Naturist links

[BlueTrain]

Malls have been around for a hundred years, you realize. The original idea was to get everything under cover and out of the weather. The first malls around where I live only go back to the 1950s. Everything that has been said here about malls and shopping could have been said (and probably was) about the downtown business area of my small hometown in the 1950s. And everything said about both Wal-Mart and on-line shopping was being said about the Sears catalog before WWI. It would ruin the local economy.

Some comments were made that smaller and smaller garments covering only certain areas of the body creates fetishes. Perhaps, but with "real" nudists, the opposite is true. If it's too cold to be entirely nude, you're allowed to put something on, like a t-shirt. Then a sweatshirt. The last thing you are allowed to cover is your genitals. Nudism, one might conclude, is all about the genitals.

[John P]

Some comments were made that smaller and smaller garments covering only certain areas of the body creates fetishes. Perhaps, but with "real" nudists, the opposite is true. If it's too cold to be entirely nude, you're allowed to put something on, like a t-shirt. Then a sweatshirt. The last thing you are allowed to cover is your genitals. Nudism, one might conclude, is all about the genitals.

I suggested the link between skimpy clothes and fetishes. But BlueTrain, you have that last point entirely backward, and you're basing it on made-up data. In fact no naturist says "The last thing you are allowed to cover is your genitals"! For naturists, all parts of the body have dignity and none are obscene. If you want to wear some clothing but not be entirely covered, you can put on whatever's most convenient, or most comfortable, or simply what suits your whims. It could be pants, or a skirt, or a shirt. If someone says that a naturist who goes around bottomless must have an urge to show the genitals, then it seems to me as if that observer doesn't understand the naturist's logic, or lack of logic. Could it be that the observer is the one who's obsessed with genitals?

[eyesup]

Nudists and most certainly naturists are not "all about any particular" part of the body. The intent is to experience the surroundings, wherever that is, while naked. Getting rid of the barriers (in my case, clothes) that prevent that from happening is what I focus on.

I am not a doctoral psychologist. My training occurs at any given moment I happen to be paying attention. So my belief is that any focus on a particular area or body part would tend to be a fetish focused on that.

If anyone is bothered by the weather, there is no rule about what to put back on in order to stay, warm, dry or protected from the sun. I agree in general with JohnP's post.

Duane

[Peter S]

If we accept TV judgements as the arbiter in such things, nudity (in the UK at least) seems to be defined by the groin area. That’s the one physical area they fight shy of broadcasting, while breasts and buttocks are OK. Radio, of course, let’s you see everything ...

[BlueTrain]

There is no "made up data." Those are club rules. I don't write the rules. But based entirely on observation as well as reading through this forum, it seems to be an obvious conclusion. While it could be that the observer is obsessed with genitals (and perhaps even female breasts), it's hard to prove one way or the other. There is always an element of taking the moral high ground, what with referring to people who wear clothes (the unnatural 99.9999% of the world) as "textiles." They aren't pawns of the corporate fashion world, which is obvious when you see how people are dressed, nor are they obsessed with clothing. It is we who are obsessed with nudity and I freely admit that I am included.

[Greenbare Woods]

Malls have been around for a hundred years, you realize. The original idea was to get everything under cover and out of the weather. The first malls around where I live only go back to the 1950s. Everything that has been said here about malls and shopping could have been said (and probably was) about the downtown business area of my small hometown in the 1950s. And everything said about both Wal-Mart and on-line shopping was being said about the Sears catalog before WWI. It would ruin the local economy.

I was in Paris and happened into a covered place with small shops on both sides.   The sign said it was the "First indoor mall."   I think it opened in the 1700s.   But then I remembered that Imperial Rome had a shopping area which was about equivalent to modern malls.  Ancient cities all had "the market" which was characterized by a narrow street lined with merchants.

