Topless/Nude Beach?

[FreeInChrist88]

Has anyone gone to a topless or nude beach with their spouse?

Has it caused any trouble in your marriage?

My wife and I found a nude beach on a recent vacation. While my wife was not interested in participating, she had no problem with me trying it out. She held my valuables and went to the "textile" beach while I had my first experience skinny-dipping in a mixed-gender social nudity setting.

That short experience was so wonderful that I wanted to come back and spend more time. While I couldn't convince her to join me, my wife gave me her full consent and encouraged me to come back! I did come back to that beach twice spending 4 to 6 hours each visit. At it's peak, the crowd exceeded 100 people with the majority nude. There was a good mix of male/female, young/old, fat/thin, attractive and not so attractive. There was no sexual activity or anything remotely close to it.

It didn't take long to feel that being nude amongst other nude people was perfectly normal and commonplace. As surprising as it may be to many people, I genuinely did not struggle with lust or even sexual arousal (and believe me, there were enough attractive women to definitely cause both even to an old middle-aged guy like me). Seeing the other couples only made me long to have my own wife there with me. I truly missed her not being there.

Both my wife and I are very "straight laced". We've been Christian believers since before we were married and we've kept our compass pointed toward the LORD throughout. We're not people who step out of the bounds of the religious culture very often. This was very different and edgy for both of us.

What I learned is how much trust my wife has in me that she would knowingly consent to me being nude for several hours in a mixed-gender group without her physically being there to "police" my actions.

So in answer to your last question, this experience did NOT create trouble in our marriage. It simply proved that we both deeply trust each other.

 

[iambren]

I have always wanted to strut naked on a nude beach, at least once. Why? For the sheer heck of it. Years ago wife and I were vacationing in Cancun, Mexico. Saw my bullfight (she didn't go) and I won't go again.

When I heard there was a "clothing optional " beach I asked her if she was interested---I was, she not so much. We didn't go. But what attracts me is the sense of unabashed freedom. I skinny-dipped plenty of times in my teens mostly with the same sex. I still skinny-dip in the pool in our back yard and love it; I am discreet when getting out with neighbors around.

I would NOT go to a nude beach to lust(if that's what I wanted?). Regular people off the street, fat-ugly-wrinkled-plain, doesn't sound too exciting. Two distractions for men I see as:

--Arousal for men brings erections. Embarrassing!
--Size varies in men's unaroused penises, are comparisons made?

Other than that, I'm game for the fun and adventure of it. God probably looks down and laughs.

 

[Rev.Ross]

This sounds great: you have freedom in Christ to go to a nude beach, and your wife trusts you. One of these days she will probably join you. God's blessings to you, Rev.Ross

 

[FreeInChrist88]

Two distractions for men I see as:

--Arousal for men brings erections. Embarrassing!
--Size varies in men's unaroused penises, are comparisons made?

Other than that, I'm game for the fun and adventure of it. God probably looks down and laughs.

You'd be surprised, getting an erection probably would never happen. I'm usually one to get one rather easily and it did not happen to me. Believe it or not, it's simply not a sexually arousing situation once you join in.

About penis size - one of the things I like about the naturist philosophy is the emphasis on accepting both one's own body and those of others. Do some people privately judge? Probably so, but the majority accept others just as they are. Sort of reminds me of what Jesus said in Luke 10:27b ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

 

[Johnnz]

Body parts of either sex show some variation only within a great commonality. Nudity just makes that quite obvious. As for less than Amazonian bodies? Big reality check. That's what most of the human race live with. One big plus for self acceptance, one big strike against the 'beautiful body' mirage. Big or small, curvaceous or more parallel, smooth or wrinkled - human bodies all, and equally capable of being temples for our God.

John
NZ

 

[Romanseight2005]

The last time I went nude at a nude beach, I was secluded, because this place was rocky, and there were lots of secluded areas. So I was trying to get an even tan. In the buff, I layed down and closed my eyes on the rocks. I awoke to a man nearby, watching me, and very openly masturbating. That was the last time i did that.

 

[FreeInChrist88]

The last time I went nude at a nude beach, I was secluded, because this place was rocky, and there were lots of secluded areas. So I was trying to get an even tan. In the buff, I layed down and closed my eyes on the rocks. I awoke to a man nearby, watching me, and very openly masturbating. That was the last time i did that.

I'm sorry that happened. What happened was clearly not your fault. It just goes to show that when sin enters in, it can ruin a perfectly normal and fun occasion.

Maybe if you and your husband participated together at a naturist resort where all participants are screened, you would feel much safer and be able to get that even tan you want as well as meet some good folks. At minimum, your husband's presence at a clothing-optional beach with you would likely ward off creepy guys like that.

 

[Romanseight2005]

At the time I wasn't married.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Seeing an attractive woman starts the sexual engine in me. Seeing an attractive woman in a bikini or less gets my sexual engine going. If I spend a lot of time looking at that attractive woman with little on I can get very sexually aroused

When I get sexually aroused I want sex! In the past I have compromised my moral beliefs because I was so sexually aroused. Compromising your morals has negative consequences.

I may not be speaking for those men that are “Mature” but I am speaking for myself and other men that have talked about this issue. Maybe those “mature” men are special and are not affected like I have described above. For the rest of us that are sexually aroused by the naked body of a woman, stay away from naked women unless it is your wife!

I think that Emma said it best for me. She said:

Emma quote
It seems like totally unnecessary temptation ... (especially for the males/husbands) i think us wifes need to be supportive/protective of our husbands walks, and be helping them to flee temptation... not encouraging them into it (not saying anyone is). Just like they protect us against things in our walks (including this type of thing), we need to be getting along side them and helping them too, after all its a team... wives are talked about in the Bible as the 'helpers' and our husbands as the 'leaders'.

The Bible says to FLEE temptation not to go waltzing in amongst it. And as has already been said its not always just a temptation for the men it is also women, this stuff can have huge affects on marriages.

 

[Johnnz]

In reality it is the opposite. Initially there may be some response additional to neutral interest, but it usually doesn't take too long for a "what was all the fuss about" response to become well established. For social nudity it is much easier. One on one can be far more stimulating.

Not do I see that a guy determined to remain sexually moral will suffer temptation.

John
NZ

 

[Niffer]

I have no problem with either, and neither does Remi.
We have quite a few nude beaches around, and its legal (though still rare) for women to be topless in public.
I never really thought of it in a sexual way - and the majority of those on nude beaches tend to be older, saggier couples anyway.
Not very sexy, more just "free."

I don't really like taking my bottoms off, I suppose I'm still too conservative for that - but sure I'll drop my top if I'm on a hot beach!

- Niff

 

[Conservativation]

Bottoms off is only for folks named Sandy

 

[iambren]

Gotta watch for that "Sandy" !

I realize that I may be in the minority of Christian men that would like to try the nude route. I also feel weird because porn does not have much pull on me either, bores rather quickly. Usually I am MUCH more excited about the dressed woman, how she moves or talks or simply the "chemistry" between us.

BTW, Romans, that was disgusting what happened to you. I feel bad for you, all alone, didn't you feel invaded?? I guess in this world the pervs will always be around. Sad.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by JohnNZ
In reality it is the opposite. Initially there may be some response additional to neutral interest, but it usually doesn't take too long for a "what was all the fuss about" response to become well established. For social nudity it is much easier. One on one can be far more stimulating.

Not do I see that a guy determined to remain sexually moral will suffer temptation.

John
NZ

John
I guess you are one of those “mature” and special men that I mentioned.

An attractive woman in the nude does not make me say "what was all the fuss about"
An attaractive nude woman excites my sexually. The only woman I should see naked is my wife.


John, all the men that I know do not agree with you.

 

[Romanseight2005]

But I still think that each person needs to question one thing in his/her own mind. "Am I drawn to what I percieve is sinful?"

Se Jon, and others, whether or not the naked body is in itself sinful, isn't really the issue. The issues is, if a person needs something to be sinful, for it to be erotic in their own mind.

What Wolfgate said was that it's sensual if it's forbidden. If there is any truth to that statement at all, then people are correct in thinking that their sexuality is sinful. Not because sexuality in itself is sinful, it's not. But, because a person is drawn to something because of its forbidden aspects,(Whose the rule maker? God) that, in itself, is sinful.

 

[WolfGate]

But I still think that each person needs to question one thing in his/her own mind. "Am I drawn to what I percieve is sinful?"

Se Jon, and others, whether or not the naked body is in itself sinful, isn't really the issue. The issues is, if a person needs something to be sinful, for it to be erotic in their own mind.

What Wolfgate said was that it's sensual if it's forbidden. If there is any truth to that statement at all, then people are correct in thinking that their sexuality is sinful. Not because sexuality in itself is sinful, it's not. But, because a person is drawn to something because of its forbidden aspects,(Whose the rule maker? God) that, in itself, is sinful.

Whoa Nelly!!! My first thought was "I said what? Huh? Never seen this thread!" Than I realized it was dug up from 6 years ago! Took 6 years for someone to comment on one of my posts. Does that set a record? LOL!!

Looking further back, my favorite self quote from those many years ago was this one.

While on a mission trip to Spain, we went to a Med. beach. There were topless women there. All of us guys went swimming but got really tired and never got anywhere. Then we figured out it's hard to do anything but go in a circle when you're swimming with one arm and covering your eyes with the other...

It's not some unwritten rule violation to quote myself after half a decade now, is it?

 

[mkgal1]

There seems to be a few threads that have recently been brought back from YEARS ago....what's up with that?

 

[Johnnz]

But I still think that each person needs to question one thing in his/her own mind. "Am I drawn to what I percieve is sinful?"

Se Jon, and others, whether or not the naked body is in itself sinful, isn't really the issue. The issues is, if a person needs something to be sinful, for it to be erotic in their own mind.

What Wolfgate said was that it's sensual if it's forbidden. If there is any truth to that statement at all, then people are correct in thinking that their sexuality is sinful. Not because sexuality in itself is sinful, it's not. But, because a person is drawn to something because of its forbidden aspects,(Whose the rule maker? God) that, in itself, is sinful.

Your post is helpful in that highlights what I see are some semantic confusions that often colour many discussions on issues of human sexuality.

1st Para To be drawn to something that is sinful is clearly wrong. If by using the word 'perceive' you mean 'thinks it might be" then I agree. That's what Paul was getting at in Romans.Rom 14:23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. NIV Here 'faith' has the underlying meaning of conviction.

In a doubtful matter to do something that people differ on, and you are undecided about it yourself, you are not then acting with any real confidence and conviction is Paul's argument. Nobody should engage in social nudity if they are unsure about it's validity for them as a Christian. But conversely, for those who are convinced it does not contravene biblical standards they have that freedom, provided that freedom does not impinge on another's position. Don't turn up at church naked, but at a suitable area somewhere else that would be OK.

2nd Para. I think you have not expressed your thinking that clearly. But if you are saying (which I think you are) "If a person does anything for the wrong reason that is sinful" then I agree. Thus, I can look at a fully clothed or completely naked woman, and in either case, see her as a person to be treated with dignity, or as a sexual object for whatever sexual gratification I can obtain from her.

3rd Para This is the central issue and semantics are very important here. When we equate sensuality with sin we adopt a non biblical viewpoint. Our sensuality derives from our existence as embodied beings. It is something fundamental to being a human. God designed sex to be a very sensual and therefore very enjoyable part of our lives. Song of Songs celebrates sexual sensuality.

