Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Erections Welcome

Sign at the entrance of a nudist resort: "Young single men with erections welcome".

Is this the future of nudism? EJP thinks so. One of his friends got tossed from a nudist resort for having an erection.
Why shouldn't an erection be okay? They're natural, it happens, and the only thing it really says about a guy is that it has a heartbeat, especially for younger guys. He wasn't being accused of stroking it, flaunting it, or waving it in anybody's face. Just having it - which he was obviously unaware of assuming he did. It shouldn't have bothered anyone - and to the extent it did, the appropriate response would be to politely ask him to cover it up or dip in the pool, not going running to management who in turn tells him he's now unwelcome...What behavior would I like to see nudists adopt? In short, exactly the same behavior at equivalent textile venues.
I admit that I have been trying to push EJPs buttons for awhile now because I've always felt that there was something a little out of step with his writings about nudism. The primary clue is his moniker, Gymnophiliac, which is defined as someone who is sexually aroused by being nude.

In past writings he has professed that people have no right not to be offended, so it's no surprise that he would find nothing inappropriate about a public erection. Oddly enough, he directly contradicts himself by defending his friend's erection and then espousing a code of behavior that is equal to that of "textile venues". Help me out, but I cannot think of a textile venue where erections are welcome. Even Pee Wee Herman was busted for his erection, and he was in a porno film house where the entertainment is designed for stimulating male erections.

When EJP excuses his friend's state of arousal as "he was obviously unaware of assuming he did", does he really expect anyone to believe his friend didn't know his penis was engorged? I'm sorry, but I've been fully aware all my life when I have an erection.

You just cannot have it both ways. Any male visiting a nudist resort is expected to maintain control, and if the occasional erection does manage to pop up, the ever-present nudist towel is a good way to cover up.

It's understandable that in today's sexually charged culture that some men might be prone to arousal at the mere sight of a nude female body, or by simply being nude. Such a person is not a good candidate for social nudism. If someone is interested in the lifestyle, then that person should begin by spending a lot of time at home in the nude until the practice begins to feel normal and natural. If arousal continues, then that person might be a gymnophiliac.

Nudists Joe and Natalie have a good Q&A section about erections at nudist resorts.

In his essay On Nudism and Sexuality, EJP also reveals something interesting about his way of thinking.
Nudists are agreeing that there's an arbitrary line of morality that dictates what's acceptable for public behavior and what isn't, and argue that that line should be pushed just far enough such that our lifestyle is acceptable, while continuing to condemn any activity that remains on the other side of that line. Even if you think sexual activities are wrong, if you personally find them offensive, nudists more than other people should realize that that's no basis for condemning it. More to the point, it's certainly not a basis for prohibition via legislation, especially if you believe (as I do) that the general public should learn to tolerate and accept nudity. If you believe that your "right not to be offended" by sexual activity is more important than the freedom of others to engage in it, then you completely abandon the moral authority to argue against someone who believes their "right not to be offended" by nudity trumps your freedom to be nude. To do argue otherwise just makes you a hypocrite.
EJP fails to take into account that societies have rules. Like them or not, they exist as the result of years and years of social interaction. For thousands of years, people have worn clothes, and it is not insignificant that most people will be offended if a person walks around naked in public. It's part of our DNA at this point, just as we smile in all cultures, we also put on clothes. To have utter disregard for the feelings of others is to operate outside of the norm, and to lose moral authority, not by abandonment, but by default.

It is perhaps due to the sexualization of society, and the pervasiveness of pornography, that has formed EJPs attitudes to nudism and sexuality. Perhaps nudism as a movement is on the wane, and a new sexually charged swinger movement is on the rise. Maybe all the sex on television and on the Internet is on the verge of completely breaking down the societal barriers that have formed our perceptions on morality and sexuality.

But don't expect to see nudist resorts openly advocating male erections. Ain't gonna happen.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 comments:

EJP said...

Help me out, but I cannot think of a textile venue where erections are welcome.

In most anything other than spandex, you'd never know if someone had an erection at a textile venue or not.

It's the irrational overreaction that I'm complaining about; it is, in my mind, no different than the mother who screams and covers her kids eyes at the sight of a bare breast. And whenever nudists adopt these judgmental and overzealous attitudes, it makes us look no better.

At worst, it should be on par with belching or farting in public. Inappropriate and rude perhaps, but certainly not a basis for panic and criminalization.

As for the rest of it... you seem to have an extremely rule-bound authoritarian black and white view of the world, since you repeatedly miss the nuances of my arguments; most of the above post is simply little more than a strawmen arguments attacking mischaracterizations of my positions.

