nudity a must?

[natman]

No. There is no need to be nude or to photograph yourself nude or any such thing.

While it is hoped that everyone here would experience at least some aspect of freedom from the shame that our society and even our churches have placed on the nude human body, created in the image and likeness of God, there are members here who are merely exploring the possibility of chaste, simple, practical nudity and who will never ever likely present themselves in nude social situations.

[Larryk1052]

Do what you feel comfortable with.

[natman]

the human body is a most extraordinary piece of art.... in the spiritual/physical sense..

INDEED! Made by the GREATEST Master Artist of all. AMEN!

[Jon-Marc]

While I enjoy viewing the nude human body, I prefer nudist/naturist photos rather than porn sites. Porn photos are meant to be sexual and not natural as nudist/naturist photos are.


When I see photos of people playing or just enjoying the freedom of being nude, I don't think of sex. Looking at porn is meant to do just that--excite you and get your mind on sex and not on the purity and innocense of nudity.



I admit that I'm not above temptation since I have been in porn sites and enjoyed and then felt very dirty and guilty because of the thoughts and desires I had that don't even enter the picture with simple non-sexual nude photos.

[natman]

I have been in porn sites and enjoyed and then felt very dirty and guilty because of the thoughts and desires I had...

That is PRECISELY what porn is designed to do and why it is a tool of Satan. First, it makes you believe that all sex should be done the way the "actors" in pornography depict it to be, making the sexual acts between husbands and wives designed and blessed by God seem unsatifying, ruining marriages. Then, it makes you feel so "dirty" and "guilty" that you are afraid to even come close enough to God to actually confess and repent. Satan LOVES that! Then, it denegrates and objectifies the human body which the Bible refers to as the "Image and Likeness of God". Satan REALLY LOVES THAT! THEN, once addicted and seeking sex partner after sex partner, it indells the bodies of God's image bearers with life threatening and debhilitating diseases, make life miserable and often short. Satan REALLY, REALLY, REALLY LOVES THAT!

[fatpizzaman1]

I believe it's the individual's choice at the end of the day. Most of these 'nude only' clubs are effectively pushing away the younger crowd with their rules. Let people enjoy nude recreation at their own pace.


I happen to like some erotic material myself, but I don't bring it into naturist environments. Neither do I like anything that fuses sex with violence, or sex between kids and animals, or where excrement is concerned. Gross!

[txnude1]

I think there are those who see nudity as the gateway to sin. And for some that may be case. In Genesis, God walks into the Garden looking for Adam and Eve and when they state they were hiding because they were naked, God asks who told you that you were naked. God obviously has no problem with it and it is how He intended it. We are created in God's image, to clothe the body is like having a beautiful piece of art then hanging a curtain in front of it. Not that we should display ourselves, we must remain respectful of others who may have different opinions.

[Rev. Ross]

Natman,

Chaste personal nudity is fine, there is no imperative that one MUST be a social nudist. Naturists. There is personal naturism and social naturism. We can be one or both, I guess.

Blessings, Rev.Ross

check out my blog

rev-ross.blogspot.com

[KalosSoma]

I believe it's the individual's choice at the end of the day. Most of these 'nude only' clubs are effectively pushing away the younger crowd with their rules. Let people enjoy nude recreation at their own pace.

Having never been to one, it seems to me just from the reading I've done that the nude-only venues have that rule to try to discourage voyeurism -- going with the idea that those who just want to "look" aren't likely to want to disrobe themselves, and/or that disrobing proves you're "serious" about being there.

But at the same time it seems archaic, and I would agree that it probably does "push away the younger crowd." I'd guess that people from, say, ages 21 to 45 are more likely to have encountered social nudity in a "clothing optional" setting these days, whether at a beach, hot spring, spa, or even an event like Bay to Breakers, World Naked Bike Ride or Burning Man. Clothing-optional, in fact, seems to be kind of the "leading edge" of social nudity today.

And I would hope that the other safeguards that naturist venues have in place, such as identification/registration, background checks, limits on unaccompanied males, etc., would serve to protect the venue and the people who use it without forcing the nude-only mandate on a newbie who may indeed take a while to get used to social naturism.

Speaking personally, I'm certain that if and when we have our first social-nudity experience, my wife and I will choose a clothing-optional situation, whether it's a "meetup" at someone's home, a beach, or a landed naturist venue. Just my two cents.

[fatpizzaman1]

I believe it's the individual's choice at the end of the day. Most of these 'nude only' clubs are effectively pushing away the younger crowd with their rules. Let people enjoy nude recreation at their own pace.

