Yes, so many people enjoy coming at THE GRAND BARN

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Neosapienis

2009-04-07 21:13:53 UTC

Hey Anna,

You wrote:

"Do you allow children there. If so, what you are doing is wrong."

Once upon a time he did. If you want to see how TGB used to operate, then
go to http://web.archive.org and type its URL into the search engine.

I have been pretty clear as to who I welcome at THE GRAND BARN and
this has not changed.
I always despise the simplistic labeling of one being strictly
"swinger", "nudist", and other confining "ism/ist".
It all comes down to behavior and the capability of acting with common
sense.

"It's the mindset of the "swinger". If you can tell they are
"swingers" somehow then they should be booted from nudist venues."

Unless they have the letter "S" branded on their foreheads, how can you
tell? You are pre-judging people here.

I'll go to Danny Boy Abel and then Anna's blurts and give an answer to
that...

Hi Anna,
TGBis for *all* kinds of people, whether it be gays, swingers, or
nudists.
Who gave you the authority to say that nudists can't go there for their
vacations?

"Nudists wouldn't want to go there because they wouldn't want the
sexified atmosphere of the place."

I don't think that Lily and Charles would agree with you on that, nor would
any other nudist. There is more to TGB than sex. I have seen the "Canada
Naturally" film and "The Grand Barn" film, and I can tell you that the place
has much more to offer. It is set in a very peaceful environment with
well-kept lawns, as well as a man made lake. In TGB's film, I did not see
any scenes where there were instances of unfettered open sex going on in
full force.

Charles and Lily are not swingers, yet they visitedTGB.

"They must have been pretty disappointed then, or else they wanted for
once to see what sexualized social nudity was like. I guess
whatever. I can understand someone wanting to try something once to
see what it is like."

Why not write to them and ask them yourself instead of assuming they were?
Charles has been friends with Peter for years, though Lily has only known
him for the last two. Charles' webpage is http://www.synetechvideo.com and
you can ask him about his own experiences through that. As far as I know he
still has the TGB DVD for sale on there.

As for Dave
Hutchinson, I don't know him in real life but going from his history he
is
not monogamous.

"I don't care what he does as long as he keeps it from the nudist
venue. Like with gays, don't ask don't tell, and there's no problem
(because how would you know unless he was somehow disrupting the vibes
of the nudist venue)."

Again, you should write to him for his own opinions through his site at
http://www.libchrist.com and http://www.lovetouch.info

<Dan Abel's piece snipped>

"I respect people's right to do what they want as long as no other
party is hurt by the action."

I think everybody on this NG would agree with this. In the whole 22 years
that the Grand Barn has been operating, I have heard of only one instance
where Peter's friend Alex Neaves told me that somebody had behaved
inappropriately and it took only one warning for him to return to order.
Since then there have not been any repeat instances of bad behaviour.

Everybody has read this inane retort from Danny Boy. What is being
implied by this infantile statement is that only Peter Riden, not any
other destination in the world, expects money when it comes to hosting
visitors and offering an environment where people can be enjoying
themselves away from the daily routined madness most are subjected to.
It seems that no other establishment would even think that money is in
the equation. >

"Hey, I am a capitalist. I am not against someone making money.

Except for one thing. With nudism it seems that when nudism becomes
about the money the place starts allowing all kinds of bad behavior to
attract more people. That is why nudism seems to work best as a
non profit."

Nudism has got many faces. I tend to enjoy non profit nude recreation more
such as going to the beach, house parties, and nuding up for events like
WNBR and WNGD as I am fed up of the tired club politics (e.g. no single
males, no families, no signs of public affection between couples, no cameras
or filming, no goggles in the pool etc. etc. and so forth). These are the
sorts of things that are killing nudism off in Australia and the nudist club
operators who adhere to them are too blind, deaf, and mad to be able to
figure it out.

Can we blame all those fine resorts owners who, like myself, do also
want financial support. Does that make poor Danny Boy envious of what
I have that he will never ever have... Tough luck for you, Dan.

"It is not so much blame but defining what you are."

Peter used to heavily promote his place on this group as being for
nudists, and as being "family friendly".

"If that is the case then that was wrong. Peter was wrong when he did
that just like Caliente was wrong, just like Paradise Lakes is wrong,
just like the Four Seasons (nudist camp not Hotel chain) is wrong. And
back then I would have criticized him heavily for that."

The only difference is that Peter does not lobby the FCN to keep his place
affiliated with them, unlike the likes of PL, Caliente and FS.

Now.. let's put Danny Boy to the task.
I want you to retrieve even a single post of mine where such would be
proving that I would have an heavily insistence on what you claim
above. Not to confuse with a mere non-discriminating acceptance of
different groups including some who label themselves "nudist".

"Nudists would not want to go to your place. If they do it is because
they are curious about sexualized social nudity. So, they aren't
behaving as "nudists" while they are there and hopefully their mindset
isn't corrupted when they go back to nudist venues."

As I cannot afford to visit Canada at the moment, the DVDs about TGB would
suffice for me. I watched them from cover to cover, and I did not get a
'corrupted' mind afterwards. I am sure that there are people who have
vacationed at TGB and also gone to other nudist places and behaved
themselves just fine at them.

But to each their own. As long as there's no children around

Peter has five children. At the time he was promoting the place for
swingers as well as nudists, they all lived there.

"That makes him a bad father. CPS should have taken his children away."

That's a bit rough. His son Thaila is now running the place, and going from
how I saw his children behaving in the TGB video they did not display any
evidence of being abused kids. They were very friendly, polite and positive
types. If Peter was really a bad father (as you claim), then his children
would have not wanted anything to do with promoting TGB in the first place.

And my adult pleasures would never be mixed with my children roaming
in quiet times on the grounds in early days. Again.. common sense.

"If that is indeed the case. This is a tough one because it is indeed
on the line. You don't want the Government to take away children just
because the parents are more libertine than most of society but where
is the line there. Surely if the parent was having sex while the
children watch them that crosses the line. The parent masturbating in
front of the child, that crosses the line. The parent teaching the
child and watching as the child masturbates, crosses the line, etc."

I'm with Peter on this one, Anna. Just because some parents might be more
libertine than others does not mean to say that they are irresponsible. If
anybody had laid a finger on Peter's kids when they were younger, then they
would have been turfed out and had the police onto them in no time at all.
I also know a nudist/swinger couple in Brisbane who have a daughter in her
mid teens and a son who is about 12 now. Both the children are very well
behaved and they have never been taken away from their folks, even though
their dad is in poor health with Parkinson's disease.

In some cultures and societies, the parents do couple in front of their
children and have no problem with answering any questions the kids might
have. One friend of mine on several Christian nudist groups on Yahoo! said
that he was brought up in a one bedroom house right out in the country back
in the late 50's, and his dad sometimes had friends calling over whilst he
was having sex. He was not embarrassed by it, and he has not grown up to be
an amoral person because of that.
If you want more proof, then have a look at
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/child.html

Before you think that Bill and myself advocate child abuse after reading
that article, I can assure you that we do not. With the way that our
cultures are currently structured, such upbringings are not practical. If
children are raised in a household where nudity is seen as normal, and sex
is not seen as being 'naughty', 'dirty', or 'shocking' then they will not
grow up to hate or abuse themselves or other people for that matter. Yet,
many so-called "Good Christians" sought to kill off as many parents and
families of the kind that Bill was referring out of fear and ignorance of
them being 'pagan sinners'. These so-called 'pagans' actually had more
respect and compassion for life than any militant pro-life Christian out
there.

"But being around swingers as they are dressed up sexy like? Does that
cross the line? So, I can see the difficulty there."

No. I don't know any swinger parents who want to sexualise their children
too.

And because they were mature enough, they were given the opportunity
to read what The Little Tribes few disgruntled members would write
about their dad... and lucky for you and your kind that you wouldn't
have been near by.

"Look, I accept what you do but that doesn't mean I don't think you
aren't a sleazy person. You remind me of Golum from Lord of the
Rings."

If Peter really was sleazy, he would have been found out and put out of
business years ago. I have not read or seen Lord of the Rings (except for
the cartoon film back in the late 70's when I was 8), so I don't know what
the reference to Golum has to do with him.

This is sadly enough a statement that represents very well what The
Little Tribe thinks of those who have walked extra steps when it comes
to personal freedom.

"I am all for "personal freedom" as long as they keep it from me. And
your place does so although I wouldn't be caught dead there I have no
problem with you having the place. As long as you keep it from the
kids."

I think that right from the time when they were very young, Peter would have
explained to them that there are people out there who enjoy having sex with
people other than their partners and with members of the same sex. I think
sex education should be given to kids by parents and the government, not via
schools or reality TV shows which is where most of them today tend to get
the information from.

Anyone, with any bit of dignity, feeling
segregated by such above statement, which might be written by Anna,
but sadly echoes the views of our few enemies, should at once take a
strong stance by making TGB their unequivocal destination when it
comes to patronize a destination where the acceptance of their
personal choices is not questioned nor vilified.

"Yeah, if they don't want to practice nudism but instead want to
experience the sexualized nudity of TGB, go there instead. Don't ruin
it for nudists by trying to be sexualized at a nudist venue."

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Even though Peter and Tony Fox
are two very different characters, they have got one thing in common with
the way their venues are run: they do not have everybody from all walks of
life attending them at the same time. TWC has a season for nudists in which
kids are allowed to attend, an adults only season for swingers, and then for
the rest of the year it runs as a textile family resort. I don't see
anything wrong with that. Similarly, TGB has special weekends for GBLT
people called "Happy To-Gayther", weekends for nudists, weekends for non
monogamous people, and weekends for artists and musicians. Once again, have
a look through the site's activities through the Web Archive and how they
are being organised today. I don't have any objections to them at all.
With a more open minded approach, Peter has got a win/win attitude which has
kept his business going since 1987. I think those who knock him and his
establishment are secretly jealous because their own places aren't getting
more patronage or attracting new lifeblood.

