Nudism is here to stay and is growing in popularity!!

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Dan Myers

2009-09-29 21:13:26 UTC

Nudism is synonymous with "body freedom," the label for a movement
that began in late twenties and early thirties in Germany. Descendants
of that movement can now be found subscribing to the "FKK" philosophy
that there is nothing wrong with nudity, and, in fact, some things are
simply more fun to do in the nude.
Plus, nudists acquire an attitude of body acceptance (no shame) and
feel freer to just be themselves. As often as not, health clubs in
Germany today have no segregated locker rooms, showers, swimming pools
or saunas—a spirit of "coed" nudity and nudist activity is pervasive.
The fact that nudism is here to stay and is growing in popularity is
irrevocable.
Loading Image...

http://nudistscorp.com/nudist_pictures.htm

Will Golden

2009-09-30 01:06:17 UTC

Permalink

Post by Dan Myers
Nudism is synonymous with "body freedom," the label for a movement
that began in late twenties and early thirties in Germany. Descendants
of that movement can now be found subscribing to the "FKK" philosophy
that there is nothing wrong with nudity, and, in fact, some things are
simply more fun to do in the nude.
Plus, nudists acquire an attitude of body acceptance (no shame) and
feel freer to just be themselves. As often as not, health clubs in
Germany today have no segregated locker rooms, showers, swimming pools
or saunas—a spirit of "coed" nudity and nudist activity is pervasive.
The fact that nudism is here to stay and is growing in popularity is
irrevocable.http://thenudereview.com/Family-Nudist-Hottubbing-082009.jpghttp://nudistscorp.com/nudist_pictures.htm

We are however in danger of bewcoming our enemies.

Firstly, note that we have two names, nudism and naturism. Naturism
has one rule. It is non-negotiable.

The singular rule of naturism is "the freedom to dress as you wish".

Anything else is wallpaper. If the right to dress as you wish is
refused then the body or individual that takes that decision is ANTI-
naturist. Being nude is simply not enough. Flashers are nude. The
principles of being pro-nature, pro-nude-sunbathing are commendable
but are all of a sudden irrelevant. The only non-negotiable rule has
been broken, be it by compulsion to be dressed or to be naked.

Yet we have people condoning forcing others to strip. Clubs are doing
the same. Some force people to be naked when they would rather not.
Worse still, all naturist clubs bar a handful refuse admission to
their bars, restaurants and dancehalls unless you are dressed. All
these are ANTI-naturist and are entitled to no place in the community.
Yet they seem to make up the majority of the lifestyle.

They are worse than mainstream society, who at least are not part of
nudism, therefore have no responsibility to it. For people within the
lifestyle to tyrannise others is destroying naturism and is
pathetically hypocritic.

Who are these people. Well mainly they are tyrannical fascists or
simply nobodies. The former use naturism for no other reason but to
bully others. The second are abject failures in the rest of their
lives, so they join the lifestyle to play at wielding power they do
not naturally possess. Collectively they are parasites on the
community.

The day the lifestyle is led by people who protect the basic human
right and freedom of all naturists to dress as they wish is the first
day somebody in the lifestyle can cast the first stone.

Until then, we are all liars, hypocrites and tyrants. We have a long
road to true nudism / naturism.

Hugs, Will

Neosapienis

2009-09-30 04:51:55 UTC

Permalink

Hi Will,

<snipped for brevity>

"Yet we have people condoning forcing others to strip. Clubs are doing
the same. Some force people to be naked when they would rather not.
Worse still, all naturist clubs bar a handful refuse admission to
their bars, restaurants and dancehalls unless you are dressed. All
these are ANTI-naturist and are entitled to no place in the community.
Yet they seem to make up the majority of the lifestyle."

I think some of these places need to make up their minds as to how they want
to market themselves. Are they "clothing optional" or are they "strictly
nude only, weather permitting"? They've got to be clear because if they
ever get a visit from a legal studies student and start enforcing them to go
nude, the student could have a field day with them.

"They are worse than mainstream society, who at least are not part of
nudism, therefore have no responsibility to it. For people within the
lifestyle to tyrannise others is destroying naturism and is
pathetically hypocritical."

I have no problem with going to 'nude only' places as well as 'clothing
optional' places as long as the policies are enforced for everybody, and not
just on any given day. However, I think clubs with blanket 'must strip'
rules are what keep a lot of people out, especially the women and younger
people as you will see later on in this post.

"Who are these people. Well mainly they are tyrannical fascists or
simply nobodies. The former use naturism for no other reason but to
bully others. The second are abject failures in the rest of their
lives, so they join the lifestyle to play at wielding power they do
not naturally possess. Collectively they are parasites on the
community."

I would say that it is the latter as I have yet to meet any club or venue
owner that has used physical force on anybody who refused to go naked
because they wanted them to. If naturism is about freedom, then surely it
ought to be about the individual's freedom to choose their right to be
dressed or undressed? By employing bullying tactics it substitutes one form
of oppression for another. One person's freedom is not another person's
servitude.

