*** ***********, Hershey packer

Ari Silverstein wrote in news:896pfvF8j9U1
@mid.individual.net:

Sex has been thoroughly studied, Dan

Not to my satisfaction!

Ari Silverstein wrote in news:896pfvF8j9U1
@mid.individual.net:

Empirical, Dan, but your comment has drifted off the question of how
textiles and nudists would respond to questions about their sexuality.

They'd probaby say something like this: http://tinyurl.com/2c78582

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 04:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A
wrote:

On Jul 1, 9:58 pm, Ari Silverstein wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:05:25 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
In article ,
"Terry J. Wood" wrote:

Ari Silverstein wrote in news:89450uFas1U1
@mid.individual.net:

I am looking for a connect between nudism and sexual attitudes but the
conversation keeps going in circles.

It's hard to find what is not there.

Some non-nudists find it hard to believe that there is no connection
between nudity and sex. They bring up all sorts of arguments. They are
all false. Imagine going to a chess club or a sewing circle. Is that
all about sex? No, clearly not. Does that mean those people don't have
sex. No. Most people have sex. Even if some of them don't, their
parents must have had sex, or they wouldn't be there.

Aw c'mon Dan, this isn't a relative argument. People are sexually
attracted to nude bodies.

_Some_ people are attracted to _some_ nude bodies, especially if
they've been taught that they're abnormal if they aren't.

Sex is often in the nude.

And showers almost always are. So?

Nudists are nude a lot.

Duh.

Then there are the numerous nude camps and cruises etc which the
promote sexual component.

Yes. They cater to people who want to have sex with strangers, want
be seen having sex, or want to see others having sex. They aren't
nudist places. And, typically, their isn't a lot of nudity except in
the context of active sex. I have no objection to such places or to
the people who go there, but they aren't _nudist_ places.

Ari, what's your point?

FWIW, I lurk on AOL while I'm working, with a profile that encourages
questions about nudism. I get a lot of inquiries. Like six to ten a
day ever since AOL began. That's a lot of chats. When sex comes up,
as it always does with textiles, I simply say, "Mere nudity does not
equate to sex: it does not indicate a desire for sex, is not an offer
of sex, and is not agreement to have sex." Nine out of ten say, "Oh,
I understand that" in the same way they would if I told them two plus
two equals four.

Then, within a couple minutes, they say what you said above. They
simply don't get it. They've been so conditioned by society, church,
and the entertainment industry that, way deep down, they think in
terms of "See certain patches of societally-prohibited skin, instantly
become ready for sex, then roll on floor having sex with the nude
person who obviously wants sex or who wouldn't be nude."

I usually end up telling them they'll never understand until they've
spent a day or maybe a week in a nudist environment, and encourage
them to do so. I tell them they'll become comfortable with others'
nudity in 30 minutes to three hours, depending on how strongly
brainwashed they've been, and will be comfortable with their own
nudity within an hour after they doff the duds. The females don't
believe me. They're sure they'll be attacked (and some of them want
to be, at least hypothetically). They're also sure that they'll be
judged too fat, too thin, too this shaped or too that shaped. One
woman I talked to almost every day for several weeks couldn't stop
obsessing about "thunder thighs."

The males almost universally respond, "Oh, I couldn't do that. I'd
embarrass myself." They simply won't accept that they can be in the
presence of nude women without becoming visibly excited. And they get
really exacerbated at the suggestion that they've been societally
conditioned, that they can change, and that they _will_ change as they
observe that what they are so sure will happen does not in fact happen
-- to themselves or to others. "Of course I'll get hard. I'm MALE.
I'm NORMAL." Guys are sure they'll get erections, that erections
can't be controlled, that they'll be mortified when the inevitable
(huge, throbbing) erection happens, and terrified that others will see
that their (huge, throbbing) erection is not nearly as huge and
throbbing as they're sure it ought to be. They want the erection to
happen, are scared to death that it won't, and simultaneously scared
to death that they'll be embarrassed and that their secret fears of
inadequate 'size' will be proven true.