The confusion that does occur is twofold.

a) Normal sensuality is often equated with 'lusts of the flesh'. That is Greek thinking, not biblical teaching and quite simply is very wrong. This happens particularly with sexual issues and causes great harm and confusion. The 'bouncing eyes' teaching is a direct outcome of this error as an example. This then leads to the second error:
b) Any 'sexual' arousal apart from having one's spouse as the direct subject of such excitement is classified as 'lust' and sin. This confuses two quite separate categories.

i) Stimulus-response. We are made to respond to various stimuli across the whole spectrum of our sensual capacities, from great music to great sex. Contrary to much wrong teaching a guy whose head turns at the sight of an attractive woman, or at some sexual stimulus (anything from a text book account of human biology to a Playboy centrefold) is not thereby 'lusting', even if he gets an erection! It's what we do with anything that interests/excites/satisfies us that determines its moral value.

ii) Thus sin is a deliberate choice to engage in wrong moral activity, whether or not opportunity exists for that to happen. That verse in Matthew has been so distorted by both this category confusion and an ignorance of the underlying Greek grammar, which it is for that verse.

Contrary to suggestions I may be uncommonly mature (strongly denied) the understandings I have summarised above, and the application of them as I have been able does mean that I neither have issues with appropriate social nudity nor experience constant battles with 'sexual lusts' in the presence of a woman. And that's from a guy who is as hormonal as most guys seem to be.

John
NZ

 

[Romanseight2005]

Here is What Wolfgate said initially:

Originally Posted by WolfGate

That's true for all societies. Part of what men view as sensual is the forbidden. If breast exposure is normal, then exposure won't spark thoughts and reactions as often as in forbidden societies.

For that matter, some Muslim countries have men who would tell you seeing a woman's face sparks thoughts and lust - because it is forbidden.

The fact that societal norms help determine what sparks lust in men of that society doesn't change the fact that it is still lust. I would expect American men to respond differently at a topless beach than European or African for that reason. And as such, American men should be more careful and aware.

FWIW, I agree with SVT4Him about "most" being correct. I've seen enough in men's ministry group seminars to firmly believe it is a majority. Though clearly not universal.
​

Wolfgate, I am not picking on you, but it jumped out at me, because I hear similar things all of the time, and it hit me that we sort of take it for granted that we want what we aren't supposed to have.

How many times have you heard someone say that if you want someone to touch a bench, just post a sign on it that says,"Wet paint, Don't Touch?" The point is that there is a draw to that which is wrong. Meaning, that the draw is there, because it is wrong. So if you want someone to desire something, make them think it's wrong to desire it.

Are you following what I am saying now Johnz? My point is that the whole idea of it being desirable if we aren't supposed to have it, as though that is how we just are, is quite mistaken. The one who defines in reality, what we are supposed to have, is God. So, if we want something, just because He says no to it, isn't that nothing more than pure rebellion?

That, not the sexuality, is what I am talking about. If people have that element of wanting the forbidden fruit, mixed up with sexuality, then that is the sinful part.

Sexuality was created for intimacy, oneness, and pro-creation. It was not created for doing something wrong, or tasting the forbidden fruit, as if the forbidden fruit tastes sweeter than all of the other fruit in the garden. To be drawn to forbidden fruit, is to believe the lie that the serpent told Eve. It's believing that God is holding out on you, and the parameters that God set are oppressive. That is the lie of the devil.

 

[Johnnz]

What Wolfgate wrote is sensible. The forbidden can become a component of the erotic. But we must establish what is forbidden. Some of us are saying that the 'forbiddenness' of the female breast is more a cultural than a biblically established 'standard and consequently within a moral framework it can be accepted as a component of the female form without automatic eroticism being attached.

And some of us suspect that the 'forbidden flesh' teaching within some Christian circles actually creates the eroticism through that stance, thereby creating an issue causing many people go through all sorts of hoops seeking to be set 'free free' from 'lust'. Nudists will testify pretty much to a "so what " rather than an 'Ohh Ahh ' reaction to the naked body. Surely that's far healthier and saner than the anguish experienced by many Christians trying to better integrate their normal sexuality and values?

Sexual intercourse was created for intimacy etc. But human sexuality, by virtue of there being two genders, is far wider than that. This is a basic reality of creation that often just is not recognised adequately by the moralists, who restrict all matters sexual within moral categories without properly acknowledging its far wider reality.

John
NZ