Posted by greg on August 14, 2004 at 07:30:26:
In Reply to: Supposedly non-sexual nudism posted by Chris on August 13, 2004 at 03:38:52:
Not only are you right about the sexuality of "naturism", but according to some theologians/philosophers, all of our activity is sexual as a result of the very fact that we are sexual beings by nature. That's why the churches get so uptight about the "mis-use" of the sexual act. What the hell is the FIRST thing most people ask about a baby? Does it have an outie peepee or an innee peepee?
Gay or straight, the first thing we are is male or female, then black or yellow and all the other unimportant stuff.
: I would like to post this up here even though it's a response to one of Brad's posts below.
: I would just like to echo his sentiment that the claim that nudism/naturism is "non-sexual" is total BS. Would you claim that walking around with clothes on and seeing attractive people with their clothes on is "non-sexual"? No, and that's because attractive people's bodies are sexually stimulating, whether they're clothed or not. And I question the motives of most people who profess not to be in it for the erotic thrill.
: I have been to nudist social gatherings that purported to be strictly social and family-oriented and totally non-sexual and not provocative - with observance of strict etiquette, etc. And most of these people's bodies (most of them were men, first of all -- which tells you something right there, given men's interest in visual thrills compared to women's) were out of shape and reflected an advance in years (to put it nicely). So Brad is right to say that OF COURSE this is not sexually stimulating. But how can anyone expect that an attractive naked woman (for example) is not going to be AT LEAST as sexually arousing/exciting/interesting as an attractive clothed woman? Now, acting on this attraction is another thing entirely, especially insofar as it is inappropriate to do so. But staring is a natural and normal reaction, and most hetero men will be inclined to stare at her at least as much as they would if she had clothes on.
: And, as I said, I also question the motives of many of these supposedly pure nudists. I have been at the purportedly "pure" nudist socials mentioned above and at these gatherings I've encountered gay men staring at me and (nearly) hitting on me, and I've also observed some "dirty old men" trying to get some CFNM with the young female staff by standing right in front of them engaging them in conversation for long periods of time (as though these young women give a shit what these old codgers are saying to them, even though they listen politely). I am also convinced that one of these supposedly "pure, non-sexual" naturists has also posted on the VSFW web site's CFNM discussion board (I recognized the same name/nickname from the nudist group's discussion board). My purpose is not to condemn or to incriminate anyone but merely to point out that the claim that the nudism one is practising is non-sexual is BS in most or at least very many cases. So -- as they saying goes -- don't even front.
Post a Followup