For what they are worth, here are my confused thoughts.
I think the association between nudity and sexuality exists everywhere. If it did not, places like Cap d'Age wouldn't exist.
Taking off your clothes to have sex becomes a conditioned reflex. So is seeing a nude person as sexual. Even if you've never had sex, you become conditioned by those around you. In the absence of contrarian experience, the association will remain. That association will not go away until they see so many people in the nude who are not associated with sex that the reflex goes extinct.
Telling people that it is not sexual is of extremely limited benefit. It doesn't break the conditioned response.
That isn't going to happen any time soon. Right now, Britain is about the only place where it conceivably could. There are more than enough nudists in Britain to make public nudity commonplace and beak the connection but the social penalties are still strong enough to hold.
Nudists continue to associate nonsexual nudity with people who aren't nudists - or nudity in non-nudist public areas - as evil exhibitionism. Regardless of the nudie's intent, obviously those textiles folks are looking at them sexually. And the thoughts they project into the other person's mind matter.
I kind of get what you're saying, Fred, and it's a valid argument - but only to a certain extent, I believe. Why does the conditioned response to a naked person have to be associated with sex, when the average person takes heir clothes off for variety of other reasons also? In fact I would bet that most people are naked for the purpose of bathing or taking a shower much more often than they are for having sex. So why single out sex as the conditioned response?
But, yes, I do agree that getting people to see others partaking in normal activities without clothing is far more effective than simply trying to persuade them with words. And that's the main failing with private nudist clubs with their club grounds and facilities secreted away behind tall hedges and fences, like some evil, clandestine cult.
Along with Britain, I can assure you that most New Zealanders are also pretty laid back when it comes to nudity, particularly in appropriate spaces such as beaches, rivers, lakes and forests. While we do get the odd one or two who might raise an eyebrow on meeting our group out on a forest trail, the vast majority don't care and are often quite friendly.
As I said, my thoughts were confused and not fully developed. But we are talking coed nudity here which is treated by society as totally different from taking a shower.
At what point does a typical American see a naked male and female together without it being sex? That's all you ever see, all you are ever told, how you see everyone else react. Perhaps conditioned reflex isn't the right term but it is certainly something similar and it is a much deeper process than just being taught. Maybe "imprinted" is a better word.
But if you are a toddler and every time you get naked someone immediately slaps clothing on you, eventually you've been conditioned. A lot of people do not feel comfortable without clothing unless they are in an excused activity, like a bath, but can't really explain why.
We've had some very interesting responses here. The consensus: "swinging" is an affront to naturism for various reasons.
But what if self-defined nudists who also engage in group sex, partner swapping and the like during social nudism events didn't define themselves as "swingers"?
(If anybody sees this comment and responds, I will have a follow-up question. Otherwise, I'll follow it up in a new post.)
That's not my take on it. Swinging is unconstrained sexual freedom. Nudism is clothes freedom. Some people will be one or the other, some will be both - the ratios of the two will vary, and some will be neither. You can be one one day and another in a different context.
And what exactly is a "swinger?" I've been to textile "swinger" events where some of the people flirt and join up in various combinations and wander off to a bedroom or some other isolated location without any nudity or open sexuality at all. (The rest of the people, all guys, went home disappointed.)
Consent is everything. Context is everything. There are going to be nudists with a greater acceptance of open sexuality. It is hard to imagine textile swingers with a lack of tolerance for nudity. Let's not pretend there won't be overlap.
I'm playing devil's advocate here, objectively speaking: As you mentioned in another response here, you've seen sexual activities taking place in gay nudism. I think that is pretty much accepted by the greater nudism community -- as in live and let live.
So, why doesn't the greater nudism community accept people who identify as both swingers and nudism and blend the two in their own scenes, as some gay people do?
It is because of the dogged separation between sex and nudity. Traditional nudism insists there is NO sexuality in nudism. That stems from the bad old days when we had to worry about being raided or shut down or having a children's services investigation. Nudism had to be "squeaky clean," much "cleaner" than society in general, or you ran a very real risk.
Plus, American nudism did not start out in the Bohemian segment of society, it started from the Puritan segment. The relaxed version of social nudity didn't evolve until the "60s. Those hippies and free thinkers were not welcome in "proper" nudist society which was shocked by the rampant public nudity at Woodstock. The two traditions still do not coexist comfortably in most locations.
That gay beach I mentioned is not populated by gay nudists. Wouldn't even call them swingers. It goes beyond that. It's primarily populated by solo gay textiles who use nudity for the purpose of "advertising" for later anonymous sexual activity. That behavior, straight or gay, would never be welcomed in any nudist circles I know of.
My journey to clothes freedom began 50 years ago in my Hippy days. I guess it could be called swinging. We really didn’t put a name on it. I will venture to guess that a lot of people in that movement, such as myself, found their particular brand of nudity and sexuality. Many grew up bringing the clothes free culture with them. I moved from the nudity and free sex culture to a more recreational culture, sans clothes, to a normalicy of everyday naturism to a more spiritual culture. Finally I am in a place where being natural, without clothing encompasses all the above. Being naked, a nudist, a naturist, clothing free. What one wishes to call it is a very personal thing and is as varied as each person’s personality. As for swingers using nudism as a format for their lifestyle, it seems like it is more the reverse. They use their lifestyle to incorporate nakedness. I have seen people interacting about travel, cars, you name it, on nudist sites. As for the sexual stuff vs non sexual stuff, I blame the owners and administrators of nudists sites for not keeping their forums on track.
Yes, as humans we are a complex mix of a whole host of different make-ups with an equally diverse number of interests - including sex.
But naturism isn't about sex any more than it's about tennis or vintage car restoration! So, yes, of course you can be a naturist as well as being a swinger and an aircraft pilot and a marathon runner all rolled into one human being. One person can obviously have a multitude of different interests and skills.
It shouldn't be that difficult, therefore, for a person to understand that naturism and swinging are completely unrelated interests. So I find it a bit tragic and quite frustrating that some swingers see naturism as an appropriate platform to discuss their swinging interests. It's completely off-topic.
Although I agree that swingers ought to be free to do what they want, as should nudists, I object to swingers who masquerade as nudists. I don’t want to be thought of as someone with the morals of an alley cat. For decades nudists have worked to gain acceptance for our lifestyle by keeping it entirely separate from sex. Whatever reputation we have gained by those efforts is jeopardized by swingers pretending to be nudists. They should clearly identify themselves and work to gain acceptance for their lifestyle without representing themselves as nudists. Their dishonesty damages our reputation.
I checked out the article about the Florida nudist resort. I was so glad to see plenty of old people who were not in the condition of fitness that many have come to worship these days. Truth is that a lot of us aren't. While I consider ALL nude people to be beautiful, I am especially drawn to the older people in our world. I found this article very interesting, with very nice pictures.
The whole world would be a better place if everybody lived nude unless weather or safety prohibits it. As far as swinging is concerned those who wish to indulge in this practice ohave every right to do so. But it must be contained in areas where children, I would say less than 16, are not going to be. I for one yern for the freedom to be nude whenever and wherever I should choose. As far as those who say 'I don't want to see it' are concerned, they just need to look somewhere else.
Happy new year Jillian, a great photo of the Sydney fireworks they are always such an amazing display!!
A most interesting topic, Im yet to read the article but as a general opinion from me, I tend to agree with you - each to their own. I also agree with most of what Rokker has said in his reply to you. There is a difficult conundrum for us in some respects and in my opinion it is this: if we agree that naturism is a way of life and if as part of our lives we discuss many topics, then discussing the practice of swinging should be no different to other topics. If swingers wish to be members of nudist or naturist websites and discuss their lifestyle there then they should not be censored. I mean some of them might identify as nudists in their own minds. However, if they create profiles on nudist/naturists sites for the main purpose of discussing and or soliciting others into the practice of swinging then id say thats entirely inappropriate.
Is there any way I can attached a low resolution photo here? I have one that explains the nudism/sexuality topics quite simply and well and id like to share it.
The following two paragraphs kick off a disturbing article in The Guardian newspaper/website. If even halfway true there has never been a greater need for naturism to make its ethos felt:
Three out of four children as young as 12 dislike their bodies and are embarrassed by the way they look, increasing to eight in 10 young people aged 18 to 21.