Nudiarist said...

EJP SAID: "In most anything other than spandex, you'd never know if someone had an erection at a textile venue or not."

Well that's the point, isn't it? If someone has an erection in a textile situation nobody knows because the person with the erection is showing some discretion and respect for those around him. If he unzips and the erection pops out, he will undoubtedly end up in jail and labeled a sex offender. This is the reality of the society we live in. Your friend should have discreetly covered up.

Please point out specific examples of my "rule-bound authoritarian black and white view of the world", as well as specific examples of what you call straw man arguments, and any of your specific positions that I have mischaracterized. Otherwise you are just making baseless accusations.

Nudiarist said...

I didn't think so...

Azmodan said...

Well that's the point, isn't it? If someone has an erection in a textile situation nobody knows because the person with the erection is showing some discretion and respect for those around him. If he unzips and the erection pops out, he will undoubtedly end up in jail and labeled a sex offender. This is the reality of the society we live in. Your friend should have discreetly covered up.

Okay, let's compare to spandex then. Being naked and speedos both make erection plainly visible, yet nobody seems to care about erection on textile beaches.

The anti-erection thingy is really a bummer for the younger crowd. I know that at some point we need a miracle (or viagra) to get it up but I am in my twenties and I can get an erection completely at random.

Granted, it nearly never happens (happened only once in a nudist setting, nobody saw) but making a rule against it is like banning people from restaurant if they have the bad luck of spilling a drink.

The primary clue is his moniker, Gymnophiliac, which is defined as someone who is sexually aroused by being nude.

He said in his post about the name change it means "love of being naked". Brush up on your greek skills :)

Help me out, but I cannot think of a textile venue where erections are welcome.

He says they should be non-issues, not welcome. As for the venue, textile beach with a spandex bathing suit (as previously mentioned).

When EJP excuses his friend's state of arousal as "he was obviously unaware of assuming he did", does he really expect anyone to believe his friend didn't know his penis was engorged? I'm sorry, but I've been fully aware all my life when I have an erection.

There is various states of erection (at least for me). You can very easily be blissfully unaware of having half an erection (kinda hard but not quite).

You just cannot have it both ways. Any male visiting a nudist resort is expected to maintain control, and if the occasional erection does manage to pop up, the ever-present nudist towel is a good way to cover up.

Control? Isn't something that is by its very nature uncontrollable? I agree on the towel but only as far as politeness goes (like putting your hand in front of your mouth when you yawn).

It's understandable that in today's sexually charged culture that some men might be prone to arousal at the mere sight of a nude female body, or by simply being nude. Such a person is not a good candidate for social nudism.

Nah, we are right on the money when we say it isn't arousing (we say it too much but we still are right). It just doesn't happen in my experience that people can think it is sexual for long.

However, it is about time we stop saying and start believing it. If nudism is that non-sexual why do we have to panic and think someone is a pervert if he gets an erection? Should we assume nobody to be sexually explicit until they do act that way?

It is perhaps due to the sexualization of society, and the pervasiveness of pornography, that has formed EJPs attitudes to nudism and sexuality.

Or maybe it is due to human being sexual animals?

Perhaps nudism as a movement is on the wane, and a new sexually charged swinger movement is on the rise.

Where the heck did he advocate swinging?!

DreadFree said...

For what it's worth, I've weighed in on EJP's side and gave him the benefit of the doubt during several of your disagreements, but I have to say that I'm with you, Nudiarist, on this one. EJP frequently tests the limits, pushes the envelope, and challenges us to give thought to our positions, but his current line of thought is really off base.

His insistence that nudists are against sex because we are opposed to exhibitionism and public sexual displays makes me question the extent of his off-line involvement with the nudist lifestyle. I've had fantastic sex at nudist resorts, clubs, and campgrounds. It was confined to the confines of my lodging. There are places where people can explore their sexuality while enjoying nude recreation. However, that is not nudism as discussed in this format.

Regarding the friend's erection story, I'm not buying it. I don't want to call EJP or his friend a liar, but I haven't encountered anything remotely like what he describes in over twenty years as a nudist. Most places address the issue of erections in the rules, regulations, and orientation. I've never seen somebody have that problem (Not even a couple of guys who were probably in the wrong place), but more than likely EJP's friend would have been asked to conceal his erection behind a towel. If this story is true, I'm guessing somebody isn't telling the whole story.

Spooning on a nude beach? I'll just let you guess what I'm thinking. I've already taken up too much of your space.

Nudiarist said...

Azmodan said: "Being naked and speedos both make erection plainly visible, yet nobody seems to care about erection on textile beaches."

