At some point in time, if you're male, you'll be in a situation where an unwanted erection will occur. There have been many paragraphs written on the etiquette involved with how to deal with the situation when it happens and of course there are those exhitionist types that live for the moment. For the rest of us, well, it can be embarrassing. Why it's embarrassing is a matter of social norms. Of course it's equated with sexual arousal, yeah, Everytime a guy gets an erection, there's someone they are thinking about or looking at, sure we all know that. (Insert appropriate raspbery sound effect here). Only folks with no understanding of male anatomy would think so. The rest of us wake up with one and realize nature has provided a perfect solution to avoid bedwetting. But, there is still the "is that a banana in your pants, or are just happy to see me" attitude that it's all about sex.
Posting photos with an almost semi-erection happens all the time, but it may not be obvious to everyone. There's an angle that occurs that isn't there without a little extra blood flow. There's a directionality. "What are you pointing at?", may be asked. (You know who you are). For such a natural occurrence, they have such a no-no attitude attached to them.
The equivocation with porn is part of the answer, the prudish nature of society is another, and who knows what else. Whatever reason nudist pages don't want them, or genitals posted with out faces makes sense on one hand, we don't want that floodgate open for fear of the all important wall between sexual nudity and wholesome nudity to be swept away in the deluge of free-for-all exhibitionism that will inevitably follow. But, on the other hand, we're not talking sexually explicit photos or even spread labia photos, we're talking about erections. If they are natural, then why get out of sorts over a photo of a guy in a non-sexual setting, who just happens to be at full mast? Pesronally, I think genitalia is funny looking, sorry, I do. Male or female, it's funny looking. And when you throw in the dumb euphemisms for the penis, tallywhacker, dick, salami, weiner, will, etcetera and the euphemisms for an erection, hard-on, Woody, stiffy, etc.it further eliminated the possibility of keeping a straight face when you discuss any form of sexuality and leads to embarassment when you talk to your doctor. Clinical terminology is just as bad, because it isn't a normal for most people. But I digress, back to the problem of unwanted woodies and how to hide them, wait that wasn't the issue. If we are promoting nudism as a natural and viable lifestyle, then erections should be included in the equation. Not that I plan on getting a chubby at the next hot springs I go to, but if we can get past the automatic association with sex, we can get past the inherent embarrassment when one occurs.
66 thoughts on “it happens”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
"if you're male, you'll be in a situation where an unwanted erection will occur"
I'm not convinced that normal body reactions are entirely "unwanted." I am offended by those who shame men for being male. What is unwanted is the misandry that objects to male bodies.
To pee and and to poo are "natural" either. To be "natural" is not a plain justification for everything.
Why not?
Photos are different than real life situations. That´s why photos of naked children are not accepted here as well and they have, indeed, nothing to do with sex.
Not allowing photos of naked children is not in the same category as no erections. One has a potential of getting someone jail time, no matter how innocent, and the other is an erection. There are plenty of nudist sites that allow naked children photos, but they tend to be European…but this isn't really part of the discussion. Jay walking is illegal, so therefore, you must wear a helmet while riding a camel on mainstreet.
Photos of erections aside, and it was more of an aside as part of the overall question, if they are natural, what's the big deal about them?
This is my last response to this blog entry. It's been a lively discussion, but I have had my say.
Thank you everyone who took part.
No. Im saying people are accepting of gays. Me included. But. Many over advertise that their gay. The look at me grab attention approach. I feel the same about erections. They dont bother me in the least but dont see a need to over advertise you have one. Im a nudist. I accept people and the body for what they or it is. The over advertising is in the same category as throwing your kids or grandkids pics in someone's face when you really couldn't care less. Ok,,, so you have an erection, you have kids, you are gay. So be it. But its not necessary to flaunt it. I dont know if im saying this right.
Please give an example of how someone might "over advertise" being gay. I was at a nude hot springs resort (since closed) that wisely didn't tolerate sexual activity….they seemed to regard a straight couple holding hands as OK, while a gay couple holding hands was somehow too much. Double standards are bullshit.
"Accepting of gays" and treating them as equal human beings are 2 different things, same as accepting blacks but always afraid they are up to no good.
Consider this… the only way to know if a person is gay would be to ask, or if they "act" gay. This is kind of the only way they can let other potential partners know their orientation, also for some, it is just their personality and not an act at all.
I suppose they could just proposition every man they are attracted to, but I doubt you'd like that, and it might get them beat up.
I was approached once by a gay man at a resort following a nude 5k race. He had put his hand on my leg at dinner and somewhere in the conversation told me he was attracted to older men. I did not go there!!!!
Perhaps I can shed some light on the above 'flaunting' and reactions: I've quite a few gay friends and acquaintances. To my experience in several naturist environments, the percentage of gay men there exceeds their part in general. I assume the courage to be openly nude to be a fraction of what they already had to prove for coming out of the closet. One guy, well… anyone spots his sexual nature from a mile away, he's simply the prototype that some others merely try to imitate. The same exists among heterosexual men, some simply are born machos, and among women of either sexual 'preference'. Some effortlessly show all that really attractive female natural style and grace… and couldn't help it for more than a few minutes if they'd want to. Once, long ago, there was one not <i>too</i> boyish grand character I'd have wished to get to know even a lot better, if she only were merely 'bi' — not half a chance. Other people obviously mainly <i>act</i> their prototype role, or part thereof. Maybe some act convincingly to me, a second nature, how would I know?
It's a lot like actors on stage or on a screen: I'm pretty sure some mainly play themselves of course very well (Sean Connery), others are really great actors who make me believe in the character — even whichever that might be (Donald Sutherland). I don't want to miss a movie with either. (I guess, female casting often offers a mere <i>choice</i> between either believably interesting <i>or</i> physically attractive, and the few exceptions seem obviously typecasted as not my type, or even harder for me to fairly judge — Natalie Wood? Yeah, it used to take years to get a rerun on TV; Michelle Pfeiffer then? Today's stars don't go with my age — well, I never asked.)
And then there are mediocre and even poor actors, and no, I honestly can't appreciate all their effort. I dislike their coming in the picture. See what I mean?
I just think how nice it would be if everyone would simply play themselves, of course very well, in real life.
My opinion is similar to what myself and many other nudists I know have said about gay. Neither is a threatening situation unless it is over dramatized by the individual. Either can be a perfect normal unless the individual flaunts themselves. It then becomes peculiar, threatening and sometimes rediculous.
I'm curious, Rich…. if a straight man and a gay man both were walking around with erections, whom would you think was flaunting his sexuality? Both? Neither? Or just the gay man?
The erection doesnt determine if the person is gay or straight. The action of the person does.
My determination as to whether the erection belongs to a straight or gay man is whether the penis winks at me. Penis wink is gay. LOL.
Haha. No, I think that determines if the viewer is same sex friendly, regardless of who the penis is attached to.
I'm also curious Rich, are you comparing "gay" to the exhibitionist boner, or to the discriminated against women who fear the hetero man.
Bias toward and against the female form. That's what happens when sex sells.
Unfortunately true! So what can we do about it???
This is what I wanted, this discussion.
And everybody's response is spot on. The question now is, why are women's bodies revered and men's aren't? Other than Greek statues and Mapplethorpe nudes, the male nude is a rarity in art. We don't get the non-porn photo shoots, outside of nudist magazines. A male full frontal nude scene used to be an automatic X rating in movies in the old days and it's still a big enough deal in movies that I can still name the first mainstream actor to do a full monty in a non-porn American movie. Jan-Michael Vincent in Buster and Billie. Yes, Ewan McGregor, Harvey Keitel, Kevin Bacon and Bruce Willis have followed, but still, the women are the norm in that respect.
I don't have the answer other than a species wide culture of heterosexual male domination over a very long period of time.
I think you hit it on the head Mr. Texas.
Timothy, thank you for understanding that my reply was intended as discussion of your original post, and not as an attack on your opinion. You DID manage to generate an exchange of ideas. I still hope some women will chime in; even your wife's observation about erect nipples came from you, not directly from her.
Moving on to the male nude being a rarity in art…. my husband and I have just returned from a 3-month stay in Italy, where nude male statues are EVERYWHERE! I think it's primarily in North American culture that we see so much bias toward the female form.
Regarding male nudity in film, you're absolutely correct. I am member of SAG (Screen Actors Guild) and I once had the opportunity to work as a nude extra on an HBO series ("Looking", Season 1, episode 4). They needed a few nude people at one of San Francisco's famous street fairs, and were taping at the actual fair. When I answered the casting call, the agent incredulously asked whether I REALLY was willing to do it. I was out in the street wearing only a vest and boots for 13 hours. With the pay increase for nudity AND the overtime on an 8-hour day, I earned a bundle…. and I had a total blast. Back to your point about frontal nudity, there is one very brief shot that shows my penis. I'm proud of that gig: "Be the change you wish to see in the world."
I agree: Moving on to the male nude being a rarity in art…. my husband and I have just returned from a 3-month stay in Italy, where nude male statues are EVERYWHERE! I think it's primarily in North American culture that we see so much bias toward the female form.
I can't disagree that "it happens," nor that it's perfectly natural (both of which also can be said of sexual activity). However, it's true that some guys do intentionally flaunt their erections. If you're sunning and find yourself getting hard due to the pleasure of the breeze and the warm sun, it can actually feel good to roll over on your stomach until it passes… unless you WANT folks to see it.
It might be interesting to hear women weighing in on this conversation. The sad reality is that many of them feel vulnerable, often with valid reason, in situations of social or public nudity. That's why the majority of participants in events like the World Naked Bike Rides, or even on websites like this, seem to be male. If we want women to feel comfortable and unthreatened (whether they are naked or clothed), we must create environments where they feel respected. We need to value their opinions, feelings, and experiences. By the way, when I am accused of being P.C., my reply is that I mentally replace "P.C." with "respectful of other peoples' feelings."
Being a man, I've experienced and enjoyed boners caused by the type of non-sexual sensuality I think Timothy was describing. But I am able to see both sides of the issue. There are probably different answers for different situations: a private pool party among friends is different from a public beach. Timothy raised an interesting question, and I don't claim to have any answers at all.
I agree 100% with this statement of yours: If we want women to feel comfortable and unthreatened (whether they are naked or clothed), we must create environments where they feel respected. We need to value their opinions, feelings, and experiences.
Creating an environment where women are respected and don't feel vulnerable would mean working hard for women's rights and equality in society at large, passing the ERA, etc. Here in the U.S.A. we seem to have a hard time letting go of old biases and prejudice. Lots of talk, but people still hold onto concepts that some people are better than others. This would also help to normalize the human body.
I agree!
Well said Andy. We live in a world where dark forces of patriarchy that feel threatened by the power of women are working diligently to emasculate the fairer gender by supporting the concept of rape, eliminating a woman's right to have control over her own body, discrimination, sexual objectification and other crimes. When the nudist environment can be seen as a respectful and safe place for all people, especially women, we have a place to take a stand against misogyny. If we actively promote such a concept, perhaps more women will feel comfortable embracing our values.
I agree with your statement: When the nudist environment can be seen as a respectful and safe place for all people, especially women, we have a place to take a stand against misogyny. If we actively promote such a concept, perhaps more women will feel comfortable embracing our values.
It's a funny old world we see animals with erections and we call that nature and think nothing of it, but when it's a man…….all hell breaks loose !!!
Well said Tim. However, the majority of society is not as open minded and enlightened. If the naturist society is to gain more acceptance it must takes those steps that bring us forward in that direction. Right or wrong, non-nudists, especially those that are very concerned about what it would do to society as a whole would merely see erection pictures as proof/validation that nudism is sexually inclined. Right or wrong, I encourage small steps (and more steps) toward exposing (pun intended) naturism as wholesome and healthy. More importantly that it is normal and beneficial. Anything that blocks that progress should be avoided even if its not fair to those that wish to more freely express themselves. At least in the media and publications that we hope will promote the cause. What we need is more mainstream celebrities, politicians, sports figures etc to come out as being nudist and promoting its acceptance.
Exactly, and my wife reminded me, erect nipples aren't necessarily a sifn of sexual arousal. Context is everything.
Great post, a voice of reason in the erection debate. If we are going to promote our lifestyle as natural, we can't exclude certain body parts just because they happen to in one of their natural states. It's about context.