"The day the lifestyle is led by people who protect the basic human
right and freedom of all naturists to dress as they wish is the first
day somebody in the lifestyle can cast the first stone."

I agree.

If there is one event which comes close to true naturism that I know of, it
is ConFest (Americans have Commfest, Burning Man and the British have the
Big Green Gathering). The organisers leave it up to the individual to
decide on their own level of nudity as well as ConFest and BGG endorsing
'green', 'natural' and 'eco friendly' approaches to life.

"Until then, we are all liars, hypocrites and tyrants. We have a long
road to true nudism / naturism."

Agreed. I have met many newcomers to ConFest who went along because of
their desire to try something new with their lives, including nude
recreation and they said "Now why can't the rest of the world be like this?"
The first time I went to ConFest in 2006 there were about 3,000 people there
all going about their daily activities nude or dressed as they pleased. The
Australian Nudist Convention which was held around the same time got only
100 people turning up - so what does that have to tell us?

Best wishes,

Dario Western

TheWhiteCockatoo

2009-09-30 07:31:39 UTC

Permalink

Thank God we operate as a Nudist Resort rather than a Naturist Resort
(for part of the year only) Not that I believe for a nano-second that
there is any difference to either term, having a very clear and
informed understanding of the history and origin of both terms.

To some degree I believe the term Naturist often means Pretentious
Nudist ;)

This becomes really apparent when they constantly use the word
Naturalist, which happens frequently, that simply shows me they have
no idea!

But I digress..... my thankfulness in being a Nudist Resort is that we
do have a strict Nude Only policy during our nude seasons. We clearly
show this via our website, explain it to all guests who might book by
phone rather than via our website, and again go through this policy
during the check-in process for all guests.

I have never ever got violent with anyone for refusing to be nude
while here, but I have asked some to leave who have gone through the
above process, of being well informed, to then refuse to disrobe once
they are actually within the property. That's nothing more than total
ignorance, in my opinion, and we certainly don't want ignorant idiots
here ruining it for the genuine majority.

Funnily enough some tosser posted a review just recently complaining
about us forcing him and his wife to be nude! Another regular repeat
guest has already responded with her own review which in its writing
shows him to be the dickhead he so obviously is! However we don't even
remember an actual guest being here in the circumstances or time that
he describes, so likely just another false review anyway. We do get a
few ;) (Tall Poppy Syndrome, or Penis Envy, is alive and well!)

Having said all that..... This is our policy, and the way we choose to
do it. Works very well for us, but we don't denigrate others who
choose to do it differently although many of our guests do.

We are very fortunate that our Nude Seasons are always warm enough to
enable 24 hour a day nudity, so we never need worry about "weather
conditions permitting".

My wife and I used to stay another nudist property on a regular basis
over a short period in the 90's. It was supposedly a Nude Only
property but the owners were frequently fully dressed themselves and
allowed non-nudist friends and family to visit and use the facilities
fully dressed while everybody else was told they had to be nude! We
stopped visiting.

So that's our deal here.... Not for you? That's cool.... just don't
bother coming here during our nude seasons!

Tony Fox
@ The White Cockatoo
www.tropicsnude.com

Phil O'Sann

2009-10-08 10:21:19 UTC

Permalink

Post by TheWhiteCockatoo
Thank God we operate as a Nudist Resort rather than a Naturist Resort
(for part of the year only) Not that I believe for a nano-second that
there is any difference to either term, having a very clear and
informed understanding of the history and origin of both terms.

Demarcation causing so much confusion, good to see this commonsense
post. We enjoy nude holidays at nude holiday destinations. Were we
still nervous about being nude with others, we would prefer clothes
optional destinations; the two are different and the one can't be the
other. Making nudity 'compulsory' at a nude destination is reasonable
and sensible. As for talk of 'naturism being the freedom to dress as
one pleases', just what dictionary was that culled from?

Stuffed Tiger

2009-10-03 01:42:56 UTC

Permalink

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:06:17 -0700 (PDT), Will Golden
<willy-***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

...

Post by Will Golden
The singular rule of naturism is "the freedom to dress as you wish".

Not really. Respect, yes, but freedom is much more than respect.

Respecting people's right to dress as they wish does not mean we have
to allow uniformed Nazi sympathizers freedom to parade in a synagogue.

... or textile addicts the freedom to parade in a nudist resort.

Post by Will Golden
... If the right to dress as you wish is
refused then the body or individual that takes that decision is ANTI-
naturist. Being nude is simply not enough. Flashers are nude.

Who told you that how we dress is an absolute right?

Flashers are not nude. They suddenly reveal their genitals from under
clothing with the intent of imposing their sexuality on someone else.

We dress naturally because we don't care to be flashers.

After all, being natural is a right from our Creator, isn't it? Look.
What could be more our own? What could be more ours to be than
ourselves and nothing more?

With that in mind, we can all see that clothing as an expression can
be used to force us to tout somebody else's ideas, ideas different
from our Creator's ideas. Why should we accept that?

Who wouldn't stand up for the freedom to NOT dress as others please.
That is different from a freedom to dress as we please.

Post by Will Golden
The principles of being pro-nature, pro-nude-sunbathing are
commendable but are all of a sudden irrelevant.

Being pro-nature is irrelevant to being a naturist? Being pro-nude is
irrelevant to being a nudist? That's funnnnny! :-))))))

...

Post by Will Golden
Yet we have people condoning forcing others to strip. Clubs are doing
the same. Some force people to be naked when they would rather not.

Nonsense.

Clubs ask people not to dress at all in certain places, like the pool,
hot tub and sauna, the same way we ask people not to smoke in certain
areas. What's wrong with that? Clothing can be a strong addiction like
smoking can be. Addicts need to be loved, cared for and respected but
please, not emulated as a best practice.

Naturism/Nudism is the best practice in this category.

Sure, it's important to accommodate our smoking friends as those who
choose not to smoke. Let there be no mistake, it is the smokers who
are forcing something, not the non-smokers. Fortunately, most smokers
are polite and consider others, and non-smokers should do the same.

We can see that it is the clothing addicts who force people to dress
when it is unnatural and unnecessary, and like flashers, they force
themselves on others trying to be free of the clothing compulsion.
That should not be allowed at any nudist resort. They have the whole
rest of the World to force their addiction on everybody else.

At the same time, if we have someone trying to free themselves of a
clothing compulsion, most nudist resorts understand and accommodate
their shyness and anxiety. It is just simple courtesy and compassion.
Isn't that all the more reason to help them get over that compulsion?

Post by Will Golden
Worse still, all naturist clubs bar a handful refuse admission to
their bars, restaurants and dancehalls unless you are dressed.

Laws typically require certain dress in bars and restaurants for
sanitary reasons. What clubs are you talking about? Names please.

Zee

2009-10-03 02:53:36 UTC

Permalink

Post by Stuffed Tiger
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:06:17 -0700 (PDT), Will Golden
...

Post by Will Golden
The singular rule of naturism is "the freedom to dress as you wish".

Not really. Respect, yes, but freedom is much more than respect.
Respecting people's right to dress as they wish does not mean we have
to allow uniformed Nazi sympathizers freedom to parade in a synagogue.
... or textile addicts the freedom to parade in a nudist resort.

Post by Will Golden
... If the right to dress as you wish is
refused then the body or individual that takes that decision is ANTI-
naturist. Being nude is simply not enough. Flashers are nude.

Who told you that how we dress is an absolute right?
Flashers are not nude. They suddenly reveal their genitals from under
clothing with the intent of imposing their sexuality on someone else.
We dress naturally because we don't care to be flashers.
After all, being natural is a right from our Creator, isn't it? Look.
What could be more our own? What could be more ours to be than
ourselves and nothing more?
With that in mind, we can all see that clothing as an expression can
be used to force us to tout somebody else's ideas, ideas different
from our Creator's ideas. Why should we accept that?
Who wouldn't stand up for the freedom to NOT dress as others please.
That is different from a freedom to dress as we please.

Post by Will Golden
The principles of being pro-nature, pro-nude-sunbathing are
commendable but are all of a sudden irrelevant.

Being pro-nature is irrelevant to being a naturist? Being pro-nude is
irrelevant to being a nudist? That's funnnnny! :-))))))
...

Post by Will Golden
Yet we have people condoning forcing others to strip. Clubs are doing
the same. Some force people to be naked when they would rather not.

Nonsense.
Clubs ask people not to dress at all in certain places, like the pool,
hot tub and sauna, the same way we ask people not to smoke in certain
areas. What's wrong with that? Clothing can be a strong addiction like
smoking can be. Addicts need to be loved, cared for and respected but
please, not emulated as a best practice.
Naturism/Nudism is the best practice in this category.
Sure, it's important to accommodate our smoking friends as those who
choose not to smoke. Let there be no mistake, it is the smokers who
are forcing something, not the non-smokers. Fortunately, most smokers
are polite and consider others, and non-smokers should do the same.
We can see that it is the clothing addicts who force people to dress
when it is unnatural and unnecessary, and like flashers, they force
themselves on others trying to be free of the clothing compulsion.
That should not be allowed at any nudist resort. They have the whole
rest of the World to force their addiction on everybody else.
At the same time, if we have someone trying to free themselves of a
clothing compulsion, most nudist resorts understand and accommodate
their shyness and anxiety. It is just simple courtesy and compassion.
Isn't that all the more reason to help them get over that compulsion?

Post by Will Golden
Worse still, all naturist clubs bar a handful refuse admission to
their bars, restaurants and dancehalls unless you are dressed.

Laws typically require certain dress in bars and restaurants for
sanitary reasons. What clubs are you talking about? Names please.

GOTCHA stuffy......so tell us once and for all what is NATURAL
nudity.....you still trying to put this nudist dogma on
everyone....but you cant sneak by me....jz

Dan Myers

2009-10-07 04:21:27 UTC

Permalink

Post by Zee