I'm 53 and have been in social nude situations since I was a kid swimming nude at the YMCA. I have yet to see a male with a visible erection in a public place. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

"making a rule against it is like banning people from restaurant if they have the bad luck of spilling a drink."

Sorry, but that is one of the dumbest comparisons I've ever heard.

"He said in his post about the name change it means "love of being naked". Brush up on your greek skills :)"

By definition a gymnophiliac is a person sexually aroused by being nude. Look it up.

"He says they should be non-issues, not welcome."

If it is to be a non-issue, then it is allowed, and therefore welcome. Same thing.

"There is various states of erection (at least for me). You can very easily be blissfully unaware of having half an erection (kinda hard but not quite)."

You're really reaching here...

"Control? Isn't something that is by its very nature uncontrollable? I agree on the towel but only as far as politeness goes (like putting your hand in front of your mouth when you yawn)."

If you are unable to control your erections you are not a good candidate for social nudism. I've always had a strong sex drive but never once have been unable to control my erections, even when skinny-dipping in mixed company as a teenager. At least you agree on the towel issue, which is really all that nudist resorts are asking of men who get an erection - just cover up and be discreet. Take a long walk, don't just stand there proud of your manhood.

"If nudism is that non-sexual why do we have to panic and think someone is a pervert if he gets an erection?"

It's all about behavior. As Dreadfree pointed out, EJP's story about his friend's woody sounds a little suspect in the first place, but if true there must have been something about the person's behavior that provoked complaints.

"Or maybe it is due to human being sexual animals?"

Sexual animals that are also social animals. The general consensus is that people need to make some effort to get along with one another.

"Where the heck did he advocate swinging?!"

Nobody said thet he did, but advocating open "spooning" and visible erections is just one small step away from sexual intercourse. If this is what you are looking for, you will need to find a nude sex resort...I understand that one is opening in Michigan.

Nudiarist

Azmodan said...

I'm 53 and have been in social nude situations since I was a kid swimming nude at the YMCA. I have yet to see a male with a visible erection in a public place. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

And people do cover up and are discreet about it. All we are saying is that if by accident, it happens to be visible, it's no more harmful than a nipple slip on TV, not meant to happen but not a catastrophe either.

And nudism is dominated by older folks who don't have erections as often.

By definition a gymnophiliac is a person sexually aroused by being nude. Look it up.

Just did. It's not in the Merriam-Webster so it really is a word Eric made up as he thought he did. The meaning of philia is explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia

And it does mean love or friendship so the meaning Eric gave to it makes perfect sense. You are attacking a strawman by switching the meaning and acting as if it was what it means for him.

I guess I got the intended meaning right away because it's common in French for words to end that way a "cinephile" for instance is someone who loves movies.

If it is to be a non-issue, then it is allowed, and therefore welcome. Same thing.

There's a difference between actively seeking and accepting.

Sorry, but that is one of the dumbest comparisons I've ever heard.

If you don't expend, that's a baseless insult.

If you are unable to control your erections you are not a good candidate for social nudism. I've always had a strong sex drive but never once have been unable to control my erections, even when skinny-dipping in mixed company as a teenager.

I did. Once (and nobody saw: towel + cold water = no problem anymore) but my point is : accidents happen. Hey, it happens when I'm clothed without arousal (very rarely but it does), I don't see why it could not happen naked. We shouldn't mind unless the person acts in a sexual way. Unless the person constantly gets erection which could prove to be a problem.

At least you agree on the towel issue, which is really all that nudist resorts are asking of men who get an erection - just cover up and be discreet. Take a long walk, don't just stand there proud of your manhood.

Of course! I put that right beside burping, farting and all those things which are rude.

Sexual animals that are also social animals. The general consensus is that people need to make some effort to get along with one another.

And the consensus is that you don't kick people out for being rude at the first offense. You just tell them politely about the behaviour and often, they take care not to do it again.

So to summarize: erections can happen (albeit rarely), they should be minimized if possible but they should also be treated just like any other form of rudeness.

Nudiarist said...

Azmo -

"Older" people get erections, too. Some can have problems caused by medical reasons, but many people over 50 carry on normal sex lives. We are talking specifically about EJP's friend who was tossed for having an erection. There is no contention that this person made any effort to be discreet - EJP suggested that his friend was just not aware of the chubby. The whols story does not really make any sense, this person must have creeped people out in other ways, too.

As for "Gymnophiliac", you have found the definition for the wrong suffix: PHILIAC 2. One that has an abnormal attraction to: necrophiliac.