Having never been to one, it seems to me just from the reading I've done that the nude-only venues have that rule to try to discourage voyeurism -- going with the idea that those who just want to "look" aren't likely to want to disrobe themselves, and/or that disrobing proves you're "serious" about being there.

Doesn't work in this day and age, especially not if you want to attract people in their teens and 20's.

But at the same time it seems archaic, and I would agree that it probably does "push away the younger crowd." I'd guess that people from, say, ages 21 to 45 are more likely to have encountered social nudity in a "clothing optional" setting these days, whether at a beach, hot spring, spa, or even an event like Bay to Breakers, World Naked Bike Ride or Burning Man. Clothing-optional, in fact, seems to be kind of the "leading edge" of social nudity today.

I agree with this. Nudism should not have to be a mandate like paying taxes, but OTOH I do understand times and circumstances where it is more sensible for a person to be nude in certain settings than to be dressed.

And I would hope that the other safeguards that naturist venues have in place, such as identification/registration, background checks, limits on unaccompanied males, etc., would serve to protect the venue and the people who use it without forcing the nude-only mandate on a newbie who may indeed take a while to get used to social naturism.

Limiting single males is also a blight on the nudist movement. As a single male myself I find this sort of thing disgusting and patronising. From my own experience I have found that the main troublemakers at nudist venues have most often been married males, and the single guys have been good as gold. It needs to come down to a case-by-case basis on the person rather than the gender. As long as a particular person does not have a criminal record, especially where sex crimes are concerned, let them take part in a nudist environment.

Speaking personally, I'm certain that if and when we have our first social-nudity experience, my wife and I will choose a clothing-optional situation, whether it's a "meetup" at someone's home, a beach, or a landed naturist venue. Just my two cents.

Cool thing! Let us know how it goes down.

[natman]

Limiting single males is also a blight on the nudist movement. As a single male myself I find this sort of thing disgusting and patronising. From my own experience I have found that the main troublemakers at nudist venues have most often been married males, and the single guys have been good as gold. It needs to come down to a case-by-case basis on the person rather than the gender. As long as a particular person does not have a criminal record, especially where sex crimes are concerned, let them take part in a nudist environment.

I would like to agree. Unfortunately, in the clubs that do not limit or at least regulate the ratios, women often feel uncomfortable when surrounded by too many men, and the ratios drop even further and overall attendance drops or the family-friendly atmospheres disappear. I have seen several clubs transformed from family-friendly clubs to swinger-focused clubs recently and that makes me very sad and concerned for the future of the movement.

[fatpizzaman1]

What we need to be doing with all female children is to train them to be fighters from an early age, and to be able to deal with any sexual predators. We keep telling textiles our lifestyle is not about sex, so why should any true woman be afraid of getting into it?


Where I live, there are a number of clubs that have never limited how many single males can join and they've never had problems with attracting women and families alike - and they've been around since the mid 1970s.


Those that focus only on single women and m/f couples eventually end up losing business and closing down, or turn into swingers clubs.



The future of the movement depends upon tolerance and acceptance - the two key elements of Christianity. The churches don't limit single men from attending services and functions, so neither should Christian nudist groups and clubs either.

[JimShedd112]

Yes, base admission upon the individual and not their social or gender status. If one acts inappropriately he or she should be made to leave and not return, even if part of a couple.

Jim
Livin' naked and free

[Ramblinman]

Yes, base admission upon the individual and not their social or gender status. If one acts inappropriately he or she should be made to leave and not return, even if part of a couple.

Jim
Livin' naked and free

Then you need to be willing to go to an all-male club.
Think I am joking?
The YMCA used to be all male and had nude swims when my dad was young.
Now days seems that only the gay guys are going to all male functions, but back then folks recognized that women were often not raised to accept social nudity and men were. In my dad's day, nude swims were part of what it meant to be an active outdoors-loving red blooded man, nothing gay about it.

The nudist movement brought women in big numbers when it first started as wives and daughters came with husbands and fathers and brothers.
Part of the reason was the strict rules against singles, but part of it was a different attitude in Dad's day.

Unless a resort has a strong outreach to attract couples and couples with children, the social realities outside the resorts and campgrounds tend to make social nudity and all male activity.

[JimShedd112]

Thanks, Ramblinman, you make an excellent point. Believe me, I would not want to attend anything anywhere where it would involve all gay men. I much prefer mixed company (male/female) or even all-female, perhaps, to the situation you've described as present day in what was formerly red-blooded, all-male fellowship.

However, I will stand by my belief one's actions should dictate inclusion or exclusion, not simply one's sex or status as "single' or accompanied.


Jim
Livin 'naked and free