Thoughts on nudism

  • Miko-chan wrote:

    Ryanschmo wrote:

    My thoughts are: there's a lot of people on this site who claim to be nudists, but when you get right down to it, you'll find that most people have a much broader definition of nudism/naturism than they should.
    It’s more that they claim to be but haven’t been socially nude outside of very quickly changing in a locker room or maybe went skinny dipping in the dark on a dare when they were 12 and just like to fantasize about nudism and so pretend online
    There ya go. I feel like unless you're truly totally comfortable naked around literally anyone and go without clothes literally as often as possible, you're not a nudist.

  • Miko-chan wrote:

    Ryanschmo wrote:

    My thoughts are: there's a lot of people on this site who claim to be nudists, but when you get right down to it, you'll find that most people have a much broader definition of nudism/naturism than they should.
    It’s more that they claim to be but haven’t been socially nude outside of very quickly changing in a locker room or maybe went skinny dipping in the dark on a dare when they were 12 and just like to fantasize about nudism and so pretend online
    Or worse, they claim to be a "bedroom nudist" lol. Being naked alone in ur bedroom doesn't make you a nudist.

  • Gabraham247 wrote:

    Miko-chan wrote:

    Ryanschmo wrote:

    My thoughts are: there's a lot of people on this site who claim to be nudists, but when you get right down to it, you'll find that most people have a much broader definition of nudism/naturism than they should.
    It’s more that they claim to be but haven’t been socially nude outside of very quickly changing in a locker room or maybe went skinny dipping in the dark on a dare when they were 12 and just like to fantasize about nudism and so pretend online
    Or worse, they claim to be a "bedroom nudist" lol. Being naked alone in ur bedroom doesn't make you a nudist.
    exactly. It just makes you normal. Most of us enjoy being naked when there's no one around to say anything.

  • Gabraham247 wrote:

    Miko-chan wrote:

    Ryanschmo wrote:

    My thoughts are: there's a lot of people on this site who claim to be nudists, but when you get right down to it, you'll find that most people have a much broader definition of nudism/naturism than they should.
    It’s more that they claim to be but haven’t been socially nude outside of very quickly changing in a locker room or maybe went skinny dipping in the dark on a dare when they were 12 and just like to fantasize about nudism and so pretend online
    Or worse, they claim to be a "bedroom nudist" lol. Being naked alone in ur bedroom doesn't make you a nudist.
    Not so sure about that. People can identify as anything they want in this day and age. If someone says they are a cat, they they be a cat ... lol ... so if they identify as a nudist, then they are seemingly naked!

  • collin13 wrote:

    Not so sure about that. People can identify as anything they want in this day and age. If someone says they are a cat, they they be a cat ... lol ... so if they identify as a nudist, then they are seemingly naked!
    I was going to respond to say yes, you can, but if you use words to mean something different from what most people mean you risk being misunderstood and I think you do say you're a nudist, people would understand that to mean being nude in more situations that is required by simple practicality.

    But, in a sense, someone could say they feel like a nudist in that they want to wear clothes in fewer situations but either don't have the confidence or the support from like minded people to actually do it.


  • collin13 wrote:

    Not so sure about that. People can identify as anything they want in this day and age. If someone says they are a cat, they they be a cat ... lol ... so if they identify as a nudist, then they are seemingly naked!
    Lol. A lot of people make fun of or get mad at people who identify as something maybe others don't obviously recognize them as (especially old white men do this ... about trans or furries or others stuff people self identify as). These people (Boomers or just plain phobes) think it has to do with our generation. But in a way it's nothing new imo. Humans have been picking what they want to be and ignoring what they are since the beginning of time. For example, I'll take just two activties a person can partake in - running and stealing. A person can run like 500 marathons in their lives between before they turn 50 and stopping but when that person is 70 and hasn't even ran a single mile in the last 20 years, are they still a runner??? Conversely, if a person runs one race a year for charity, and nothing else, are they a runner? They run. Not often, but they do. And if a person only commits 1 crime their entire life are they a criminal? Like you could be a priest or a CEO, or PUSA but you shoplifted when you were 18 and convicted, are you a criminal? My point is there are a ton of adjectives we use to define ourselves. Some are major adjectives and some are minor. But we pick and choose most of them without people batting an eye, but some opinionated people get butthurt when you identify some certain ways.

    Back to the topic. I guess imo a person isn't a "nudist" unless the person is actively into the nudist lifestyle as often as they can. But I guess if a person who attends a nude resort, or goes to a nude beach once a year wants to call themselves a nudist, they can do what they want, including a person just being naked in their bedroom.

