experience and other's writings and comments, most people often tend to have wandering eyes at first in a socially nude situation, after coming from a textile world, but this drops away quickly. We will check each other out from time to time, and often be done with that quickly, apparently quicker than with clothes on. Thoughts happen, no matter what is worn.

A guy wanking, especially fantasizing focused about others, in public, brings others into his her sex. I like to say no to sex, or decide to participate. If someone is getting off, or trying to get me excited, it seems reasonable that I can avoid this manipulation and say no to the imposition. If someone imposed himself on DF, he may get his ass kicked, or interrupted in some uncomfortable way. These guys sitting in cars, not so discrete, or trying to be discrete but not succeeding, I try to ignore, or act as if I don't know, so as to not embarrass them. Maybe I should tell them that it is obvious. Maybe they don't know in their frenzied state of mind. It is extremely rare and I have better things to do than to interact with them.

Public sex is in the realm of public exhibitionism. Maybe it isn't such a weird thing, maybe it is, but it isn't synonymous with casual nudity. Sexual liberation, I suppose is for another forum. Body freedom, I believe is the matter, here.
Jbee

[nudewalker]

I must say you guys have given me a lot of food for thought. If we are honest with ourselves most of fashion is designed to attract the attention of the opposite sex. Sunday night was spent switching between the football game (66F at kickoff in Phoenix) and the music awards show. In both cases between the cheerleaders that get shown every commercial break and the presenters and performers at the music awards showing skin. Much the same as at the beach during spring break; the bathing suits are made to entice and attract and I doubt if total nudity would be any more tempting.

From your comments Jbee the mention of others writings brings me to a nudist beach in New Jersey. They have their own forum and have named the so called perverts that frequent the beach and harass mostly single women. Descriptions have been provided so that the regulars know who they are and can harass them back. Which is a case of those who frequent the beach making sure it is a safe place for all. Last winter, I talked to some people that are trying to get a portion of Fort Desoto near Tampa designated as clothing optional. One of the biggest arguments they ace is the perception that people will be having sex on the beach. That and what about the kids is thrown up to them all the time.

Nuduke mentioned the nudity/sex link as written in the Telegraph. It's sounds like one of those articles that was wrote as letting people hear what they want to hear. Much like the far mongering that has been part of our media since the Paris bombings, se I told you and lets go get the bastards. Easy to say from the comfort of being behind a TV camera or a keyboard.

I remember the days of "free love" with the idea that if your attracted and want to get it on it's normal human response and go for it. Who knows when the term "get a room" came into being, perhaps as an answer or all those things came with my maturity level. But I think what we are dealing with is the idea of a little bit of being a deviant. Much like the early days of my naked hiking part of the excitement was the idea you might be caught. Perhaps the same goes here; as maybe part exhibitionism, part idea that one might get caught. I do agree with Jbee as I have much more to do than interact with those people and to be honest have never had such an encounter. Or maybe I have just not paid attention?

Sexual liberation is best left to another forum and maybe I should see what the thinking is there. As body freedom is and should be the focus here my attention would be to protect the areas that nudity is accepted. Much like those who have banded together to protect the nude venue at Gunnison's Beach.

[Greenbare Woods]

Public sex is in the realm of public exhibitionism. Maybe it isn't such a weird thing, maybe it is, but it isn't synonymous with casual nudity. Sexual liberation, I suppose is for another forum. Body freedom, I believe is the matter, here.
Jbee

Modern culture is dominated by large monotheistic religions that include asceticism and the notion that bodies are sinful.  The big religions object on religious grounds to human bodies and include everything from natural body functions to the sight of human bodies.  Monotheistic asceticism has gone on since Moses railed against the Hebrews who worshiped a golden calf and engaged in all manner of lascivious (body) pleasure.  The notion that "bodies are filth," made of the filth of the earth rather than "heavenly" is as old as the big Abrahamic religions. 

This is in contrast to the culture of Imperial Rome where "baths" were an important part of their cities wherever they went.  Roman baths were public toilets, swimming pools, washing places, and usually had slaves to provide sexual enjoyment.  Public toilets were arranged in open conversational groupings so you could chat with others while you shit.  Washing, feeling, sex, all body pleasures were welcome in Rome, and hated by Christians.