Some comments were made that smaller and smaller garments covering only certain areas of the body creates fetishes. Perhaps, but with "real" nudists, the opposite is true. If it's too cold to be entirely nude, you're allowed to put something on, like a t-shirt. Then a sweatshirt. The last thing you are allowed to cover is your genitals. Nudism, one might conclude, is all about the genitals.

Interesting observation.  It really is all about the genitals.  You can uncover the rest of your body any time you want and nobody would blink.  Nobody would call you a nudist.   Nobody would arrest you for going downtown with the rest of your body uncovered.  Only when you uncover your genitals does it become public concern, and only then does it become nudist.    Common culture requires covering of body "bits" that produce poo, pee, sperm, babies, or milk, normal biological processes that everyone does, but isn't allowed even to talk about. 

Nudist farms reverse the covering.  You expose to public view your "bits" that produce poo, pee, sperm, babies, or milk, but even the  factory farm nudists still react in horror if you are seen actually using any of those parts.  Many nudist parks have common washing areas where men and women wash their bodies together, but still have separate rooms that have separate stalls for any such common body functions as poo or pee.  Nudists are all about having their "bits," seen, but not seen while being used.  And sit on a towel so your bits don't touch our chair.  They have to be seen, but can't be allowed to touch anything.   

And, of course a big use for "bits" is physical sexual pleasure, expelling and/or sharing body fluids from our "bits."   OMG! We want to see your sexual bits, but any use thereof is "not what nudism is about."  That's not what nudism is about.   (yea, it really is).   

Often in winter I wear a fleece jacket, like a hoodie without the hood.  It leaves my crotch, penis, balls, and anus uncovered.  People do the same at "nudist" resorts in cold weather. 

Bob

[JOhnGw]

In the cold covering the trunk or core of the body gives most benefit.
In the UK postmen often wear shorts throughout the year with the upper body clad in clothing of appropriate warmth for the weather.
If one feels cold when naked a sweat shirt gives far more benefit than warm trousers and the average nudist wouldn't bother to put trousers of shorts on is the upper body garment did the trick.
It so happens that most upper body garments these days are of a length which creates a willy-dangler or fanny-flasher. If shirts were six inches longer as they were in the early twentieth century then the genitals would not be exposed.

[BlueTrain]

Given that for me, for the cold season, that's how I dress around the house when possible: bottomless. But it's entirely a private thing. Seeing and being seen is not something I do, although I'm not saying there's something wrong with it. Seeing and being seen, especially the seeing part, does not necessarily have anything to do with nudity. People enjoy people watching no matter what. It's a social thing, just like hanging out on the corner with your buddies. Just because the people are dressed in a certain way or not dressed at all shouldn't matter, although I imagine that it does.

Sorry to divert the thread like this.

[jbeegoode]

I like naked, as naked as comfortably possible. I want to be fully naturally alive. It isn't focused on any one part of my body. I enjoy free feet use as much as free crotch, if not more.

When it is chilly, I cover my trunk and the rest is still comfortable. Just covering up my crotch or putting on pants isn't practical for warmth.

None of these have anything to do with anyone else, as far as I'm concerned.

It does affect others, but these others are generally not accustomed to being around naked, exposed or socially nude people. I don't go to be with others nude because I want to be seen. I enjoy seeing, but then I enjoys costume parties and fashion displays, too.

I see the body, curiosity is finished and I am done looking, generally.

All of this is the reports that i have always heard from people experiencing social nudity. It ain't mysterious, edgy, or sexy like it was before being around social nudity and this change happens within a matter of minutes, "usually."

Any focus on genitals and concerns of other people are generated by living in a textile world. What Blue train is supposing comes from a perspective of experience of the textile world. It would be odd if he didn't find the nudist's truth if he gave it a try. It is perfectly understandable, Bluetrain. When I have been away from socially nude situations for a spell, at times, my eyes have sometimes darted and it has a lot to do with triggers like genitals, then poof, the textile crap is gone again and I am sane again.

 Rules?
I don't know of any club rules other than some banning swimsuits, like at the pool, that you could be talking about. The naturist or nudists farms will demand nudity, meaning no covering. It doesn't mean uncover specific parts of the body, it means be nude, all over. The textile has made this thing about genital focus, clear down to shaving the clothing of pubic hair, as more naked, exposed, explicit.
If someone is sitting around covering a part of the body, particularly genitals, then they are focused on genitals. There is something wrong, nasty, sexy, shameful usually in their perspective or attitude. If they see their body as that, then what are they thinking about my body? Sometimes that makes me uncomfortable, and many others get much more uncomfortable than me. Who wants that poison in the well? Who wants to be looked upon as any of those things? So, that is one reason for those rules, which are very rare.

Bottomfree?
I confess that I often find a bottom free look tantalizing, sexy. But, take the cloth off and I'm back to my better balanced humanity. Nudity allows unlearning of that kind of thing. Bottoms free is just a cute look, for some reason, after that. I was trained to those reactions along the line. These things all have to do with me. The other person is trying to ward off a sunburn or keep warm. The crap is my crap, not theirs.

Obsession?
I'm reluctant to claim that I am obsessed with nudity. I love nudity. Nudity is as Bob says, the natural default. Nudity should not be a problem. Textile obsessions make it a problem. A body is a matter of fact. Textiles make a big deal of nudity in a negative way. They would destroy lives and punish people for not fitting in with their obsession. You may see a casually dressed slob on the weekend, but I'd bet that they will likely be "dressed for success" on Monday. People are made to feel afraid to not fit in by their costumes, or have a complete ego identity wrapped around "the clothes that make the man". That is obsession. Living nude is natural.

One might call living nude and my activities in concern, an obsession. I put time and energy into it. The current social-cultural take on nudity is an outrageous wrong. I would call my activities a passion, not an obsession. I can't do much about much else in this world, but  can do some activities to right this wrong. I can live free. That feels good! I have been nude nearly all the time for so long that it is odd and uncomfortable to be dressed. That is not obsession, that's uncomfortable. If I'm not distracted, or busy when wearing clothing, I don't like it, sooner or later. That isn't obsession and to feel uncomfortable is because of an imposition of an unnatural lifestyle.

I don't think that nudity is an obsession here for the better part of us. I think that nudity for most of us here is similar to me, comfortable, alive, fun and freedom to strike out at an unjust situation. We did a poll years ago as to why we do what we do. Feeling compelled, passionate, these are healthy drivers. Camaraderie on a street corner, or the internet, we feel that, too. That doesn't have to do with being seen, we're like anonymous and on the radio. We're not seen...well...except Bob mowing his lawn...DF and me...uh...maybe so, maybe not. It is about standing up and being ones own truth.

MALLS!
Is "Seven Corners" mall still there? I remember the grand opening, like 60 years ago. The first big regional mall in the D.C. area.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

Oh, my! Seven Corners Mall! Well, it's still there but it's no longer an indoor mall. Tyson's Corner has been completely remodeled and sparkles with affluence. I live five or ten minutes from Springfield Mall and it, too, was remodeled. But this is all another subject.

Personally, I'm hard pressed to come up with perfectly sound and logical reasons why I enjoy being nude, especially out-of-doors when the weather is cooperating, which is finally is today. But instead of giving me opportunities for nude hiking, it means work on the yard, work on the deck and so on. Work, work, work. I did go hiking today, fully clothed and in compliance with all federal, state and local ordinances. Most of them, anyway. After a half-day's work around the house, I really don't have a lot of energy left over for fun. Someone said the secret is to keep moving. That's fine as long as the trail is level and smooth and hopefully dry. My usual long hike (about two miles out and back) takes me through brush, sometimes mud and sometimes even wading the creek, and always up and down hills. It's remarkable that I can take a walk that far and stay mostly in the woods but houses are still very close by.

