Whispering Pines Reference Library

Commentary

Resorts Discrimination Against Single Males
A Legal Cure For Nudist Resorts - Or A Legal Nightmare If Resorts Don't?
The Dirty House Most Nudist Resorts Refuse To Clean Up

There are several injustices, inequities and double standards in socialized nudism.

While the national nudist organizations constantly promote themselves as a “family” image they permit a few of their member resorts to allow open sexual activity among it's members. This gives all legitimate nudist resorts a black eye, especially legitimate family nudist resorts. And in the eyes of the textile world, one size fits all.

There have been complaints lodged with the national organizations about such open promiscuity but the national organizations turn a deaf ear. Why? Money. If they disenfranchise the offending resort they lose all of that member revenue. They have also turned the same deaf ear to the exclusion of single males, although they readily take the single male's money without any problem at all.

There are resorts that accept single males, but if such a resort is a great distance away his member dues to any national nudist organization is virtually worthless unless he has the time and the money to do a lot of traveling. He could live only twenty miles from a resort that denied him equal access and the next closest resort to him that accepts single males could be two hundred miles away or more.

Equal access legislation is often misconstrued as intended for women only when in fact it is not. As a result of subsequent equal access legislation fueled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being denied equal access because of race or gender is illegal, period. The reasoning doesn’t matter. It is illegal. "Gender balancing" or "quotas"  is tantamount to addressing anyone of a different race in a demeaning and derogatory manner.

Many legal precedents have already been set. It’s just a simple matter of citing case law.

The position of the offending resorts is that they own their own business and have a right to operate it any way they choose. This is true, but not to the extent of violating Federal Law in the process. Even if these resorts closed their doors to the public and admitted members only they still must comply with equal access to membership or adopt a couples only policy excluding singles of both genders.

Resorts can set certain criteria by which singles of both genders can be admitted but, the exact same criteria must be equally applied to applicants of both genders.

Then there are married couples that have lived on nudist resort property for years, the wife dies and the husband is kicked out because he is “suddenly single.” If he has nowhere else to go or is living on nothing but Social Security, tough! This alone is a travesty.

The real shame in all of this is that when you consider the plight of a "suddenly single" widower who has no retirement nest egg or is on a fixed income with nowhere else to go is that it really has nothing to do with being single again as much as it has to do with human rights. Where is the same compassion, kindness and understanding in a time of bereavement that resorts have extended to widows for years? What are these resorts afraid of? Are they afraid he's going to turn into a sexual predator just because he is widowed?

Notwithstanding, everyone knows that women are not as likely to be as promiscuous or aggressive as men. Hummm. This must be the "Me Tarzan, you Jane" mindset that is unique only to males. Men don't have that mindset.

If a male is married or shacking up he is considered the pillar of the resort community. But if he is widowed or single for any reason he then is treated like a garbage can. (He is now a sexual predator and a serious threat to women)

Resort owners with no compassion or sense of fair play with long standing members of character do not deserve the privilege of belonging to the human race. Places like North Korea or Red China are a more suitable environment for them. When resort owners will treat widowers in such a shabby manner why should it surprise you that some treat single males the same way?

Socialized nudism steadfastly maintains that legitimate nudism has nothing to do with sex. Yet, that is the sole basis of the exclusion of the single male.

Many resorts purport to be a "couples only" while admitting single females. A single is not a couple. Single is single, regardless of gender. One plus one equals two, a couple.

There are situations that are unique to certain geographic areas. Some resort owners say, "If we admitted single males in our area we would be overrun." The simple solution is to revert to a couples only policy excluding both single genders. Problem solved.

Some resorts still continue to treat single men as the scab of naturism. This, of course is a vague and unspoken implication that women have higher moral standards than men and also an unspoken assumption that all men are sexual predators. Insults are added to injury.

All it takes is just one man that is finally ticked off enough for being treated as a second class human being to bring the equal access issue to the attention of the Courts. If you think that it won't happen just remember that it took over four hundred years for blacks to gain equality, but it happened. When that does happen all resorts, not just the offending resorts, will be in deep financial difficulty mitigating damages if the case evolves into class action status. This would break the backs of the mid sized to small resorts and bankrupt them.

Why hasn’t equal access pertaining to nudist resorts already been brought to the attention of the Courts? I don’t know the answer to that question but my many years of experience with people and with nudists leads me to an informed and educated conclusion: (1) either no one wants to be publicly identified as a nudist for any number of reasons (2) the smell of instant riches has not yet reared it’s ugly head (3) nobody wants to put themselves through the agonizing process of litigation or (4) a combination of all of the above. But, litigation will happen sooner than later. It’s only a matter of when, not if.

However I must admit that it is entirely possible that the Courts could uphold if not endorse equal access discrimination in this area just as they did by allowing women equal access to all male institutions while at the same time denying men equal access to all female institutions. It all depends on the political landscape, not what is right or wrong.

If the resorts want to avoid the high risk of litigation and part with many of their dollars they need to do one of two things: (1) either admit single males or (2) revert to a couples only policy excluding both single males and single females alike. If the ratio of women to men is so miniscule as the resorts always claim, why should it matter? I would really hate to see a couple’s only policy happen across the board as the resorts would be cutting off their collective noses to spite their faces.

Most resorts are much too content with the status quo of just collecting everyone's money and taking what is perceived "the easy way out." Resorts just don't care to be bothered with it as long as the almighty dollars keep rolling in. Resorts must admit both single genders or exclude both single genders, otherwise it becomes equal access discrimination that will eventually be challenged in the Courts.

The Courts see themselves as a legal entity to do equity. If the offending resorts remain stubborn and refuse to alter their illegal policy the Courts will eventually do it for them. It becomes a travesty when you consider that it all could be avoided with sound reasoning, good business acumen and a professional attitude.

When any business opens its' doors to the public it must deal with the problems that admitting the public brings with it. And if in dealing with those problems a business violates the Law that business will be held legally accountable sooner or later. It is inevitable.

Organized social nudism doesn't need the negative publicity that even just the threat of litigation would bring as it already has it's hands full trying to correct public misconceptions that have existed for years. Litigation, or the mere threat of litigation would all but destroy the accomplishments that so many have spent so many years to achieve.

Nudists are the most honest and friendly people in the world. They accept you as you are, imperfections and all. It’s too bad you can’t say the same thing about some ignorant or apathetic resort owners. Sometimes I think that they are either ignorant by choice or are just simply so lazy that they do not want the responsibility. Or as one resort owner put it, "I'll take my money the easiest way that I can get it and with the least amount of effort possible."

It is also possible that the national nudist organizations could be in legal jeopardy as well if it can be proven they had knowledge of equal access discrimination among their member resorts and made no attempt to take corrective measures.

There are those who say that single male discrimination is is not an issue. That's only because the "other shoe" hasn't dropped yet. The smugness of taking this position can lead to disaster.

Organized social nudism could be in serious legal difficulty in the very near future and suffer enormous setbacks just because some nudist resorts lack enough self discipline to regulate themselves, clean up their dirty houses and continue to shirk legal accountability. I’m so afraid the Courts will have to do it for them.

Do we really want it to happen this way?

Article courtesy of Elizabeth Rosenthal

www.whisperingpinesnudistresort.com