And then, somewhere along the line, both men and women ask, "If these
places aren't about sex, then what do you do there? Why do you go?
What's the point?" And then, if I haven't given up, I have to start
all over again: "It's about personal preference, simplicity,
comfort, ...."

Ari, I have a suggestion. How about you spend a day or a week at a
nudist place among 50 to 500 nude people. I'm betting that, once
you've done so, you'd have a lot fewer questions and a whole lot less
skepticism.

Chess clubs and sewing circles are not sexually conducive environs.

Neither are nudist places. Repeat after me, "Mere nudity does not
equate to sex: it does not indicate a desire for sex, is not an offer
of sex, and is not agreement to have sex."

Nudist beaches are just like textile beaches, albeit without anywhere
near the amount of strutting exhibitionism.

Nudist camps, parks, and resorts are just like comparable textile
places, but without the restrictive dress code.

Yes, sex happens at nudist places just as it does at textile places
and just as it does in your residential neighborhood. It happens
about as often too, certainly not more often. And, when it does
happen, it happens IN PRIVATE.

Got it?

:-)

Jenny
(No, you don't and won't -- not until you've experienced the
environment for yourself for however long it takes you to revise your
preconceptions to conform to the reality you see.)


I didn't know AOL still existed.
THumper

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:55:10 -0400, Thumper wrote:

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 04:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A
wrote:

On Jul 1, 9:58 pm, Ari Silverstein wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:05:25 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
In article ,
"Terry J. Wood" wrote:

Ari Silverstein wrote in news:89450uFas1U1
@mid.individual.net:

I am looking for a connect between nudism and sexual attitudes but the
conversation keeps going in circles.

It's hard to find what is not there.

Some non-nudists find it hard to believe that there is no connection
between nudity and sex. They bring up all sorts of arguments. They are
all false. Imagine going to a chess club or a sewing circle. Is that
all about sex? No, clearly not. Does that mean those people don't have
sex. No. Most people have sex. Even if some of them don't, their
parents must have had sex, or they wouldn't be there.

Aw c'mon Dan, this isn't a relative argument. People are sexually
attracted to nude bodies.

_Some_ people are attracted to _some_ nude bodies, especially if
they've been taught that they're abnormal if they aren't.

Sex is often in the nude.

And showers almost always are. So?

Nudists are nude a lot.

Duh.

Then there are the numerous nude camps and cruises etc which the
promote sexual component.

Yes. They cater to people who want to have sex with strangers, want
be seen having sex, or want to see others having sex. They aren't
nudist places. And, typically, their isn't a lot of nudity except in
the context of active sex. I have no objection to such places or to
the people who go there, but they aren't _nudist_ places.

Ari, what's your point?

FWIW, I lurk on AOL while I'm working, with a profile that encourages
questions about nudism. I get a lot of inquiries. Like six to ten a
day ever since AOL began. That's a lot of chats. When sex comes up,
as it always does with textiles, I simply say, "Mere nudity does not
equate to sex: it does not indicate a desire for sex, is not an offer
of sex, and is not agreement to have sex." Nine out of ten say, "Oh,
I understand that" in the same way they would if I told them two plus
two equals four.

Then, within a couple minutes, they say what you said above. They
simply don't get it. They've been so conditioned by society, church,
and the entertainment industry that, way deep down, they think in
terms of "See certain patches of societally-prohibited skin, instantly
become ready for sex, then roll on floor having sex with the nude
person who obviously wants sex or who wouldn't be nude."

I usually end up telling them they'll never understand until they've
spent a day or maybe a week in a nudist environment, and encourage
them to do so. I tell them they'll become comfortable with others'
nudity in 30 minutes to three hours, depending on how strongly
brainwashed they've been, and will be comfortable with their own
nudity within an hour after they doff the duds. The females don't
believe me. They're sure they'll be attacked (and some of them want
to be, at least hypothetically). They're also sure that they'll be
judged too fat, too thin, too this shaped or too that shaped. One
woman I talked to almost every day for several weeks couldn't stop
obsessing about "thunder thighs."

The males almost universally respond, "Oh, I couldn't do that. I'd
embarrass myself." They simply won't accept that they can be in the
presence of nude women without becoming visibly excited. And they get
really exacerbated at the suggestion that they've been societally
conditioned, that they can change, and that they _will_ change as they
observe that what they are so sure will happen does not in fact happen
-- to themselves or to others. "Of course I'll get hard. I'm MALE.
I'm NORMAL." Guys are sure they'll get erections, that erections
can't be controlled, that they'll be mortified when the inevitable
(huge, throbbing) erection happens, and terrified that others will see
that their (huge, throbbing) erection is not nearly as huge and
throbbing as they're sure it ought to be. They want the erection to
happen, are scared to death that it won't, and simultaneously scared
to death that they'll be embarrassed and that their secret fears of
inadequate 'size' will be proven true.

And then, somewhere along the line, both men and women ask, "If these
places aren't about sex, then what do you do there? Why do you go?
What's the point?" And then, if I haven't given up, I have to start
all over again: "It's about personal preference, simplicity,
comfort, ...."

Ari, I have a suggestion. How about you spend a day or a week at a
nudist place among 50 to 500 nude people. I'm betting that, once
you've done so, you'd have a lot fewer questions and a whole lot less
skepticism.

Chess clubs and sewing circles are not sexually conducive environs.

Neither are nudist places. Repeat after me, "Mere nudity does not
equate to sex: it does not indicate a desire for sex, is not an offer
of sex, and is not agreement to have sex."

Nudist beaches are just like textile beaches, albeit without anywhere
near the amount of strutting exhibitionism.

Nudist camps, parks, and resorts are just like comparable textile
places, but without the restrictive dress code.

Yes, sex happens at nudist places just as it does at textile places
and just as it does in your residential neighborhood. It happens
about as often too, certainly not more often. And, when it does
happen, it happens IN PRIVATE.

Got it?

:-)

Jenny
(No, you don't and won't -- not until you've experienced the
environment for yourself for however long it takes you to revise your
preconceptions to conform to the reality you see.)

I didn't know AOL still existed.
THumper

Is it me, Thump, or did I miss how your comment was privy to the
thread?

It's probably me.
--
Ari Silverstein, C.T.A; C.T.A.S, FREE Cruise Travel Advisory Services
www.cruisequick.com - able to offer some of the lowest prices and best
value added in the industry. (not affiliated)

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:41:41 -0500, Terry J. Wood wrote:

Ari Silverstein wrote in news:896pfvF8j9U1
@mid.individual.net:

Sex has been thoroughly studied, Dan

Not to my satisfaction!

If one thing has come out of all the studies, it's that we need more
studies. The more we seem to understand about sex, the more we seem to
not understand sex.

And you can quote me on that.
--
Ari Silverstein, not erect at the moment.

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:58:46 -0400, Ari Silverstein
wrote:

People are sexually
attracted to nude bodies.

People are generally attracted to other people whom they find
attractive. Nudity, or the lack thereof, really has nothing to do
with. Some people who are (IMNSHO) stuck in adolescence, are sexually
attracted to nude bodies. Many have moved beyond that. I've seen more
nude women than I can count, all sizes shapes and colors. I see them
as fellow humans, not sex objects. YMMV.

Sex is often in the nude. Nudists are nude a
lot.

Sex is often in bed. People are in bed a lot. So your conclusion is?

-T.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:34:14 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:58:46 -0400, Ari Silverstein
wrote:

People are sexually
attracted to nude bodies.

People are generally attracted to other people whom they find
attractive. Nudity, or the lack thereof, really has nothing to do
with. Some people who are (IMNSHO) stuck in adolescence, are sexually
attracted to nude bodies. Many have moved beyond that.

Yeah, sexual adolescence = attracted to nude, beautiful women.

Yeah, that works.lol

I've seen more
nude women than I can count, all sizes shapes and colors. I see them
as fellow humans, not sex objects. YMMV.

Never? Never get turned on by a nude woman you see?

Sex is often in the nude. Nudists are nude a
lot.

Sex is often in bed. People are in bed a lot. So your conclusion is?

-T.

That you cropped the hell out of my post for your benefit?
--
Ari Silverstein, C.T.A; C.T.A.S, FREE Cruise Travel Advisory Services
www.cruisequick.com - able to offer some of the lowest prices and best
value added in the industry. (not affiliated)

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:55:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:


Be interesting to know how soon in the process they don't feel that.
Erections are (I know this takes a lot of the fun out of it, but there
you are) a physiological reaction to a stimulus.

Not everybody responds to a given stimulus in the same manner. Nor is
the response always the same.

You see something
often enough and the stimulation can go away.

And if you differentiate between appropriate response and
inappropriate response, there is a difference in the stimulation. Fire
can be threatening or welcoming, depending on the context. Nudity is
similar in that there is no universal response to it.

I would think that the major difference in erections between
nudists and non-nudists (sorry boys and girls but textiles is just too
dumb a monicker for me to use), is that you see enough naked bodies in
social settings and things (shall we say) "settle down".

If you're an adult, who can differentiate between a sexual setting and
a social one, things don't get riled up in the first place.

-T.

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 13:26:12 -0400, Ari Silverstein
wrote:

Well, we are being told that all it takes is somewhere between 30
minutes and a week in a group of a minimum of 50 people.

Gonna have to call bull**** on this one. All it takes is the ability
to differentiate between sexual and social situations.

In most any normal situation, there is sexually stimulation.

Bull**** again.

I don't think these people are lying to us. I believe that there is a
social requirement as part of nudity to learn to remove sexual
stimulations.

Nope, we just don't automatically link sex with nudity. You do,
apparently.

They must have to be programmed not to give that 'come
hither" look and if they see it, by perchance, they have been
programmed to ignore it. Mr. Penis and Miss Clitoris are jailed.

So what we have is this au natural way of nudity is actually a
different set of social programming. They want to call it
deprogramming but it's that *and* Reprogramming.

Oh, my. What a shovel full of psychobabble. You simply can't
understand that there are humans that don't see everything in sexual
terms, can you?

Note that we haven't heard a peep from anyone on rec.nude about what
they are like when they are clothed.

About the same as when I'm nude. A little less comfortable. I'm not
sporting an erection all day, either way. Maybe you have a medical
problem, you know, "erections lasting more than four hours merit
medical attention", that sort of thing?

A nude cruise would then be a bunch of sexually dead zombies who might
have one hell of a hard time having hard times..when they might wish
to be.

You've got me there. You should avoid them at all costs.


-T.

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:55:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

You see something
often enough and the stimulation can go away.

And if you differentiate between appropriate response and
inappropriate response, there is a difference in the stimulation. Fire
can be threatening or welcoming, depending on the context. Nudity is
similar in that there is no universal response to it.
Pretty much my point. But, the response to nudity (at least in the
US context) is largely societal and taught from infancy. So, there is a
certain amount of social relearning that usually has to take place
except in the second or third generation of nudists. It is how that
retraining takes place that is interesting.




I would think that the major difference in erections between
nudists and non-nudists (sorry boys and girls but textiles is just too
dumb a monicker for me to use), is that you see enough naked bodies in
social settings and things (shall we say) "settle down".

If you're an adult, who can differentiate between a sexual setting and
a social one, things don't get riled up in the first place.

But one of the key (again in the US context) differentiations
IS nudity. If you are nude, most likely it is perceived as a sexual
setting. Again, there is a little bit of social retraining that has to
be done to REMOVE the sexual part of nudity. (Which it looks like most
nudists accomplish).

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist