In nudist environments, at least where not everyone is a close friend, I agree to follow nudist etiquette and hide any erection I may have. I will certainly not flaunt it, either in person or in photos on nudist websites.
However, and at the risk of being targeted for criticism, I will add that I understand those who say that we shouldn’t get so overworked over male erections. I won’t bother saying that erections are natural because crapping is natural, too, and it’s not something that should be done in public. Neither should I make love to anyone or masturbate in public. But does this mean erections must per force be banned?
Naturism is supposed to include the doctrine of full body acceptance. Full acceptance by people who are fully knowledgeable about the workings of the human body must include the recognition that some erections are involuntary. I know some like to think an erection can simply be turned on and off. It’s all in the mind, they say. I won’t try to change their minds. I’ll simply follow what most respected and responsible sources of information say on this matter. And they recognise the occasional involuntary nature of erections.
Despite my intro to this post, the truth is it’s not much of a problem for me. A combination of age, hypertension and diabetes has made most of my erections dependent on properly prescribed medication. But my son certainly has no problems in this area, and I’d be disappointed if he were ostracised for simply having an unwanted erection at the wrong time. I’m sure he’d follow the rules and find his towel as soon as possible. But why do we even make an issue of this?
How would you react if a man with an erection were approaching your children, some ask. It depends. Do I know the man? Is my child at least staying within view and earshot? What if the man was dressed and we couldn’t see his erection? What if he was impotent but could still molest my child?
For that matter, how do I know that woman who is hanging around him isn’t a molester? Have you seen how she always sits with her legs spread apart? That’s got to mean something.
Oh, she’s his mother. Sorry about that. My eyesight’s not what it used to be.
Absence of erection is no more a guarantee of a man’s good intentions than the presence of one would properly announce his evil designs. Complete absence of a penis is no guarantee either. I may be in the minority on this point, but I think I’m at least on solid ground. If nothing else, I will continue to view men without erections with suspicion, as the lack of erection may very well give us a false sense of security.
No comments:
Post a Comment