pretend you don't care

I noticed something the other day... I don't like it when people start talking to me about ME being naked.  It creeps me out.  I prefer to think of nudity as something that could just happen, and everyone could ignore it because it doesn't matter.  But don't ask me about it, because it sounds like you WANT to see me naked, and that's just gross (I'm not that good-looking... I'm a hairy old troll).

that's not me, actually

I noticed something the other day.  Nudists often confess that they were always removing their clothes as children, that when they were kids they were always taking stuff off.

I've known kids like that, and it's understandable.

But that's not me.  As a kid, I stayed clothed just like everyone else (from what I can remember).  So, in my opinion, I'm at a slight disadvantage, because it doesn't feel quite that natural to me.  My natural state feels more like loose-fitting, comfortable adornment.  But it's a personal issue.  Others feel like their natural state includes more than mine or less than mine.  That's fine with me.

I just don't appreciate being REQUIRED to wear a certain minimum.  I want to set my own minimum.  I want everyone to be able to wear whatever they feel comfortable with.

But I digress.

I wasn't one of those kids that was always taking stuff off.

still there

Regardless of embracing nudism (conceptually, at least), it's still common to experience the same kinds of temptations as before.  The dumb adversary still wants to drag me down to hell, and the retard knows that he can still tempt me with sexual content.

So I have to be just as vigilant as before.  I can't let the retard win.

Just once

Just once I'd like to go somewhere where I know there'll be no one to find or harrass me.  I want to hike or run with only shoes on, not to be seen but to just experience it.

Just once I'd like to go to either a naturist resort or a clothing-optional beach... somewhere where I know that the other people won't freak out at a naked, hairy white guy.

Just once I'd like to either go camping or have a little party (like a new year's party or something) with two or four friends (couples), and all of us enjoy the time naked without anything happening.

Unfortunately, where I live, there are too many closed-minded conservatives to make any of those remotely possible.

I know, people say that you never know what may happen.  But you can't look at a falling slice of toast and think, "You never know, it might not hit the ground."  Some things you can bank on.

Honestly, does it matter?

funny

I’ve been hanging on to this drawing for a while.  I thought it was funny.  To me, it illustrates how much our society focuses on someone’s appearance more than any of their other traits, abilities, or accomplishments.

From tragedyseries.tumblr.com

saw an interesting video

I saw an interesting video.

It’s safe to assume that there is some nudity in it (but, it’s not sexualized, so calm down).

http://tinyurl.com/6lh6t5w

real ones…

Real nudists/naturists don’t have tan lines.

If you see areas of white flesh (coincidentally in the shape of a bikini), they’re not a real nudist/naturist.

Or, at least, they haven’t been a real one for years.

Those white areas in the shape of a swim suit indicate that they’re quite the opposite.

I, on the other hand, have white flesh all over.  The only parts that are off-white (from the sun) are from my elbows down and from my neckline up.  That pattern is from years of irrational brainwashing.

I want to go somewhere where it’s acceptable to let it all hang out, without fear of getting hauled away by the police.  Just to relax, mind you, and not for some perverted lust.  I’m only thinking of my own comfort.

running

I've been running every other day (or every few days).  Only about one fourth to one third of my route is under the orange glow of street lights.  The rest gets slivers of light from porch lights and other mild lighting from homes.  And then there's the moon that casts just enough light on the darkened earth to be able to see shapes in shades of the darkest blue.

The moon is also just bright enough to make my untanned flesh practically glow.

There's a part of the route that has a thick group of trees on one side and an empty house on the other (no one lives there).  That portion of the road is the darkest of all my route.  It's there that I free myself from the clingy annoyance of cloth... but only as much as I dare.  I still fear getting seen by one of the brainwashed dermaphobic sheep.  Sheep bleat and trample mindlessly.

Tonight I actually almost completely removed my shorts (I had already removed my shirt because the workout was making me start to perspire).  One day, perhaps not on this route, I'll be able to run with nothing in hand and nothing on but socks and shoes.  No one will see me because no one (where I live) would accept it as innocent.  I don't want to do it for attention (that's why I run late at night).  I don't do it for any sexual gratification (I've never gone stiff while running).  I want to do it for just the experience's sake, to satiate a curiosity, to know what it feels like.  That's all.

I joined a nudists discussion forum.  They're a friendly and insightful bunch.  But I can't join their endorsed Facebook group yet (regardless of the group being closed and by invitation only).

I've overcome almost all of my hesitation to be nude in my own back yard (regardless of whether neighbors can see me (which they can't unless they're conspicuously trying)).  However, my family doesn't "get it" yet, so I dare not while they're home.

I found this and thought it was thought-provoking enough to share. It's a weak and animalistic person that can't help but see sexuality where there is none. Just read it and think about it.

makes you think

I stumbled upon an interesting site.  The guy takes photos of regular, average people (of different ages and body types) and photographs them.  You hover over a clothed photo and the clothing fades away to reveal the real person beneath.  It makes me think about what it would be like if I could do that (in my mind) in real life.  …not to get off, mind you, but to see how people really are, without the facades and masks they employ to hide their true self.

http://www.naked-people.de/index.php/pictures.html?page=1

(a little hint, click the little right-arrow to progress to the next photo)

 

Also, one of these days, I’ll get around to it… “it” of which I speak is to run two miles with only socks and shoes on.

I’m not worried about flopping around, I’ve run in loose shorts before and suffered no ill effects.

I’m not worried about the cold, it’s summer and, besides, I’ve run in the cold before, it’s refreshing.

I’m not worried about someone seeing me, I don’t care if someone sees me.

I’m not worried about mosquitoes, there aren’t many where I live.

I’m not worried about assault, I think I could hold my own (and females seem to be assaulted far more than men seem to be).

The only thing I’m worried about is someone getting offended at seeing me (and not the seeing-me part itself).  People often blow things out of proportion.  And people have distorted preconceived notions about nudity… according to conventional wisdom, a naked female is at worst a playful or mischievous exhibitionist, whereas a naked male is at best a perverted exhibitionist.  Females get away with a lot more than males do.  Females sometimes get arrested and put in jail overnight (if jailed at all).  Males get a tracking device around their ankle and their name on the county web site (for life).  It’s entirely unjust, and it’s especially unjust to males who have no deviant intent at all.

Thus, the only time I could run naked would be late, between eleven and four (at most); and the only place I could run naked would be far, far away from residential areas (or in San Francisco, which is out of the question, based on money and time).  And wanting to keep it casual would make the late part and the distant part both conspicuous and the opposite of casual.

One other item that prevents me is how my wife still feels like my body is hers, hers alone, and for her eyes only.  I don’t fault her.  I still feel the same way about her body, regardless of her own attitudes toward displaying it for more than just me (possibly because of how I subconsciously know that she still subscribes to the “keep it covered up” dogma, and that dogma still has an available parking space in my mind).  So, out of respect for her feelings, I hesitate to do anything that would put her sense of sole ownership in jeopardy or disregard.  I love her, and her feelings take precedence over my frivolous whims.

So there I stand.  Or run.  Clothed.

 

I’ve also had desires to mow the lawn in just socks and shoes.  I don’t know if there’s a better or worse chance of that.  It would have to be during daylight, and I’d be closer to neighbors.  But, I’d be on my own property, behind my own fence (albeit a shorter fence than I wish it were), which invokes a deeper sense of freedom and privacy (being on my own property instead of being in public).  And I’d be doing something productive, something that is exhausting enough to possibly justify the absence of restrictive clothing, reducing the perception that I was just a perverted exhibitionist trying to streak.

Anyway.  We’ll see what the future holds.  Always in motion is the future.

opportunity

Today, I would have had a great opportunity to spend a few hours apparel-free.  However, since I was not the only one sick at home, it was not to be.

But, that’s alright.

I don’t crave it like an addict would.  That would indicate a problem.

Instead, it’s an “oh well” moment.  Maybe next time I have to stay home from church it will be different.  No biggie.

On a different front, it’s still not ideal conditions to run naked (at night).  Too cold to do it comfortably.  Too soon (on the clock face) to do it worry-free.  To close to civilization, and too awkward to drive any distance at that late hour.  Maybe some day.  But not any time soon.

It’s not that I want to find excuses to not wear my underwear… it’s that I want to try different activities that, by their nature, preclude clothing.  Similar to how swimming, if done properly, precludes shoes.  If a person wanted to swim properly, it would be a logical fallacy to accuse them of just looking for excuses to not wear shoes… they just want to go swimming, and swimming necessitates the absence of shoes.  By the same token, I just want to experience activities like freehiking and skinny-dipping, which necessitate the absence of clothing.  Nothing more.

irrational

For a woman to have to cover up so that a man won’t think or do the wrong thing does not follow with other social norms and laws.

That would be like requiring people to walk so that someone isn’t tempted to steal their car.

That would be like prohibiting questions so that someone isn’t tempted to lie.

That would be like mandating people to stay indoors so that someone isn’t tempted to do violence to them outside the home.

That would be like banning credit cards so that someone isn’t tempted to steal your card number.

Westerners need to start putting the responsibility for actions on the subject, not the object.  If a person wants to cover or expose any part of their body, that should be their right, without fear of retribution or incrimination for someone else’s actions.  That sounds a lot like the freedom of speech… say what you will, people choose to get offended, and it’s their responsibility to react or not.

more good quotes

…from http://www.naturistsociety.com/resources/PDF/205ARGUE.pdf

"The dominant idea that clothing is necessary for reasons of modesty is a cultural assumption. It is an assumption that is not shared by all cultures, nor by all members of our own culture."

"There is evidence that modesty is not related to nakedness at all, but is rather a response to appearing different from the rest of the social group--for instance, outside the accepted habits of clothing or adornment."

"Likewise, a woman feels immodest if seen in her slip, even though it's far less revealing than her bikini."

"Many psychologists and anthropologists believe that modesty about exposure of the body may well be a result of wearing clothes, rather than its cause."

"It is interesting to note that it is only possible to be immodest once an accepted form of modesty has been established."

"Hypocritically, if someone dresses specifically to arouse sexual interest, they are considered to have pride in their appearance. Even if they get great sexual gratification out of the attention others give, there is no suggestion of perversion or sexual fixation."

"Studies show significantly less incidence of casual premarital and extramarital sex, group sex, incest, and rape among nudists than among non-nudists."

"Prudery, it seems, provides mankind with endless aphrodisiacs, hence, no doubt, the reluctance to abandon it."

"Complete nudity is antithetic to the elaborate semi-pornography of the fashion industry."

"When a woman learns to treat her breasts as objects that enhance appearance, they belong not to the woman, but to her viewers. Thus, a woman becomes alienated from her own body."

"Nudity is often confused with pornography in our society because the pornography industry has so successfully exploited it. In other words, nudity is often damned as exploitative precisely because its repression causes many to exploit it."

"Naturism is innocent, casual, non-exploitative, and non-commercial (and yet is often suppressed); as opposed to pornography, which is commercialized and sensationalized (and generally tolerated). In some American communities it is illegal for a woman to publicly bare her breasts in order to feed an infant, but it is legal to display Penthouse on drug-store magazine racks."

"In the words of Michelangelo: 'What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot grasp the fact that the human foot is more noble than the shoe and human skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?'"

"Why is it permissible [in National Geographic] to show the penis and scrotum of an African Surma (Feb. 91) or a Brazilian Urueu-Wau Wau (Dec. 88) but not a Yugoslav Naturist in his natural setting? Why are photographs of breasts on Nuba (Feb. 51, Nov. 66), Zulu (Aug. 53), Dyak (May 56), Masai (Feb. 65), Yap Island (May 67, Oct. 86), Turkana (Feb. 69), Adama Islands (July 75), New Guinea (Aug. 82), Woodabe (Oct. 83), Ndebele (Feb. 69), and Surma (Feb. 91) women shown, yet not one white Canadian can be found to face the camera at Wreck Beach? Why are the breasts shown of Josephine Baker (July 89), a black native of East St. Louis, but the breasts of white native women of Miami Beach are not shown? The unanswered question implies but one conclusion: that the National Geographic has in fact a Eurocentric bias (racist) in portraying nudity."

"Presumptions that exposure to nudity will lead to problems for children grow out of the preconceptions of our culture."

"It is interesting to speculate as to what kind of model of the human mind Sigmund Freud would have constructed if he had based it not on clothed Europeans but on, say, a study of the naked Nuer of the Sudan. Almost all the processes which he discerns as formative for the adult mind would have been lacking. Freud assumes that children will not normally see each other naked and that, if they do happen to, the result will be traumatic. This is not true of naked cultures."

"Our society is far more at home with the idea of sexy breasts than functional ones"
"Millions of boys and girls have grown up never having seen a mother breast-feeding her baby... This is a sad commentary on our culture."

"In our culture, breasts may be exposed to sell drinks to men in bars, but women may not be topfree on a beach for their own comfort and pleasure... The criminalization of women baring their breasts, therefore, indicates that society views women's bodies as immoral and something to hide. There is something potentially criminal about every woman just by virtue of being female."

"Men have the right to cover or expose their chests as they see fit--women do not. Men have the right to enjoy the sun, water, and wind without a top; women do not. Few men would be willing to give up this right. Then why shouldn't women enjoy the same advantage? . . . Requiring women to cover their breasts in public is a highly visible expression of inequality between men and women that promotes an attitude that demeans women and damages their sense of equality. . . . For centuries, men have held the power to generate these misconceptions. The male view on the exposure of a woman's breasts is crucially influenced by the need of men to define women. . . . This reaction stems from a masculine ideology that has . . . doomed generations of women to a secondary status."

"By refusing to accept the need to 'protect' themselves from men by covering their bodies, women gain power, and shift the burden of responsible behavior to men, where it rightfully belongs."

"Male power is perpetuated by regarding women as objects that men act and react to rather than as actors themselves. . . . their entire worth is derived from the reaction they can induce from men. In order to maintain the patriarchal system, men must determine when and where this arousal is allowed to take place. In this way, the (heterosexual) male myth of a woman's breasts has been codified into law. Because women are the sexual objects and property of men, it follows that what might arouse men can only be displayed when men want to be aroused."
"This emphasis on women as temptresses shifts the burden of responsibility from men to women; because women provoke uncontrollable urges in males, society excuses male behavior and blames the victim for whatever happens. . . . To sanction the concept that men have uncontrollable urges implies that violence against women is inevitable."

"After all, whole industries are now devoted to enabling people 'to get away from it all.' What is it, precisely, they want to get away from, when the iconography of their culture is promoted globally as the provider of everything? Many will admit they are looking for something not available at home (apart from sunshine), something to do with authenticity, a state of being 'unspoilt'. . . . They have been stripped of their cultural heritage; and this is why they have to buy back what ought to be the birthright of all human beings: secure anchorage in celebrations and rituals that attend the significant moments of our human lives."

"A bikini covering is accepted and even lauded on the beach, but is restricted elsewhere--in a department store, for example. Even on the beach, an expensive bikini is considered acceptable, whereas underwear- -though it covers the same amount--is not."

"One must remember that clothing itself is neither moral nor immoral. It is the breaking of traditions which makes it so."

"The degree to which women's breasts may be exposed has varied especially in Western cultures. At various times in history, women's necklines have plunged so deeply that the breasts have been more exposed than covered. Historian Aileen Ribeiro notes that in the early 15th century, 'women's gowns became increasingly tight-fitted over the bust, some gowns with front openings even revealing the nipples.' Breasts came back on display throughout the early 17th century, and again in the 18th century, especially in the Court of King Charles II of England. Ironically, in this latter period, a respectable woman would never be found in public with the point of her shoulders revealed."

"Given the opportunity and license to do so, women do take advantage of the option of going topfree. During the 1984 Olympics in L.A., Police decided not to arrest European women who went topfree on local beaches. American women, noting the double standard, took their tops off too, and feigned inability to understand English when told to cover up. Police called it 'taking advantage of the relaxed rule,' 169 though it should more accurately be considered 'taking advantage of a more civilized custom.'"

"In a free society such as the United States, one's lifestyle should not be dictated by anyone else (majority or otherwise), especially if that lifestyle does not infringe on anyone else's rights."

"The Constitution has been interpreted to protect individual freedoms except where they are overridden by a 'compelling state interest.' It is never the responsibility of individuals to justify their freedoms. It is rather the responsibility of government to justify any restriction of freedom."

"If people are allowed to wear the clothes of [Nazis], should they not also be allowed to wear the clothing of the Creator?"

"The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that no freedoms shall be denied that are not specifically prohibited. Thus, mere nudity is not illegal except where there are specific laws that prohibit it."

"It can't be argued that women have breasts and men don't, because both do; nor can it be argued that women have larger, often protruding breasts, because many women are flat-chested while many men have large breasts. Breasts are not sex organs, for they are not essential to reproduction, and in fact have nothing to do with it. A woman with no breasts can have a baby. Breasts serve the physiological function of nourishing a baby--but this is a maternal function, not a sexual one. Breasts may play a role in sex play, but other body parts do too, and are not censured--particularly the hands, and the mouth. And while breasts are secondary sex characteristics, so are beards, which are not restricted on men."

"Mere nudity cannot be offensive or immoral 'conduct'--for it is not conduct at all, but merely the natural state of a human being."

"It is a cruel reversal of justice when the law frowns on innocent skinnydippers, while gawkers on the fringe of the nude beach, who pervert and fetishize the body, are accepted as 'normal.'"

"We must never forget that for any freedom that is lost, we bear partial responsibility for letting it be lost... Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of justice and wrong which will be imposed upon them... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those who they oppress."

"It was disobedience that came between Adam and Eve and God, not nakedness. The scriptures themselves treat Adam and Eve's nudity as an incidental issue."

"To assume that because God made garments He was condemning nudity makes as much sense as concluding that because God made clouds which blot out the sun He was condemning sunshine."

"Every Biblical association of nakedness with shame is in reference to a sin already committed."

"It is not reasonable to cover the apples in the marketplace just because someone might may be tempted by gluttony, nor is it necessary to ban money because someone might be overcome by greed. Nor is it reasonable to ban nudity, simply because an individual might be tempted to lust. Furthermore, appreciation for the beauty of a member of the other sex, nude or otherwise, cannot be equated automatically with lust. Only if desire is added does appreciation become lust, and therefore sin. Even then, it is the one who lusts, not the object of lust, who has sinned. Bathsheba was never rebuked for bathing, but David for lusting."

 

I don’t see what’s so difficult about this.  When will our "more sophisticated" Western society will abandon its irrational prohibitions regarding the human body?

good quote

I just read something interesting:

Clothing hides the natural diversity of human body shapes and sizes. When people are never exposed to nudity, they grow up with misunderstandings and unrealistic expectations about the body based on biased or misinformed sources--for instance, from advertising or mass media.

It was from http://www.naturistsociety.com/resources/PDF/205ARGUE.pdf

rare

Sunday, I was a little sick. So I stayed home from church. And spent
an hour or two naked. It was relaxing.

place to go

I've read raves about Orvis, CO. Evidently, the hotsprings there are a little piece of heaven. Too bad we're very tight on funds.

http://www.orvishotsprings.com/

http://www.ldssdf.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1383

interesting quote

From a Discovery Channel show about naturists, a guy was talking about swimsuits, and said that they do more to emphasize certain body parts than to conceal them.

It's the hiding of something that gives it enticement and mystery (think about Christmas presents).

devious

The dumb devil is a devious little cuss.

Because of him, the mainstream media sexualizes nudity.

And since most people get most of their ideas of life from the mainstream media, most people erroneously associate sex with nudity.

Since day one, the devil has been attacking the innocence of the human form.

still some work to do

I've been scanning through some beautiful old photos, from backtoeden.tumblr.com, and I realize that I'm not exactly where I want to be.

What I meant to say is that I still have a while before the old habits from decades of brainwashing are removed.  I still have an unconscious tendency to glance at certain body parts more than others, when I want to be able to see the whole body as one, without regard to gender or age, in the context of what the person is doing in the photo.  It's still not quite the same as looking at, say, cars or buildings or animals.

Decades of incorrect dogma create a Pavlovian response which can be indomitable at first.  However, with more thought, more prayer, and more vigilance (so that the dumb devil doesn't snag me into places I shouldn't be), I will eventually get to the point where the human body is neutral both consciously and subconsciously.  That pesky subconscious mind can be a stubborn old coot sometimes.

As for places I don't belong...

Nothing sexual, and nothing mischievous.  That's the rule.  And the adversary knows that's my rule.  So I need to exercise a non-negligible amount of restraint and a significant amount of attentiveness to make sure I steer clear of his verminous ilk on the interwebs.

rules

Rules:

1 - Nothing sexual.

2 - Nothing exhibitionist.

3 - Art does not equal innocence.

4 - Don't hide anything from your spouse.

intro

hi.

my name is [redacted] and I'm a closet nudist.

here's where you all yell, "hi, [redacted]," in a warm and inviting manner.

I want to live fully as a nudist/naturist/naturalist/whateverist (indoors and outdoors), but the following parties do not or would not agree with such a lifestyle:

- my immediate family

- my extended family

- my wife

- my employer

- my neighbors

- my fellow church-goers

- my "friends" on Facebook

- and, most importantly, the military (not my "employer" from above)

that covers just about everyone.

I was raised an overly-concerned prude, and it's something I can't escape now, not without alienating a lot of people I care about (and losing my jobs).

to put it succinctly, modesty is only relevant to people who view the bare human body as purely sexualized. I don't see it that way. granted, there are sexually-oriented functions for certain body parts. but I don't get a rise out of non-sexual nudity. and since modesty is only relevant for people of prurient thoughts, it can become irrelevant... if you decide to be innocent about it. but, like I said, I was raised with the idea that nudity is sin, period, so defeating that kind of decades-long indoctrination is, for me, a ground-breaking (and potentially controversial, and likely destructive) path.

so, secretly, I long to chill on a nude beach.

I secretly long to hike with nothing but socks, boots, and a gun*. or go skinny-dipping. or spend an entire camping trip exposing my entire body to mosquitos.

heck, I'd love to try social nudity, but I'll cross that bridge when I've gotten used to the individual activities (remember, I'm reprogramming decades of brainwashing, it takes time).

and I secretly long to have my own family (wife and children) be perfectly fine with it all.

we'll see what the next five or ten years brings.

*don't argue, you still need some sort of protection in the wild areas near where I live