The findings come from a major new study warning that social media represents a significant risk to the current and future health of today’s young generations.
Two great articles, this one and enjoyed especially the one on Florida, quite factual and informative. As a nudist couple who are members of a nude resort the swinger question does come up from time to time. Yes, we have swingers at our resort, however they keep their activities behind closed doors. We don't consider ourselves swingers since we don't actively seek that activity. However there have been a few times when we did play with other couples and have enjoyed a few mfm 3 ways. They were the result of the right time, place and people, not planned. As nudists we are supposed to be non-judgmental. Being a nudist, a swinger or removing one pubic hair are all personal choices and that's what matters is respecting everyone's personal choices.
Your comment brought to mind a the comedy series, Benidorm - a British show featuring folks who return year after year to a popular holiday resort in Spain. - NOT a naturist resort. Two of the characters, Donald and Jacqueline Stewart, make no secret of the fact they are swingers and spend much of their time at the resort canvassing other guests to see who might be interested. Now, part of the comedic effect of this series is that it amplifies and lampoons typical activities that take place at these resorts - including swinging.
And that's my point - swinging is a whole activity in its own right and has absolutely nothing to do with naturism. People take their clothes off to have sex, but that doesn't make them naturists. And naturists don't wear clothes to go hiking, but that doesn't make them swingers. And yet, in Western society, especially America and Australia, the automatic association of nakedness with sex persists.
Southern California has a few swinger clubs. There is a gay nude beach up by Frisco that might as well be a gay swinger club. I saw everything short of intercourse - erections, fluffing, petting - going on. No doubt more was going on in the areas I didn't see. Not my bag, so I didn't stay.
I don't have a problem with it but it is an extreme case of what I call "market segmentation."
For what they are worth, here are my confused thoughts.
I think the association between nudity and sexuality exists everywhere. If it did not, places like Cap d'Age wouldn't exist.
Taking off your clothes to have sex becomes a conditioned reflex. So is seeing a nude person as sexual. Even if you've never had sex, you become conditioned by those around you. In the absence of contrarian experience, the association will remain. That association will not go away until they see so many people in the nude who are not associated with sex that the reflex goes extinct.
Telling people that it is not sexual is of extremely limited benefit. It doesn't break the conditioned response.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-extinction-2795176
That isn't going to happen any time soon. Right now, Britain is about the only place where it conceivably could. There are more than enough nudists in Britain to make public nudity commonplace and beak the connection but the social penalties are still strong enough to hold.
Nudists continue to associate nonsexual nudity with people who aren't nudists - or nudity in non-nudist public areas - as evil exhibitionism. Regardless of the nudie's intent, obviously those textiles folks are looking at them sexually. And the thoughts they project into the other person's mind matter.
We close the closet door and lock it behind us.
I kind of get what you're saying, Fred, and it's a valid argument - but only to a certain extent, I believe. Why does the conditioned response to a naked person have to be associated with sex, when the average person takes heir clothes off for variety of other reasons also? In fact I would bet that most people are naked for the purpose of bathing or taking a shower much more often than they are for having sex. So why single out sex as the conditioned response?
But, yes, I do agree that getting people to see others partaking in normal activities without clothing is far more effective than simply trying to persuade them with words. And that's the main failing with private nudist clubs with their club grounds and facilities secreted away behind tall hedges and fences, like some evil, clandestine cult.
Along with Britain, I can assure you that most New Zealanders are also pretty laid back when it comes to nudity, particularly in appropriate spaces such as beaches, rivers, lakes and forests. While we do get the odd one or two who might raise an eyebrow on meeting our group out on a forest trail, the vast majority don't care and are often quite friendly.
As I said, my thoughts were confused and not fully developed. But we are talking coed nudity here which is treated by society as totally different from taking a shower.
At what point does a typical American see a naked male and female together without it being sex? That's all you ever see, all you are ever told, how you see everyone else react. Perhaps conditioned reflex isn't the right term but it is certainly something similar and it is a much deeper process than just being taught. Maybe "imprinted" is a better word.
But if you are a toddler and every time you get naked someone immediately slaps clothing on you, eventually you've been conditioned. A lot of people do not feel comfortable without clothing unless they are in an excused activity, like a bath, but can't really explain why.
We've had some very interesting responses here. The consensus: "swinging" is an affront to naturism for various reasons.
But what if self-defined nudists who also engage in group sex, partner swapping and the like during social nudism events didn't define themselves as "swingers"?
(If anybody sees this comment and responds, I will have a follow-up question. Otherwise, I'll follow it up in a new post.)
That's not my take on it. Swinging is unconstrained sexual freedom. Nudism is clothes freedom. Some people will be one or the other, some will be both - the ratios of the two will vary, and some will be neither. You can be one one day and another in a different context.
And what exactly is a "swinger?" I've been to textile "swinger" events where some of the people flirt and join up in various combinations and wander off to a bedroom or some other isolated location without any nudity or open sexuality at all. (The rest of the people, all guys, went home disappointed.)
Consent is everything. Context is everything. There are going to be nudists with a greater acceptance of open sexuality. It is hard to imagine textile swingers with a lack of tolerance for nudity. Let's not pretend there won't be overlap.
I'm playing devil's advocate here, objectively speaking: As you mentioned in another response here, you've seen sexual activities taking place in gay nudism. I think that is pretty much accepted by the greater nudism community -- as in live and let live.
So, why doesn't the greater nudism community accept people who identify as both swingers and nudism and blend the two in their own scenes, as some gay people do?
It is because of the dogged separation between sex and nudity. Traditional nudism insists there is NO sexuality in nudism. That stems from the bad old days when we had to worry about being raided or shut down or having a children's services investigation. Nudism had to be "squeaky clean," much "cleaner" than society in general, or you ran a very real risk.
Plus, American nudism did not start out in the Bohemian segment of society, it started from the Puritan segment. The relaxed version of social nudity didn't evolve until the "60s. Those hippies and free thinkers were not welcome in "proper" nudist society which was shocked by the rampant public nudity at Woodstock. The two traditions still do not coexist comfortably in most locations.
That gay beach I mentioned is not populated by gay nudists. Wouldn't even call them swingers. It goes beyond that. It's primarily populated by solo gay textiles who use nudity for the purpose of "advertising" for later anonymous sexual activity. That behavior, straight or gay, would never be welcomed in any nudist circles I know of.
My journey to clothes freedom began 50 years ago in my Hippy days. I guess it could be called swinging. We really didn’t put a name on it. I will venture to guess that a lot of people in that movement, such as myself, found their particular brand of nudity and sexuality. Many grew up bringing the clothes free culture with them. I moved from the nudity and free sex culture to a more recreational culture, sans clothes, to a normalicy of everyday naturism to a more spiritual culture. Finally I am in a place where being natural, without clothing encompasses all the above. Being naked, a nudist, a naturist, clothing free. What one wishes to call it is a very personal thing and is as varied as each person’s personality. As for swingers using nudism as a format for their lifestyle, it seems like it is more the reverse. They use their lifestyle to incorporate nakedness. I have seen people interacting about travel, cars, you name it, on nudist sites. As for the sexual stuff vs non sexual stuff, I blame the owners and administrators of nudists sites for not keeping their forums on track.
Jillian, to me the answer is simple.
Yes, as humans we are a complex mix of a whole host of different make-ups with an equally diverse number of interests - including sex.
But naturism isn't about sex any more than it's about tennis or vintage car restoration! So, yes, of course you can be a naturist as well as being a swinger and an aircraft pilot and a marathon runner all rolled into one human being. One person can obviously have a multitude of different interests and skills.
It shouldn't be that difficult, therefore, for a person to understand that naturism and swinging are completely unrelated interests. So I find it a bit tragic and quite frustrating that some swingers see naturism as an appropriate platform to discuss their swinging interests. It's completely off-topic.
Although I agree that swingers ought to be free to do what they want, as should nudists, I object to swingers who masquerade as nudists. I don’t want to be thought of as someone with the morals of an alley cat. For decades nudists have worked to gain acceptance for our lifestyle by keeping it entirely separate from sex. Whatever reputation we have gained by those efforts is jeopardized by swingers pretending to be nudists. They should clearly identify themselves and work to gain acceptance for their lifestyle without representing themselves as nudists. Their dishonesty damages our reputation.