Now, if I could only do that nude.

By the way, Don Beyer passed away. That's where we used to buy our cars.

[John P]

As usual, JBG has expressed things perfectly, on the topic of clothing and partial clothing. Shopping malls, well, a part of the modern world, no better or worse than what came before as far as body acceptance is concerned.

Maybe there was a club somewhere that had a rule that if you had a shirt on, you had to cover your crotch too. A rule like that doesn't seem like good naturism to me: fixation on genitals and whether they're covered or not is a concern of the textile world. It goes along with the rule that if there's dancing, people have to be clothed, or mustn't touch. All to prove that we aren't doing anything sexual! The modern attitude is that we do don't change our activities just because we're nude. Do what you normally do, but do it naked.

Speaking of times when those awkward parts are in actual use, I know a naturist couple who had a baby (who is now a teenager, how we're getting old). The woman told me that they went to a naturist resort and she was nursing the baby, and she noticed that people were moving away from her, as though she was contagious in some way. I think it's a feeling that there's too much intimacy going on there, and it makes people uncomfortable.

It's interesting to ask who's got the fetish, the naturist or the textile? Well, all of us naturists grew up wearing clothes, we're used to clothes and we still wear them most of the time, and we don't think much about it. But a person who's compulsive about clothing gets really agitated if they see someone naked, and especially if they're naked themselves! So I'd say the adaptable people, the ones who can go back and forth between clothed and nude, are the naturists. The ones who give huge importance to a state of dress are the textile people.

I also went on a hike today, and it was warm and humid enough that I worked up a sweat. Walking naked would have been perfect! But not very welcome with the people out with their dogs.

[BlueTrain]

Those who are compulsive about clothes, and there certainly are such people, seem to be more concerned with their idea of style than anything else. But they don't seem to be that concerned with what other people wear except in a very negative way. You have to wear your clothes in a certain way or you're just not with it. You have to wear slim blue jeans with the bottom turned up just so, for example. Otherwise, you're just a dork. I don't really know what that word means but it sure coveys a lot of meaning.

Of course, there are those who expect you to be decent and think everything depends on it. The ultimate form of that is to be covered head to toe and I do occasionally see such people. Only slits for the eyes and the hands are okay and curiously, the feet. Some communities have supposedly passed ordinances against exposed underwear or sagging jeans. Hitch up them overalls, boy!

All of this is far outside most people's hierarchy of worries.

[eyesup]

I see people dressed in a manner that looks distinctly painful, but I make no comment. We all have the right to go about dressed or undressed as we please. No matter how much discomfort we’re in.

Is a puzzlement!

Duane

[Safebare]

I am traveling today. Attending a family function in Key West this weekend. I packed light but had to consider those I will be interacting with to choose the right wardrobe. Flip-flops, shirt and shorts for five days. I brought a sarong instead of a towel.  Then chose what to wear on the flight. Why not wear the sarong?
Maybe for the trip home. 😉
Shorts, shirt (buttons & collar) & loafers. Socks, of course. There is plenty on social media about how discusting bare feet are on the plane.
 Give me a break!
I roll up the hems on my shorts, but this is not the fashion of today. Shorts should reach the knee, or lower. I glance back to the sarong.
The TSA guy stops me after passing through the pre-transportation acceptability device. He asks about my socks. "Where did you get them?"
They are the disposable, try on socks at Academy Sports. I thought it stupid to throw them away after just one use.
I want to fit in, but the social rules are so stupid.
~Safebare

[BlueTrain]

Rolling up the hem of shorts? Those would be "Bombay bloomers!" You may have to look that up. I must confess I have so far missed all the complaints about disgusting bare feet, though. But women don't seem to wear socks with their dress-up shoes. Hose perhaps but I've never read how any women actually liked wearing hose, either.

But if there is any item of clothing that conveys a comfortable feeling, it has to be "loafers." Don't have any myself. Wonder why?