  • Gabraham247 wrote:

    Lol. A lot of people make fun of or get mad at people who identify as something maybe others don't obviously recognize them as (especially old white men do this ... about trans or furries or others stuff people self identify as). These people (Boomers or just plain phobes) think it has to do with our generation. But in a way it's nothing new imo...
    I can see why you mentioned trans in the sense that being trans, or preferring pronouns that are different from those of the sex most people would assume, are examples of people's own declared identity being different from what others think. It could also be that both are a case of the observer rejecting anything that doesn't match their view of the world.

    But there are also significant differences. People claim that being trans is not real and just a case of being awkward partly because they came from a generation when people, at least normal working people, were expected to "fit the mould" and much less effort was made to help minorities. This would apply not just to trans but to people with ADHD, who would simply considered to be trouble makers. people with learning disabilities who would be branded thick and mostly ignored etc. I would also say it is partly because of a lack of understanding and that comes in two halves:
    1. Being prepared to tell people what they feel is not real.
    2. Saying that world is simple enough that if one looks male then he must be male in every respect and likewise with female with no possibility of ambiguity regardless of scientists knowing for some that it is more complicated than that.
    But perhaps those don't understand continue to not understand because they don't want to understand. New information challenges their simplistic view of the world and they would rather not have their view challenged.

    But the other examples of the runner and the criminal are interesting. I think society in general takes the view that descriptions like this are time-limited. Certainly with the criminal, at least in the UK convictions only have to be declared on various types of application for a limited period, after which no-one can ask the person to disclose the conviction, with certain exceptions, for example you won't pass a check for working with children if you have previously been convicted of abusing them. But, a former thief can go about his business including applying to jobs etc. and not need to declare the conviction once it is deemed to be "spent".

    Professional athletes may reasonably take the same approach as for many other jobs and professions and describe themselves as a retired baseball player or something similar. Then what a retired person did when they were working may continue to have an effect of how they seem things in retirement and they may also expect some of the status of their former employment to stay with them. But, you are right that there will always be the question of what someone feels. If a retired person still feels like a runner or an engineer or whatever then who are we to object.

  • Gabraham247 wrote:

    collin13 wrote:

    Not so sure about that. People can identify as anything they want in this day and age. If someone says they are a cat, they they be a cat ... lol ... so if they identify as a nudist, then they are seemingly naked!
    Lol. A lot of people make fun of or get mad at people who identify as something maybe others don't obviously recognize them as (especially old white men do this ... about trans or furries or others stuff people self identify as). These people (Boomers or just plain phobes) think it has to do with our generation. But in a way it's nothing new imo. Humans have been picking what they want to be and ignoring what they are since the beginning of time. For example, I'll take just two activties a person can partake in - running and stealing. A person can run like 500 marathons in their lives between before they turn 50 and stopping but when that person is 70 and hasn't even ran a single mile in the last 20 years, are they still a runner??? Conversely, if a person runs one race a year for charity, and nothing else, are they a runner? They run. Not often, but they do. And if a person only commits 1 crime their entire life are they a criminal? Like you could be a priest or a CEO, or PUSA but you shoplifted when you were 18 and convicted, are you a criminal? My point is there are a ton of adjectives we use to define ourselves. Some are major adjectives and some are minor. But we pick and choose most of them without people batting an eye, but some opinionated people get butthurt when you identify some certain ways.
    Back to the topic. I guess imo a person isn't a "nudist" unless the person is actively into the nudist lifestyle as often as they can. But I guess if a person who attends a nude resort, or goes to a nude beach once a year wants to call themselves a nudist, they can do what they want, including a person just being naked in their bedroom.
    You made some good points, but you have to remember that words have no meaning if anyone can define them however they wish to at any time.

  • Sean2001 wrote:

    Gabraham247 wrote:

    Lol. A lot of people make fun of or get mad at people who identify as something maybe others don't obviously recognize them as (especially old white men do this ... about trans or furries or others stuff people self identify as). These people (Boomers or just plain phobes) think it has to do with our generation. But in a way it's nothing new imo...
    I can see why you mentioned trans in the sense that being trans, or preferring pronouns that are different from those of the sex most people would assume, are examples of people's own declared identity being different from what others think. It could also be that both are a case of the observer rejecting anything that doesn't match their view of the world.
    But there are also significant differences. People claim that being trans is not real and just a case of being awkward partly because they came from a generation when people, at least normal working people, were expected to "fit the mould" and much less effort was made to help minorities. This would apply not just to trans but to people with ADHD, who would simply considered to be trouble makers. people with learning disabilities who would be branded thick and mostly ignored etc. I would also say it is partly because of a lack of understanding and that comes in two halves:
    1. Being prepared to tell people what they feel is not real.
    2. Saying that world is simple enough that if one looks male then he must be male in every respect and likewise with female with no possibility of ambiguity regardless of scientists knowing for some that it is more complicated than that.
    But perhaps those don't understand continue to not understand because they don't want to understand. New information challenges their simplistic view of the world and they would rather not have their view challenged.

    But the other examples of the runner and the criminal are interesting. I think society in general takes the view that descriptions like this are time-limited. Certainly with the criminal, at least in the UK convictions only have to be declared on various types of application for a limited period, after which no-one can ask the person to disclose the conviction, with certain exceptions, for example you won't pass a check for working with children if you have previously been convicted of abusing them. But, a former thief can go about his business including applying to jobs etc. and not need to declare the conviction once it is deemed to be "spent".

    Professional athletes may reasonably take the same approach as for many other jobs and professions and describe themselves as a retired baseball player or something similar. Then what a retired person did when they were working may continue to have an effect of how they seem things in retirement and they may also expect some of the status of their former employment to stay with them. But, you are right that there will always be the question of what someone feels. If a retired person still feels like a runner or an engineer or whatever then who are we to object.
    Ya I think we pretty much agree completely. Especially the part about Boomers expecting everybody always fitting in and never breaking the mold. Old people still hate on Caitlin Jenner cuz she used to be a famous athlete. I mean a lot of Boomers hate all trans people but Jenner especially in some ways.

  • Why all the shit talk on "boomers"? Isn't that half the problem in the world today? Broad generalizations with absolute no merit? This to me is the reason why we have so much division in society (well that and our moron politicians). I think it is dangerous ground to lump an entire generation into a basket and contributes massively to divisiveness.

  • collin13 wrote:

    Why all the shit talk on "boomers"? Isn't that half the problem in the world today? Broad generalizations with absolute no merit? This to me is the reason why we have so much division in society (well that and our moron politicians). I think it is dangerous ground to lump an entire generation into a basket and contributes massively to divisiveness.
    Yes, it is a generalisation and we should always be wary of generalisations. Also, perhaps, it is those a little older than the boomers to which it most applies, but I think there is a trend that the elderly are more likely to have views that are regarded now as rather narrow minded than younger people. There are a couple of reasons for that:

    1. The ideas they were exposed to in childhood.
    2. Our tendency to be less receptive to new ideas as we age.

    On that second point, I think there is some biology behind this. Most mammals learn whatever is not instinctive in a short period of growing up and have stable behaviour for the rest of life, hence the expression "You can't teach an old dog new tricks". Unusually, we have a long childhood with brain development not complete until about 25, over a 1/4 of our lives for many, and continue to learn even after that, but never as fast as we did in early childhood.

    On ideas specific to a generation, I remember my grandad telling me about how it was when he was at school, which would have been in the 1940s. Everyone had the same haircut - the short back and sides. Handwriting was with a pen dipped in ink and everyone was taught to write (handwriting, not composition) in one single style - variation was not permitted. Because writing left-handed would draw the hand through wet ink, even those who were left-handed were taught to write with their right hands. School was full of rules and people who broke them were wacked with something like a slipper or a cane, no concessions to ADHD etc.

    Then, on LGBTQ, a talented mathematician called Alan Turing had made a really significant contribution to code breaking during WW2, but shortly afterwards was prosecuted for gay sex. He opted for "chemical castration", became depressed and killed himself. His employers probably knew he was gay even during the war but this was kept a secret. So much has changed since then but I have long hair and people from that generation, and no one younger, ask me when I will have my hair cut - the idea of conforming just for the sake of conforming, of wearing the uniform, is still there.

    Of course, that doesn't mean some individuals were not either more open minded at the time, have made an effort to adapt, or both.

  • collin13 wrote:

    Why all the shit talk on "boomers"? Isn't that half the problem in the world today? Broad generalizations with absolute no merit? This to me is the reason why we have so much division in society (well that and our moron politicians). I think it is dangerous ground to lump an entire generation into a basket and contributes massively to divisiveness.
    Re-read for context. Sure I could've used a different name for that generation that doesn't have a generally thought of negative connotation (Boomers isn't always negative however, certain Boomers describe themselves as Boomers and embrace it). But in this certain case I will not apologize. Any a-hole regardless of age who doesn't accept LBGTQ+ people deserve to be called out for what they are!! So there's the merit you're looking for. They are creating hate, phobia and division first. I'm just responding in kind.That's the Boomers I'm discrediting and not giving respect to. If this thread was about generations instead of getting to talk about accepting trans people and self identification, I would 100% be in agreement that each and every generation has it's positive and negative merits. Our generation isn't better or worse than the Boomers (I actually think a lot of teens disagree with that and blame all of our messes on Boomers, but I don't think that way, I think they did the best they could at the time, albeit making a ton of mistakes). So ya, I can talk with Boomers respectfully and I have no division with them except for the a-hole Boomers I described who have fear and hatred towards the lgbgt+ community. They should be so lucky I only called them Boomers, which they are. To all the vool Boomers who aren't racist, misogynistic, or homophobic - I love you. If you're a Boomer who is racist, misogynistic, or homophobic - you're what is wrong with this world and I hate you. And yes, the boomer generation is definitely more homophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic than ours. That isn't meant to cause division, it's meant to state a fact.

    I was not trying to lump every boomer into the negative boomer category, just the a-hole ones, so sorry if that's how you perceived it. I'm sure when Boomers call our generation lazy, they don't mean 100% of us.

  • Gabraham247 wrote:

    collin13 wrote:

    Why all the shit talk on "boomers"? Isn't that half the problem in the world today? Broad generalizations with absolute no merit? This to me is the reason why we have so much division in society (well that and our moron politicians). I think it is dangerous ground to lump an entire generation into a basket and contributes massively to divisiveness.
    Re-read for context. Sure I could've used a different name for that generation that doesn't have a generally thought of negative connotation (Boomers isn't always negative however, certain Boomers describe themselves as Boomers and embrace it). But in this certain case I will not apologize. Any a-hole regardless of age who doesn't accept LBGTQ+ people deserve to be called out for what they are!! So there's the merit you're looking for. They are creating hate, phobia and division first. I'm just responding in kind.That's the Boomers I'm discrediting and not giving respect to. If this thread was about generations instead of getting to talk about accepting trans people and self identification, I would 100% be in agreement that each and every generation has it's positive and negative merits. Our generation isn't better or worse than the Boomers (I actually think a lot of teens disagree with that and blame all of our messes on Boomers, but I don't think that way, I think they did the best they could at the time, albeit making a ton of mistakes). So ya, I can talk with Boomers respectfully and I have no division with them except for the a-hole Boomers I described who have fear and hatred towards the lgbgt+ community. They should be so lucky I only called them Boomers, which they are. To all the vool Boomers who aren't racist, misogynistic, or homophobic - I love you. If you're a Boomer who is racist, misogynistic, or homophobic - you're what is wrong with this world and I hate you. And yes, the boomer generation is definitely more homophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic than ours. That isn't meant to cause division, it's meant to state a fact.
    I was not trying to lump every boomer into the negative boomer category, just the a-hole ones, so sorry if that's how you perceived it. I'm sure when Boomers call our generation lazy, they don't mean 100% of us.
    It is never okay in my book to make broad generalizations about anyone, no matter the age or generation that they happened to be born in. I try to understand where someone is coming from and educate as I deem necessary, but often times it's not worthwhile and doesn't really matter to me at the end of the day. I carry myself how I carry myself and obviously am a gay teen so I am hyper aware of issues that may arise, but luckily never have. And as an FYI, just in case you didn't realize it, there are people you described in every generation. In fact, I see more homophobia coming from kids of our age group than any other category, but then again, I don't have a habit of hanging out with old people and quite frankly could give two shits what they think. I am what I am, proud of who and what I am and it just doesn't matter to me if someone dislikes me because I'm gay. Could care less. My theme in life is you do you and I'll do me. If you don't like it, I don't have to associate or have any involvement with you. I think if more people did that, half the problems that exist today wouldn't exist to the extent that they do. If that makes sense. Facts are always in the eye of the beholder. What is true to you, may not be to someone else. I guess you should ask yourself ... why do you care? As a gay teen, I don't. I'm sure many do, but like I said ... you do you and I'll do me! Its what makes the world go round.

    We've certainly derailed the initial intent of this thread, but it is what it is. Good discussion quite frankly.

  • collin13 wrote:


    We've certainly derailed the initial intent of this thread, but it is what it is. Good discussion quite frankly.
    is it a good discussion :lol: you've said it's OK to generalise people from one tiny fact (there age) in a discussion about is it OK to generalise by a tiny fact (spending a tiny time naked)

    Maybe I should ban you both for being boys. Because we know all boys are creeps :lol:

    Completely of topic

    LOCKED

    Good Friend :play: Kinda Romantic :love: Ready to Rock :zomg:

    "If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day."