Andrew,

With regard to your third point -- an apology to me for misinterpreting what I meant by privacy to include sex (when I am against sex in the pools, and spoke only of silence, being alone, talking or whispering, and kissing) -- I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. If you are not being sarcastic, of course I accept your apology. Thanks. If you are being sarcastic, I really don't think my words were so sloppy as to easily lend themselves to think I meant sex (oral sex, intercourse, fingering, fondling or kissing the breasts, etc.). And because I was talking about privacy and alone time, I was talking about couples talking to each other, listing to the silence, maybe kissing, when no one was present, children included.

So once again: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE NATURIST SOCIETY MEANS BY "PRIVACY," ESPECIALLY ON A NUDE BEACH, if you contend that was what Rule 1 was originally meant to apply to? And since the Rule/Bullet point was incorporated to DCHS, WHERE DOES THE PAMPHLET SAY THAT PRIVACY ONLY APPLIES IN THE AREAS OUTSIDE THE POOLS BUT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE POOLS THEMSELVES? Seems to me that the way I defined privacy for DCHS is pretty much how any reasonable woman or couple would interpret it.

Also, as applied to DCHS, WHAT DO YOU THINK IT MEANS NOT TO MONOPOLIZE OTHERS' TIME UNLESS THE WELCOME MAT IS OUT AND TO RECOGNIZE WHEN YOU (not you, Andrew, but anyone in general) ARE NOT WELCOME?

Not that it means much, but I read the Rule/Bullet Point to a nudist woman today, and she spontaneously defined it pretty much exactly as I did. It's commonsense. And she, like me, thought it was amazing that anyone could interpret the Rule/Bullet Point differently, whether applied to DCHS or to a nude beach. She was, by the way, the woman I enjoyed my June trip to DCHS with. She reminded me of the pathetic, perverted single guy who hung out on a rock ledge the entire day, making her experience less pleasant because it was so obvious he was only there to scope out women without their clothes on.

People -- please at least try to acknowledge that guys like that do frequent DCHS, and that what they are doing is obnoxious for single women and couples. That is a PROBLEM!

I go to Black's Beach frequently, by the way. I was just there today. There is a problem there with single guys, as there is in many naturist settings. At Black's, single guys frequently sit too close to couples or single women, when there are other patches of the beach to sit on. Virtually all the women down there, and the male regulars (e.g., the Black's Beach Bares) recognize guys who do that as presenting a serious problem of obnoxiousness, one that keeps single women from coming there, or makes them feel uncomfortable when they do. The complaints about this problem are common and voiced daily among single women (friends of mine there) and couples. WHY IS THIS ISSUE SO HARD TO ACKNOWLEDGE BY DCHS REGULARS?

When I am asking for a modicum of courtesy and consideraton (Golden Rule etiquette) from single guys, I have reiterated over and over again that I am not talking about situations when DCHS is crowded, couples "trumping" single guys rights to equal access to the pools, or any such thing. I am talking about single guys not respecting couples' (or single womens') privacy, monopolizing their time, and not recognizing when they are not welcome (the three principles of the Rule/Bullet Point) at times when there are other empty pools for the single guy to go to. The starkest example, yet once more: Four pools, one couple, one single guy. Should the single guy chase the couple into every pool they get into? How about if DCHS is a little more crowded than that, but there is still at least one empty pool left, yet he hangs around for hours in the presence of the couple anyway?. Would it not be courteous for him to leave the couple alone just for a few minutes? How about if he is hanging around in the creek by the shower all day, or leaves but returns to it every time a single woman or couple get under the shower? Can't he find an equally comfortable part of the creek? How about the guy perched all the damn day on the rocks? Sure, if you asked him, he would have claimed he just likes to sit there all day, and was not even paying attention to the fact that some women were nude. But it would have been patent B.S., obvious to anyone.

To be sure, in the abstract, couples and single women ought to be every bit as courteous and considerate of single guys as vice versa. But the setting of my question is not posed in the abstract; it poses the specific question of guys staying in couples' (or single women's) presence not because they just happen to more "happy" in that one particular spot than any other in DCHS, but due to horny obnoxiousness. If a couple or single woman stayed near a single guy all day out of horny obnoxiousness, and the guy gave them multiple hints that he did not like them preying on him, then I would say sure, the offending couple or single woman is very wrong to do that!

Those, of course, were my original questions and the settings of the questions. I have taken pains to explain that I am not talking about times when DCHS is crowded. I am wasting my breath to have to repeat that setting and context for my original question, over and over and over again.

But again, this is flogging a dead horse. There is a problem with some single guys who frequent the springs and purposely stay in the presence of couples or (the tiny few) single women. If some of the guys responding to this topic will not acknowledge this problem, it is futile for me to make any further attempt to get them to. I can only say, however, that women and couples know exactly what I am talking about. And the less the problem is recognized and dealt with, the fewer will be the unclothed women that the problem men go to DCHS to see.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2010 01:21AM by mellowguy.