Not in that sense

Are there any other issues that bother you about nudism / naturism not covered above? How can it be Christian? Other? Any question is acceptable, just keep the conversation courteous and respectful.<P>Only Residents and higher may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Not in that sense

Postby Petros » Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:42 am

Not at all a struggle with accepting the concept or assessing pros and cins.

But I have been finding the past few days a bit struggle some.

To be brief [well, we can hope]: it has here turned decidedly hot and humid after a protracted cool spring. And here we are out in the country \, not all that overlooked, where one could go for a spot of nuditywithout outside interference. Herself, as mentioned, has definite problems with even the thought of nudity, so in her presence considerate as I am I maintain clothing; but I do get att least two good nude stretches most days.

The problem - with the weather shift, I am feeling more and more restlesss when clad. Going to town is hard, but clearly a necessary evil. But my body really wants to sit in the living room in its skin, yet I cannot raise the possibility without causing upset.

Stressful. You would think I would be used to it, but the temp shift came too fast to ease into it.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Not in that sense

Postby jasenj1 » Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:37 am

Bless you for being considerate to your wife. I pray she'll be able to overcome her fears and join you some day.

My wife is far more tolerant - and even participatory on occasion. We do not live nude, but we'll undress in the garage if we've been working outside. Or we'll undress to shower and then *oops* need to get something down stairs. Sometimes I can get her to sit nude with me on the couch, but she gets cold and will wrap up.

As I've said before, naturism is not a "thing" to her; she's comfortable with nudity, but not as a hobby,lifestyle, or philosophy.
jasenj1
Native Resident
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:42 pm

Re: Not in that sense

Postby JimShedd112 » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:44 am

I feel your pain, Petros as I too have the desire to get naked as often as I can but due to my wife's attitude I must keep on at least a pair of shorts. Occasionally I can get by for a brief period with simply my terry wrap or a towel around my waist but not full nudity when she is around, particularly if our daughter and granddaughter are also present.

Fortunately, she's resolved herself with the issue I will sleep fully nude, though I may cover my midsection (groin and/or buttocks) with a sheet before the lights are off when the granddaughter is present in our bedroom. However, if hot enough I'll throw the covers off altogether even with our granddaughter sleeping between us.

In the mornings I'm able to arise nude and remain so until I must dress for work or at least until my wife awakens much later. Then, to pacify her I'll slip into a pair of shorts.

As far as going to town, is there any chance, Petros, you can make the trip to and fro at least partially nude? If alone I enjoy driving partially or fully nude at times. The feeling is really exhilarating for me.

Jim Shedd
Jim Shedd
NudistGrandpa
User avatar
JimShedd112
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:44 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Not in that sense

Postby Ramblinman » Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:08 am

Women are often very territorial about what goes on in "their" house.
Maybe you need to carve out a nude zone in the yard, privacy fence, surround yourself with your favorite plants, some sort of water, be it pool, hot tub, kiddie pool or backyard sprinkler, a deck chair and some summer sun!
Then post a big sign at the door that reads: "No clothing beyond this point!"
She can either talk to you over the fence or peel off and join you.
If our better halves are being territorial, banning nudity, two can play this game.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: Not in that sense

Postby Petros » Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:06 am

Would that it were that.Perhaps you are familiar with the phenomenon - dinnertime, you are conversing casually aboiut the events of the day, you mention humorously the eccentyric filling of Joe Poffenberger's sandwich in his lunch at work, and find you have spoiled the whole meal for the other. I never can get the list of what is disgufsting when straight.

well, the sight of nudity on the TV screen [even minimal and tastewfully shot] or often the mere mention of nudity counts as offputting.

So, untill I see signs of change, I lay low.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Not in that sense

Postby Ramblinman » Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:40 am

Petros wrote:Would that it were that.Perhaps you are familiar with the phenomenon - dinnertime, you are conversing casually aboiut the events of the day, you mention humorously the eccentyric filling of Joe Poffenberger's sandwich in his lunch at work, and find you have spoiled the whole meal for the other. I never can get the list of what is disgufsting when straight.

well, the sight of nudity on the TV screen [even minimal and tastewfully shot] or often the mere mention of nudity counts as offputting.

So, untill I see signs of change, I lay low.


I guess a visit to the Sistine Chapel or most museums of fine arts are also out of the question.
Sad that God's most lovely creation is viewed with such horror and contempt.
These thoughts are not inborn, but must be carefully taught. (with apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein).

In other years, a father would be more likely to call the shots about family participation in social nudity.
Although, I suppose that actually meant that wives who were indecisive about the matter, a bit apprehensive would go along and be pleasantly surprised. (families with nudity phobia simply didn't go).

So, back to my question, what's to keep you from having an area of the back yard set aside for sunbathing? A few minutes of midday nudity could make your daily dose of Vitamin D and she'd have a healthier husband!

I am assuming that you are from the generation in which men were expected to swim nude (albeit segregated by gender) because it was the manly thing to do.

These days, I like to argue that nude swimming is the HUMAN thing to do!
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: Not in that sense

Postby Petros » Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:05 am

I in fact have two areas which are de facto reserved zones - my outer office and the patio behind the second silo. WEjhen I can get there. It is amazing how much time one technically retired working at home does NOT have unbder his control.

By us it is more reserved time than designated spot, though, and my early mornings and late nights I can be as I please.

I THINK she is okay with the Sistine Chapel and other art nudes - not real enough to count, the paint insulates. And she could and did deal with Number 1 Son and various of his cousins in childhood nudity.

For the record, not quite that generation. Swimming at the Y would have been nude, but by my first swimming pool visits one was suited though segregated.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Not in that sense

Postby jochanaan » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:53 am

Petros, your struggle is obviously not with nudism, but with textilism. :?
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: Not in that sense

Postby Petros » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:58 pm

True, noble sir. But there sits as of today no such category.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Not in that sense

Postby Ramblinman » Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:21 am

Petros wrote:True, noble sir. But there sits as of today no such category.

Pardon me for quibbling, but I disagree...

Imagine a creature roaming the woods of Wisconsin, unseen to most, unknown to science.
Does it exist?
Science says, "No!".
The creature would certainly argue that it exists, assuming that it had sentient powers and a voice.

Quite often distinctive creatures have passed right under the nose of field biologists, but they fail to recognize the distinctive traits that would compel them to create a "category" (genus or species) and mistakenly lumps them together with a known species.

But if there is "no such category" for something that all of us on this forum have seen and heard...
Perhaps Textilism is a category of human neurosis that goes unrecognized...

Because most of the psychologists are so badly afflicted by it themselves...

That they are blind to it's existence!
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Re: Not in that sense

Postby Petros » Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:41 am

A nice essay, and up to a point a worthy quibble. I can hadly be as I have been all my known life and maintain there is no such thing as struggling with textilism.

However, you miss the mark - arguably my fault for underspecification.

I intended to be understood to say "in the fora available here in the village there appears to be no section devoted to posts on that subject."

Sorry 'bout that.

A point of etiquette - should a heated discussion arise in a naturist venue, how do you advise one of those involved to "keep his shirt on"?
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5183
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Not in that sense

Postby jochanaan » Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:13 am

Petros wrote:...I intended to be understood to say "in the fora available here in the village there appears to be no section devoted to posts on that subject."
Well, perhaps we need to create one! :like:
Petros wrote:...A point of etiquette - should a heated discussion arise in a naturist venue, how do you advise one of those involved to "keep his shirt on"?
Hmmm... ""Don't put your shirt on"? "Don't go textile on us"? :lol:
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: Not in that sense

Postby natman » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:59 pm

I wonder if such a "compulsion" to wear clothing or to have everyone else wear clothing should be called "textileism". An "ism" usually means a belief in something.

Our bodies were not designed to wear clothes. We are the ONLY creature that even considers any apparel at all and we must fabricate clothing from other substances if we want them. Many such "unnatural" compulsions would be referred to as "disorders" because they are outside of the "natural order of things".

Many other compulsion disorders have fancy names, such as "bulimia" and "anorexia" (eating disorders). Those who are obsessive and compulsive about things are referred to as "OCD" (although any true OCD would refer to it as "CDO"... alphabetical order :mrgreen: ). Perhaps we should refer to those compelled to wear clothing or force other to wear needless clothing as "TOCD". :)
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7241
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Not in that sense

Postby jasenj1 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:14 pm

Gymnophobia - the fear of nudity.
Related to, but not exactly the same as clothing compulsion.

One might not be afraid of nudity (say in others) but always feel compelled to wear clothing.

Two sides of a coin.
jasenj1
Native Resident
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:42 pm

Re: Not in that sense

Postby Ramblinman » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:27 pm

jasenj1 wrote:Gymnophobia - the fear of nudity.
Related to, but not exactly the same as clothing compulsion.

One might not be afraid of nudity (say in others) but always feel compelled to wear clothing.

Two sides of a coin.


The compulsion to wear clothing is a symptom.
The apparent causes are many:
body shame, fear of being an object of lust, fear of violating social norms, fear of imprisonment for violating the law, perhaps other root causes.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am
Location: United States

Next

Return to Struggling with nudism / naturism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests