Terminology question

[John]

Usage and definitions change over time and with usage. I would have used exactly the same definitions as you, and I don’t feel there is necessarily a sexual element to exhibitionism.

This can be good or bad, an example of bad use would be people labelling ridiculous things as woke, in order to demean the word and deflect from some particularly nasty traits that they may have.

Ed likes this

[Ed]

Very true.

In my experience, a VERY large number of people (est 20-30% of the population) get some enjoyment from being seen naked. It’s very much a mainstream thing, so I don’t want to be seen to label such people as though there is something wrong with them. That is very much not my intent.

Language can be tricky.

[Arthur]

It is a tricky question. Although being seen naked, particularly in a situation where others get to remain dressed, would be extremely sexually titillating to me, I wouldn’t consider myself an exhibitionist because I wouldn’t willingly expose myself like that.

Ed likes this

[Ed]

That’s another common variation. Some people like the exposure, some like the reaction, some like the humiliation and there are many combinations in between.

I’m wondering if the terminology issue with psychology is that psychologists usually only get involved if the issue is deemed a problem in the first place. People who don’t deem it to be a problem, aren’t going to seek help. I suspect only the more extreme end of things are seen by the medical community.

[NakedMadCat]

I’ve always thought of exhibitionists as a sexual thing.

[Ed]

Depends on your definition of sexual. For some people, the humiliation is the overwhelming experience. That can be intensely sexual or not sexual (arousing) at all. Of course, it can easily be argued that it’s sexual even if it’s not arousing.

NakedMadCat likes this

[Arthur]

@Ed

“Depends on your definition of sexual. For some people, the humiliation is the overwhelming experience. That can be intensely sexual or not sexual (arousing) at all. Of course, it can easily be argued that it’s sexual even if it’s not arousing.”

Again I guess the definitions get rather tricky for a lot of this really. For me in the main turn on it being naked is that I would find it humiliating especially if I’m the only one naked and that’s where the arousal comes from, so simply being naked around members of the opposite sex is enough to make me feel like it’s a titillating experience even if nothing else is happening or even if people are neutral towards the nudity. I think the difference between a nudist and an exhibitionist is that a nudist doesn’t necessarily view nudity and sexual but an exhibitionist does.

But I wouldn’t consider myself an exhibitionist because I wouldn’t willingly go around flashing people think that but at the same time if I was seen naked by someone, especially if they get to keep their clothing on I would find the experience sexually titillating even if it was, as that I think is the primary turn on for me so it’s hard for me to really fit into these definitions. I’m definitely not a nudist or an exhibitionist but I do get excited from humiliation and I do feel that nudity is inherently sexual, at least for me anyway.

NakedMadCat and Ed like this

[Ed]

I know so many people who call themselves “nudists” who would upset a large segment of the nudist community by their use of the term.

It would be interesting to visit a nudist resort and interview a large number of them individually to get their opinions and motivations. I’m convinced that many nudists in nudist resorts or real-life nudist communities have some degree of voyeuristic interest.

[Arthur]

@Ed

“I know so many people who call themselves “nudists” who would upset a large segment of the nudist community by their use of the term.

It would be interesting to visit a nudist resort and interview a large number of them individually to get their opinions and motivations. I’m convinced that many nudists in nudist resorts or real-life nudist communities have some degree of voyeuristic interest.”

Most nudists seem to put forth the idea that not all nudity is inherently sexual but will also admit that in a nudist resort or something like that people do get sexually aroused because if you can get sexually aroused by a person you find attractive with their clothing on seeing them naked is obviously going to have the same effect and probably a lot of people do go to those places hoping to see other people naked.

That’s where I think that the difference comes in, if I was naked and I was communicating with a naked woman I wouldn’t be able to view that as nonsexual as it would be a highly sexually charged experience. Likewise if I were naked but she was dressed that would to be be an even more sexually charged event because it would be in an extreme submissive position to be in regardless whether she feels sexually turned on by my nudity or not, but more so if she is!

Ed and Martin like this

[Ed]

I think part of the problem is the idea of situations being sexual or non-sexual. It’s not a switch. There’s a huge spectrum there. Some situations may be very slightly sexual but not in any way arousing. Other situations might be super sexual. I suspect the social situations involving 100% non-sexual nudity are (for most people) a minority.

The human brain doesn’t switch off, it just reacts to varying degrees.

Arthur likes this

[Ed]

I’m going to continue using the following meanings for the terms, even if people keep pointing out it’s wrong:

Voyeur – Someone who likes seeing other people undressing or being naked.
Exhibitionist – Someone who enjoys being seen naked by other people.

Martin likes this

[Author]

Posts