I checked out the article about the Florida nudist resort. I was so glad to see plenty of old people who were not in the condition of fitness that many have come to worship these days. Truth is that a lot of us aren't. While I consider ALL nude people to be beautiful, I am especially drawn to the older people in our world. I found this article very interesting, with very nice pictures.
Martin
Writes Martin’s Substack
1 hr ago
Liked by Jillian Page
The whole world would be a better place if everybody lived nude unless weather or safety prohibits it. As far as swinging is concerned those who wish to indulge in this practice ohave every right to do so. But it must be contained in areas where children, I would say less than 16, are not going to be. I for one yern for the freedom to be nude whenever and wherever I should choose. As far as those who say 'I don't want to see it' are concerned, they just need to look somewhere else.
Happy new year Jillian, a great photo of the Sydney fireworks they are always such an amazing display!!
A most interesting topic, Im yet to read the article but as a general opinion from me, I tend to agree with you - each to their own. I also agree with most of what Rokker has said in his reply to you. There is a difficult conundrum for us in some respects and in my opinion it is this: if we agree that naturism is a way of life and if as part of our lives we discuss many topics, then discussing the practice of swinging should be no different to other topics. If swingers wish to be members of nudist or naturist websites and discuss their lifestyle there then they should not be censored. I mean some of them might identify as nudists in their own minds. However, if they create profiles on nudist/naturists sites for the main purpose of discussing and or soliciting others into the practice of swinging then id say thats entirely inappropriate.
Is there any way I can attached a low resolution photo here? I have one that explains the nudism/sexuality topics quite simply and well and id like to share it.
I don't see a way to attach photos in the comments sections, but you could provide a link to the photo's site.
The following two paragraphs kick off a disturbing article in The Guardian newspaper/website. If even halfway true there has never been a greater need for naturism to make its ethos felt:
Three out of four children as young as 12 dislike their bodies and are embarrassed by the way they look, increasing to eight in 10 young people aged 18 to 21.
The findings come from a major new study warning that social media represents a significant risk to the current and future health of today’s young generations.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/01/social-media-triggers-children-to-dislike-their-own-bodies-says-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I saw that piece today, Peter, and bookmarked it. It doesn't surprise me: social media is putting all kinds of pressure on young people.
Two great articles, this one and enjoyed especially the one on Florida, quite factual and informative. As a nudist couple who are members of a nude resort the swinger question does come up from time to time. Yes, we have swingers at our resort, however they keep their activities behind closed doors. We don't consider ourselves swingers since we don't actively seek that activity. However there have been a few times when we did play with other couples and have enjoyed a few mfm 3 ways. They were the result of the right time, place and people, not planned. As nudists we are supposed to be non-judgmental. Being a nudist, a swinger or removing one pubic hair are all personal choices and that's what matters is respecting everyone's personal choices.
Your comment brought to mind a the comedy series, Benidorm - a British show featuring folks who return year after year to a popular holiday resort in Spain. - NOT a naturist resort. Two of the characters, Donald and Jacqueline Stewart, make no secret of the fact they are swingers and spend much of their time at the resort canvassing other guests to see who might be interested. Now, part of the comedic effect of this series is that it amplifies and lampoons typical activities that take place at these resorts - including swinging.
And that's my point - swinging is a whole activity in its own right and has absolutely nothing to do with naturism. People take their clothes off to have sex, but that doesn't make them naturists. And naturists don't wear clothes to go hiking, but that doesn't make them swingers. And yet, in Western society, especially America and Australia, the automatic association of nakedness with sex persists.
Indeed it does my friend!!
Swingers are blight. Just like people who leave trash piling up, play loud music, or have dogs poop anywhere.
Southern California has a few swinger clubs. There is a gay nude beach up by Frisco that might as well be a gay swinger club. I saw everything short of intercourse - erections, fluffing, petting - going on. No doubt more was going on in the areas I didn't see. Not my bag, so I didn't stay.
I don't have a problem with it but it is an extreme case of what I call "market segmentation."