Nude Cruising ?
in [Cruise Ship]
|
Prev: CruiseQuick.com Update
Next: One of My Favorite Things
From: stinson_home on 2 Jul 2010 16:15 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:35:16 -0700, Dan Abel <dabel(a)sonic.net> wrote: > They and their friends don't seem to do the >"dating" thing, and almost never have. They and their friends become >friends, and things happen, and sexual relationships form, and I can't >see any logical progression. Two of their friends got married recently. >All three of my kids were in the wedding party. What's going to be >different for the happy couple now? They've been together for ten >years, and they are in their twenties. That's their whole adult life. >They've lived together for the last four years. We're truly dinosaurs. How the hell did THAT happen? :-) -T.
From: stinson_home on 2 Jul 2010 16:31 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:10:50 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Pretty much my point. But, the response to nudity (at least in the >US context) is largely societal and taught from infancy. That assumes a homogeneous culture, which really doesn't exist in the US. Now there is an assumed culture, that which many people believe is the "norm", but my experience is that most people live well beyond the assumed norm. Causes a lot of angst and pays the bills for a lot of psychologists. > So, there is a >certain amount of social relearning that usually has to take place >except in the second or third generation of nudists. It is how that >retraining takes place that is interesting. What is interesting is that you think it occurs at all. >> > I would think that the major difference in erections between >> >nudists and non-nudists (sorry boys and girls but textiles is just too >> >dumb a monicker for me to use), is that you see enough naked bodies in >> >social settings and things (shall we say) "settle down". >> >> If you're an adult, who can differentiate between a sexual setting and >> a social one, things don't get riled up in the first place. >> > But one of the key (again in the US context) differentiations >IS nudity. If you are nude, most likely it is perceived as a sexual >setting. Not when you're in the midst of a group of people. THAT would take reprogramming. -T.
From: Dan Abel on 2 Jul 2010 16:46 In article <896mqdFo4tU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Ari Silverstein <AriSilverstein(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:25:56 -0700, Dan Abel wrote: > > > What I posted above is that Bare Necessities is claiming, on their web > > site, that these are *cruise line* rules, not theirs, although they have > > those rules also. So, I ask you, in the case of a charter, who enforces > > the rules, especially the rules of the cruise line? > > That's a good question, Dan. Obviously, maritime laws are still > enforceable (musters, life jackets and safety gear, etc) but the > so-called social laws like this question of sexual solicitation we are > discussing are up to they who charter. As long as the captain and crew > find that there in no interference in the safety of the ship or its > pax. So, they're lying? It's not really a cruise line rule, and the captain won't really enforce them? > What a nightmare though. Every conversation, every nuance, every look > would have to be guarded. Damn near anything could have sexual > implications. Again, you're making it way too complicated. Pretty much the rules are the same, clothed or nude. If someone is obnoxious, and won't stop being obnoxious, then the rules need to be enforced, or people will stop going on these cruises. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA dabel(a)sonic.net
From: Terry J. Wood on 2 Jul 2010 16:52 stinson_home(a)HOTMAIL.COM wrote in news:45is26punnbbrvtr6hr2rod3oe854oj44l@ 4ax.com: > We're truly dinosaurs. How the hell did THAT happen? I was wondering the same thing myself. My HS class is having a 36 year reunion this weekend!
From: Kurt Ullman on 2 Jul 2010 17:16
In article <6qis26t1mplgptff357m3snktumflpfp0c(a)4ax.com>, stinson_home(a)HOTMAIL.COM wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:10:50 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > Pretty much my point. But, the response to nudity (at least in the > >US context) is largely societal and taught from infancy. > > That assumes a homogeneous culture, which really doesn't exist in the > US. Now there is an assumed culture, that which many people believe is > the "norm", but my experience is that most people live well beyond the > assumed norm. Causes a lot of angst and pays the bills for a lot of > psychologists. No it doesn't. It just means that there are some cultural norms, which your discussion of the shrinks, pretty much reinforces. > > > But one of the key (again in the US context) differentiations > >IS nudity. If you are nude, most likely it is perceived as a sexual > >setting. > > Not when you're in the midst of a group of people. THAT would take > reprogramming. For the most part, yes. People, outside of the CONTEXT of Nudism, don't generally start flopping clothes on the floor without some kind of sexual component. -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist |