There is another article on Pink news today about public nudity on a public street in San Fransisco, with the implication that it is sexually motivated, and yet in another part of the same country a hotel (a private enclosed venue where I presume nudity is non-sexual) is abandoning a clothing option policy to attract gay families.
It seems to be the case that public nudity is ok when cruising for sex, but non-sexual nudity is off limits.
Surely people being naked in the streets is far more of an issue (is it really legal in the US?) than people (be they families, singles, couples; gay or straight) being naked in the privacy of a hotel complex.
Why not just say “family friendly” and in the interests of the comfort of all guests clothing is required except in bathing areas where most remain modest.
I’ve read more than once that children who are raised by naturists grow up more mature and accepting of others, of gender differences and more secure in who they are and how they function. We remain the only species on the planet that screw up their own children on purpose. Any other species sees sex and sexual activity as a natural part of life, and not something to be hid from the rest of the herd.
The article ends with gay only hotels being investigated by the Human Rights and Equalities Commission. If LGBT friendly hotels and B+Bs are allowed to ban straight people then it gives a reason for Christian establishments to bar gay people. I don’t know if any of you have seen ‘Four In A Bed’ on Channel 4, they have featured gay-only hotels. Equality is a two-way thing.
LGBT friendly simply means that LGBT people can go there and feel confident that they will not be harrased because of their sexuality, no one is barred from them (not even homophobes as all they have to do is refrain from harrassing fellow guests).
The Christian establishments that made the news however, did so because they refuse to allow LGBT custoers onto the premises even if they have paid for use of the services.
There is a big difference.
I have never come accross a gay only hotel, would that be a hotel that is marketed primarily at gay people but does not refuse entry to straight people? or is there an enforced ‘no straights’ policy? If it were the latter I’m sure they would have made the news before now.
I’m also absolutely certain there is no rule in the UK at least that allows gay hotels to ban straight people.
Incidentally there are several Christian establishments which do not have an explicit no LGBT policy
There is no dichotomy between “family” and nudity. Children naturally love being free of clothing until they are taught there is something naughty about it. Why not let kids of all ages be free? The sexual preference of parents is irrelevant when we agree that sexual expression is a private matter between consenting adults.
How wonderful – a gay hotel where you have to wear clothes – even though I don’t have any children this is where I shall be staying in future – no more worries about sitting on the sofa!
Looking for a nice, easy, clothes-free read to take on vacation? Kate’s Island is just the book. It is interesting enough to keep you coming back to finish, yet not demanding. Find out more at katesisland.com
These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous please click "Report" or email us. Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy
There is another article on Pink news today about public nudity on a public street in San Fransisco, with the implication that it is sexually motivated, and yet in another part of the same country a hotel (a private enclosed venue where I presume nudity is non-sexual) is abandoning a clothing option policy to attract gay families.
It seems to be the case that public nudity is ok when cruising for sex, but non-sexual nudity is off limits.
Surely people being naked in the streets is far more of an issue (is it really legal in the US?) than people (be they families, singles, couples; gay or straight) being naked in the privacy of a hotel complex.
Why not just say “family friendly” and in the interests of the comfort of all guests clothing is required except in bathing areas where most remain modest.
I’ve read more than once that children who are raised by naturists grow up more mature and accepting of others, of gender differences and more secure in who they are and how they function. We remain the only species on the planet that screw up their own children on purpose. Any other species sees sex and sexual activity as a natural part of life, and not something to be hid from the rest of the herd.
Must be nice living without shame…
The article ends with gay only hotels being investigated by the Human Rights and Equalities Commission. If LGBT friendly hotels and B+Bs are allowed to ban straight people then it gives a reason for Christian establishments to bar gay people. I don’t know if any of you have seen ‘Four In A Bed’ on Channel 4, they have featured gay-only hotels. Equality is a two-way thing.
LGBT friendly simply means that LGBT people can go there and feel confident that they will not be harrased because of their sexuality, no one is barred from them (not even homophobes as all they have to do is refrain from harrassing fellow guests).
The Christian establishments that made the news however, did so because they refuse to allow LGBT custoers onto the premises even if they have paid for use of the services.
There is a big difference.
I have never come accross a gay only hotel, would that be a hotel that is marketed primarily at gay people but does not refuse entry to straight people? or is there an enforced ‘no straights’ policy? If it were the latter I’m sure they would have made the news before now.
I’m also absolutely certain there is no rule in the UK at least that allows gay hotels to ban straight people.
Incidentally there are several Christian establishments which do not have an explicit no LGBT policy
I personally do not wish to have double standards which will only give the bigots another stick to beat us with.
There is no dichotomy between “family” and nudity. Children naturally love being free of clothing until they are taught there is something naughty about it. Why not let kids of all ages be free? The sexual preference of parents is irrelevant when we agree that sexual expression is a private matter between consenting adults.
How wonderful – a gay hotel where you have to wear clothes – even though I don’t have any children this is where I shall be staying in future – no more worries about sitting on the sofa!
Even in hotels where you don’t have to wear clothes, standard etitquette is to sit on a towel when nude. No worrying!
This must be an American thing (?) I’ve never heard of a clothing optional hotel… might start booking a holiday though :P lol
Looking for a nice, easy, clothes-free read to take on vacation? Kate’s Island is just the book. It is interesting enough to keep you coming back to finish, yet not demanding. Find out more at katesisland.com