No Nudist Dominatrices!

I remember reading that discussion and thinking aobut the irony in that the “naturalists” seemed to be more anti-sex than some religious fundies I’ve read.

The Tao of Tom

Being nude (or naked) implies being vulnerable, being inferior, being poor.

These are certainly NOT characteristics of a Domina, ever. They are the hallmarks of Her slave. When one sees a photo on the web of a nude Woman, She cannot be a real Domina, despite how She may be described. She is, by the nature of her exposure, just another bimbo.

The True Mistress exhibits power, not vulnerability; She is protected, not exposed. It is Her slave that is exposed to the kick of Her beautiful boot, vulnerable to the lash of Her sweet whip, and open to the slap of Her adorable leather-gloved hand.

(Nothing is quite as sexy as being slapped by Her glove and knowing that one is not worthy even to thank Her by kissing the hand that dealt the painful punishment unless She kindly consents to allow it.)

Only as a special honor may this slave lick Her actual Precious Foot — usually it is only Her boot that one is permitted to worship.

As for adoring Her Most Divine Cunt, this is an extreme honor allowed only because, if this slave is careful, it will give Her a few moments of pleasure. However, one expects to be caressed in turn by Her quirt or crop during the hour or so of exacting service, and to thank Her for the priivilege after She tires and dismisses this dog — or, more likely, punishes it for falling short of Her expectation.

Being nude (or naked) implies being vulnerable, being inferior, being poor.

Gosh, and here I thought that being nude implied a comfort with one’s body and environment, a desire for peace and serenity, or perhaps an expression of sensuality.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, you know?

The Tao of Me

That is really funny.

I, being a heretic, think that being a naturist is just about being comfortable with being nude.

Her emphasis that the kind of nudity practiced by naturists should to be “nonsexual” is clearly a denial of sexuality.

If I go to a nudist gathering, at some point, I will get a boner. I guess at that point, I stop being a “naturist” and I become just a pervert. :-)

worthlessdog said:

Being nude (or naked) implies being vulnerable, being inferior, being poor.

These are certainly NOT characteristics of a Domina, ever. They are the hallmarks of Her slave.

My reply:

Of course that is true. But how can a dominatrix go from her daily job of “forcing” people to go nude and humiliating them for their nudity to just seeing nudity as just normal and natural?

That is why they don’t belong at nudist venues. Their clients don’t belong at nudist venues either because they don’t have the appropriate mindset regarding nudity.

Tom Allen said:

Gosh, and here I thought that being nude implied a comfort with one’s body and environment, a desire for peace and serenity, or perhaps an expression of sensuality.

My Reply:

You are right about all of it except for the last part. Nudism isn’t supposed to be an expression of sensuality. It is supposed to be completely nonsexual.

Mistress Laura’s boy said:

If I go to a nudist gathering, at some point, I will get a boner. I guess at that point, I stop being a “naturist” and I become just a pervert. :-)

My Reply:

Yep you are correct about that.

Nudism/Naturism isn’t for everyone, some people just can’t or don’t want to have the appropriate mindset for it.

So, you can take your boner elsewhere. There are plenty of “Sex Positive” Swinger places you can go to in order to practice nudity in a sexually charged atmosphere.

Anna is not a nudist and never has been so why all this is here is beyond me.

I’ve been both a nudist and a Dominatrix for a couple of decades and seem to be able to handle it just fine.

“But how can a dominatrix go from her daily job of “forcing” people to go nude and humiliating them for their nudity to just seeing nudity as just normal and natural?”

Daily job of forcing nudity? Not only does Anna not know about nudism but she is clueless about BDSM as well. I only do a couple sessions per week, it’s hardly a full time job. And forcing nudity isn’t involved in every session just as humiliation isn’t in every session.

Anna is nothing more than a troll who won’t go away. Do us all a favor and don’t play with trolls.

Cyndiann (Ms. Camille) when you have people like yourself involved in nudism it makes it even more difficult to make people believe that nudism is non-sexual.

And still I think it would be hard to switch from making fun of a client’s small penis at one moment, and then be a nudist (who needs to be body accepting) the next.

As for putting quotes around “forcing” well we all know that ultimately the client isn’t being forced to do anything but I was talking about in the context of the scene.

Anna, instead of assuming so much about nudism why not actually try it? That way you wouldn’t be so misinformed.

The world, and myself, are much more complicated than you can imagine. I’m so sorry you can’t comprehend how I can be both but it’s not an odd thing. There are no kinds of people who can’t be nudists.

People who are overly judgmental about other people’s bodies can’t be nudists because the first time they go to a venue they will become “blind” (not really but that is what they say but they really mean that they find some person’s body really really disgusting to see).

People who are very sexualized can’t be nudists because they will go around being sexually stimulated by the nudity around them.

First and foremost nudism is a mindset. Lots of people go around nude, but that doesn’t make then all nudists. Nudism is the non-sexualized practice of simple nudity among groups of like minded people.

Anna you wouldn’t know a nudist if he bit you in the ass.

Anna, are you implying that nudists should be completely asexual? Sexuality is as natural as nudity, and comes in as many shapes and sizes as the human body. Non-human animals are both nude and sexual, and their nudity has no bearing on their sexuality. The key to combining sexuality with nudism is to divorce the naked body of being, in and of itself, a sexual stimulus. Sexual arousal still exists for the nudist; it is just that nudity ALONE is not considered a context or stimulus. BDSM and D/s, with their use of rituals, scene setting, and fetish objects already use a different context - other than nudity - for sexual arousal. Are there BDSM practitioners whose SPECIFIC kinks and associations prohibit them from being successfully nudist? Certainly. Anyone, vanilla or otherwise, who is strongly conditioned to associate nudity, in and of itself, with sexual arousal, is ill-suited to naturalism. But one could argue that you’d find more vanilla folks who fall into that category than BDSM folks. After all, within BDSM, sexuality has been conditioned to take place in very specific contexts, often with clothing being a trigger for arousal vs. lack of clothing. It seems very feasible to me that a D/s couple could practice naturalism and function happily and non-sexually without clothes, then pop up to the bedroom, slip on fetish gear, and have a satisfying sex-life. Context, context, context.

I can’t believe that you would validate the opinions of a nudist newsgroup troll by airing them on this site. The majority of nudists on the newsgroup told the troll, in essence, to put a sock in it.

Yeah! Richard, you are SO BAD! smack