In the nudist world today they accept the sight of bodies, but don't you dare be seen doing any natural body function (other than eating).   Even at nudist resorts bodies are divided between male and female, and then in the uni-sex room the toilets are usually hidden behind cubicle partitions.  OMG, what if we are seen taking a shit, as if everyone else doesn't do it every day.  Your back side is "filth," and you better put a towel under yourself even if  you just came out of the hot tub.   "What about the children?"  Body freedom to me means bodies are acceptable and that includes body functions and body pleasures. 

Humans are starved for the sight of other humans.   Its not accidental that porn is said to be about half of all Internet use, and women dominate porn viewing in heavily populated Asian countries.  People starve for the sight of other humans, our own species, doing our own behavior. 

Nudity isn't explicitly sexual but people are sexual, all people are sexual, and all people enjoy seeing other people being sexual.  Skimpy outfits are intended to display sexuality and attract attention even more than naked bodies.  We need to get over ourselves, to accept ourselves, and to stop pretending that we, or "they," are offended by the sight of our own species.   

Bob

[eyesup]

I suspect that what lays behind most of this are the beliefs and urges that most of us rely on, i.e.;

We are civilized (not animals), therefore we don't behave like them, and
We are in control, therefore we can't allow anyone or thing imply we aren't.

Both beliefs are chock full of bad ideas and convoluted reasoning that involve more than unwanted public behavior.

I do believe that we should try our best to be civilized and try to control our, sometimes irrational urges, and not have to rely on dogmatic rhetoric.

Duane

[nuduke]

Sex is on the minds of most all, much of the time

Speak for yourself!...and me!

Sex does not require nudity

However, it might need a couple of strategically placed holes in the clothing!

Nudity can be disassociated from sex, or visa versa. To say that sex doesn't occur at all to a nudist is kinda silly

Hear hear.  That was the main thrust of the article I read.  It wasn't knocking nudists it was just recognising that they do have some views, beliefs and strictures, (e.g. nudism isn't sexual) that are equally irrational, arising from the need to preserve their freedoms to be nude.

Sexual liberation, I suppose is for another forum. Body freedom, I believe is the matter, here

  Indeed.  A very important distinction, jbee, aptly placed.
I also very much agree with Bob that our views, taboos and preferences (i.e. the ones of this group of predominantly white, males 50-70 yrs old) are coloured, whether we like it or not, by the infusion of the taboos and censures of the abrahamic religions that were the norm of our formative years.  But eschew them as we might today, societies are still very infused with the content and redaction of the biblical rules and so our behaviour is still tempered by those scriptures if only to guide us how to act to avoid the wrath of the conventional majority that act on the learned rules of society and rarely think for themselves on fundamental matters; and so equate nudity with sin.

Both beliefs are chock full of bad ideas and convoluted reasoning that involve more than unwanted public behavior.
I do believe that we should try our best to be civilized and try to control our, sometimes irrational urges, and not have to rely on dogmatic rhetoric

Again, I vote in support!  Yet consider:  Duane wants to control his irrational urges.  But who defines the rational from which his urges might stray?  That conventional society that draws it's rules from the ancient books of religion.

Gosh it really makes one think that we should start all over again!  Where can we find people that are a tabula rasa upon which a new experiment in morals and ethics, societal behaviour towards one another and the reforging of convention could take place?  I guess we can't - without risking being branded as trying to create some sort of Hitlerian, Mansonite, Stalinist dystopian society.  I do wonder how a group of people raised with no preconceptions and no outside contact would turn out.  I guess the parralels lie in those tribes that arose and lived in isolation in isolated areas e.g. Inuit, Polynesian Island dwellers and peoples of South American jungles etc.  They ended up with societies not so different from our own - people on balance got on with eachother but fought eachother, stole from eachother, shared with eachother, entertained, argued etc etc in very recognisable ways.  ...

...and maybe the tenets of Abrahamic religions are not so bad in terms of general society.  We tend to think about out small sector of naturist humanity where the old rules are not fit for purpose. But maybe they do more good than ill on balance and therefore fall into the 'aint broke don't fix' category.  I'm not supporting convention or status quo, just pointing out that we need to take a balanced view of our preferences amongst all the preferences that can exist! 

John

[jbeegoode]

Lord knows that I questioned everything and experimented during the late sixties and seventies sexual revolution. There was fortunately plenty tuned in to the same social revolution. I discovered the free love ideals didn't jive well with the monogamous. So, I personally decided to abandoned it for the latter. I found something more fulfilling than casual sex. Most people need some degree of emotional bond to have effective sex, some don't. For some it is objectification of another human.