Either EJP is being cute with his handle, or he didn't bother to look up the true meaning of the world. Look, you can call yourself what you want in this world, but if a woman goes around calling herself a nymphomaniac it's going to be hard for anyone to believe her when she says all she really likes to do is snuggle.

And I also don't buy the burping and farting argument. Those bodily functions can be controlled. If a person has a chronic gastrointestinal problem, that is going to be a social problem under any circumstances, clothed or unclothed. Also, "excuse me" is a socially acceptable expression that seems to work when the occasional accident happens. Try pulling out a woody in a crowded room and see if "excuse me" works.

There are different degrees of "rudeness" in society. Like it or not, visible erections are not acceptable; in fact, you appear in public with an erection you will be arrested and labeled a sex offender, especially if it happens in the presence of a minor.

Nudism is struggling for acceptance, nude beaches have been taken away, politicians are enacting more laws and regulations about nudity all the time, even strip clubs are under more attack than ever. Advocating the acceptance of male erections just goes too far. Form your own nudist group and put in in your bylaws that erections are A-OK and see how that works for you.

Nudiarist said...

Naturist Mark on the Clothes Free Forums has a good answer about erections here: http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1600016152/m/2630091252?r=4660074394#4660074394

"To be clear, I think that erections ARE normal.

But it is easy to discrete about them on the rare occasions (for adults) that they pop up unbidden. The clear consensus among practicing nudists is that it IS rude to leave an erection on display, 'natural' or not, and it is also perfectly obvious to anyone who visits a nudist resort that it isn't an impossible task to be discrete.

Occasionally it will be tolerated, especially if you can't really do anything about it - no one thinks an erection that happens while jumping around playing volleyball means anything, nor expects you to leave the game until it is over. Everyone remembers being an adolescent and has nothing but empathy for a teen who pops up from time to time for no reason whatsoever.

But an adult who habitually displays an erection when he could easily be discrete will be the subject of scorn and ridicule. I'm not saying it is fair or right, but it certainly IS.

A person who brags that they never coverup their frequent erections at resorts, and that no one objects, is blowing smoke. They are either too self centered to register how the people around them are reacting, or they are making up stories."

Anonymous said...

I live in a country where we have wide open spaces and many empty beaches. Nudity is generally tolerated on many beaches outside the cities and you can be naked in the bush without risk of giving offence to anyone.

At city beaches woman are often topless and several city beaches are usually designated as clothing optional.

Fifty years ago we had a strong movement of nudist resorts. Many of those resorts have shut in the last 20 years.

Some nudists suggest that the reason why nudism as a movement is dying is because the wide acceptance or toleration of public nudity has rendered nudist resorts irrelevant.

I suggest that the reason is more subtle.

Recently a friend attended a nudist resort. I asked him about how he found the experience at the resort? He commented about the activities – the ubiquitous volley ball and the body painting. He said that the most bizarre thing he confronted were men bar- b- queuing in the nude, ouch!

I asked my friend what he thought all this was about? His answer was instructive. He said that he thought the men at the resort were attempting to prove that their nudity was sexless by doing all these weird activities without chucking an erection.

One strain of attack that nudists have had to deal with from the rest of the community has been that nudists are perverted and sexual deviants. In response, the nudist movement has obsessed about how nudism is not about sex.

But there is another strain of criticism leveled at nudists by the mainstream community that nudists rarely address. It is the suggestion that nudists are ridiculous. They run around without their clothes on, doing all these bizarre activities- and why (?) to prove that you can bar-b-que in the raw without an erection? What is the point?

Some of the posters have emphasized the need for men to exercise control. No doubt public nudity must have boundaries. It seems to me that it is necessary and appropriate that these boundaries be discussed.

On the other hand it seems to me why generation Y are not interested in nudist resorts is that older nudist are so hell bent in taking the eros out of their nudity that they have forgotten why they became nudists in the first place.

I suggest that every nudist’s response as to why they became a nudist boils down to the same simple truth, namely: it gives them pleasure.

This word pleasure is often avoided because it raises connotations about sexual pleasure. But there are many types of pleasure: the sense of freedom, the tactile experience of being without clothing etc.

Younger people are increasingly rejecting the nudist movement because they sense the hypocrisy within its objectives. In the demand for sexual propriety the nudist movement is becoming increasingly controlling and fascist in its dictates about public behavior thereby squeezing out the sense of freedom and exhilaration young people want to experience upon adopting a nudist lifestyle. Young people have expressed to me how they have found resorts pretty intimidating places where older nudist act like thought police. If necessary, generation Y can experiance nudity at the venues now freely available without oing to resorts. They can experiance the pleasure withot putting up with the attitudes of the oldies.