The Jewish religions are pretty practical. For example pork used to go bad and kill people. No pork, no trichinosis. There is a drive to preserve ones genetic material and hence family. Knowledge of "like begetting like" goes way back. These thing were practical, social order and pretty basic until certain rulers got a hold of the reigns of our Abrahamic offshoots and got carried away.

With these two things in mind, I found myself finding less value in unbridled purely sexual expressions. I've never been a fan of hardcore porn. It lacks humanity, feeling and I don't care to watch someone else doing it instead of myself. There is little stimulation.

My "pendulum" freely swung from one side to the other, but eventually arrived somewhere in the middle, wrapped in heart, a natural state. I'm not in agreement with stoning, or institutional slavery and role mandates.

My experience also tells me that mere nudity has less to do with sex than strategic coverings. That is unless one is coming from the repressed oppressed sick society that we live in.

Simply put, nude good, period.
Please, (I'm praying or pleading to "them" here) keep those filthy societal mitts off of my body, trying to make it something that it is not.

Wow, all I did was write the word "wank" and look what happened!
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

We are civilized (not animals), therefore we don't behave like them, and
We are in control, therefore we can't allow anyone or thing imply we aren't.
Duane

Well, the concept of "Civilized" comes from Imperial Rome and meant acting like people from the City, from Rome.  That was in contrast to "Villains" who lived in country villas.  Civilized Romans wouldn't think of spending a day without visiting the (nude) bath and enjoying body pleasures, then perhaps going to the Coliseum to watch criminals being eaten by lions or some other violence.  The concept that "civilized" equates to "prude" is a later Christian overlay from the declining years of Civil society. 

We may not be animals (questionable) but why does that mean we have to give up enjoying our lives.

Quote from: jbee

    Sex is on the minds of most all, much of the time

Some shrinks have concluded that men think about sex every 5 or 6 minutes (except during football).   And women more often than men. 

Bob

[jbeegoode]

Quote from: jbee

    Sex is on the minds of most all, much of the time

Some shrinks have concluded that men think about sex every 5 or 6 minutes (except during football).   And women more often than men. 

Bob
The stats I read were every 5 or 6 seconds. That would be true for me when I was twenty. I'd like to have sex every five or six minutes, what a wonderful way to die.  Women more often than men! Hmmm, that is hard to swallow.
Jbee

[nudewalker]

Quote from: jbee

    Sex is on the minds of most all, much of the time

Some shrinks have concluded that men think about sex every 5 or 6 minutes (except during football).   And women more often than men. 

Bob

I'm sure they mean American football and not the variety played overseas. Besides all the commercial breaks during football games selling ED drugs along with all the other "sex sells" ads I'm sure it's more than 5-6 minutes. Women more often than men? I'm sure there could be times as their cycle goes as I remember discussing erotic dreams with a girl I dated in college. It seems as our sexual encounters increased her dreams became more vivid while with the release mine dropped off. Sure there is a study somewhere.
The stats I read were every 5 or 6 seconds. That would be true for me when I was twenty. I'd like to have sex every five or six minutes, what a wonderful way to die.  Women more often than men! Hmmm, that is hard to swallow.
Jbee

[eyesup]

But who defines the rational from which his urges might stray?

Me, using my faith, my heritage and the laws of my country.

Actually, rational and irrational are tied up with the state of the civilization you are in. A civilization being a culture, or cultures, that define what is in it's best interest and then propagating those ideas into the future by maintaining a continuity of knowledge.

Culture is a beast of a different color. A great many things go into that definition. How robust a civilization is can be measured by how many different cultures can coexist.

Duane

[nuduke]

Wow, all I did was write the word "wank" and look what happened!

What happened?  We had a jolly good section of debate and comment about some pretty deep stuff.  Enjoyed it thoroughly.
You don't have to stop using the word wank, jbee - it's fine.  The nub of my comments (in hindsght!) was that we have avoided such modes of expression in the past probably because of the need not to attract censure and I guess we won't stop, just that it's important to know mutually that we understand that that self censorship is happening.  And to those who would dare to be censorious....Wankwankwankwankwankwankwankwankwankwank to you all!  Freedom for skin and for thought, say I!

John

[eyesup]

. . . we understand that that self censorship is happening.

That's the only kind allowed.

Duane