That means those who
see themselves as both "Swingers" and "Nudists" or those who are
targeted as strictly "Swingers" should only support a destination that
doesn't look down on them

"If they can maintain a non-sexualized mindset while at a nudist venue
we wouldn't know they are swingers anyway. But if they give off
"Swinger Vibes" then no they aren't welcomed at nudist venues."

There is a time and place for everything, Anna. I know swingers who have
attended nudist venues and behaved accordingly, as well as some who have not
done so and been thrown out. However, I do find it somewhat off-putting
when swingers contact me after seeing my nudist ads in the newspapers and
after only two minutes into the conversation they come right out with "oh,
my wife and I are swingers as well" as if they are automatically assume that
just because I am open to nudism then I have to be open to getting with them
without even meeting them first or getting to know them over a period of
time. I don't like opportunists, so I just politely say "no thanks, not
interested", hang up and leave it at that. I don't hear from them again.

More so, send a strong message that this
purist condescending defamation towards their lifestyle be put to a
stop.

"I disagree. You are trying to control people's opinions here. I can
have any opinion about them I want. You are being a fascist with your
statement."

I wouldn't say that. Defamation whether it be libel or slander is a crime,
and to bear false witnesses against a person because they think differently
to you goes right against God's laws (even though I know you don't believe
in God). It has got nothing to do with fascism. In fact, the word
'fascist' is also derived from the word 'fascia' which is a Latin word that
means 'to protect'.

I believe that many so called "nudist" or "family oriented"
destinations could end up striving from a bit more to a lot more.

"Define what you mean "Striving". If it means becoming more like your
place then I disagree. I know you can't believe it given your mindset
but there are people out there who enjoy being naked without all the
sexual implications. They like to be simply nude. I won't deny you
your place but don't deny true nudists there's."

He knows that. And like virtually all healthy and sane adults out there, I
know times when social nudity is okay to be sexual and times when it is not.
The problem with 'family orientated' nudist destinations is not that they
are non sexual, but because they are not being more out there. If they
don't make themselves more attractive to the general public they won't
generate more custom. In Australia, the majority of new nudist places
popping up are not family friendly, as the owners are either paedophobic or
allowed themselves to be pussywhipped by ignorant social workers from the
CPS claiming the lifestyle is not for kids. Nudism is actually protected by
Australian law as a legit way of raising children.

Here are more testimonies so that those who think about coming at THE
GRAND BARN might realize they are in great
company..;-) And take note how often both nude related and alternative
lifestyles is mentioned...
* "40's couple, new to naturism and alternative lifestyles. have some
limited
experience with both and have liked it so far. wishing to expand our
experience with both."

"They are using the wrong term there. They should say new to social
nudity. Going to your place means they aren't really in to the non-
sexualized aspects that is part of the definition of naturism."

* "have a great visit this last week... was great to just be naked and
myself "

"Fine. If the sexualized atmosphere of TGB is what this person wants I
am glad this person was able to go."

That person did not state that he/she went for the sexualised atmosphere.
You are trying to put words into their mouth.

* "saw the link in rec.nude and am interested"
* "I was up to the TGB a couple years ago. I'd like to be able to come
up again."

"Obviously that person isn't into nonsexualized social nudity. Okay,
fine. Then I am glad that person has your place to go instead of
ruining the atmosphere of a nudist venue."

Once again, can't you understand that people are able to visit TGB without
misbehaving at conventional nudist places?

Going from my own personal experiences: I have done Tantra meditation
workshops at ConFest where I have hugged men and women I don't know in the
buff, as well as taken part in a polyamoury discussion group, and done a
'mud tribe' where I've caked myself up in mud and run around the site being
boisterous and silly. I have not gone to other nudist places and tried to
instigate such activities.
--
Best wishes,

Dario Western

Home: (07) 3267-0099

http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://larrikin70.bebo.com
http://www.facebook.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://www.wayn.com/dario_western
http://twitter.com/Dario_Western
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terry J. Wood

2009-04-07 21:31:42 UTC

Permalink

Post by Neosapienis
"Do you allow children there. If so, what you are doing is wrong."
Once upon a time he did. If you want to see how TGB used to operate,
then go to http://web.archive.org and type its URL into the search
engine.

Or better yet, why doesn't Anna go visit Peter. I'm sure Peter would enjoy
having her at TGB.

Of course if she's to shy to ask, I'll be happy to do it for her.

PETER, would you welcome Anna to The Grand Barn?

Zee

2009-04-07 21:57:54 UTC

Permalink

Post by Neosapienis
Hey Anna,
"Do you allow children there. If so, what you are doing is wrong."
Once upon a time he did. If you want to see how TGB used to operate, then
go tohttp://web.archive.organd type its URL into the search engine.

"It's the mindset of the "swinger". If you can tell they are
"swingers" somehow then they should be booted from nudist venues."
Unless they have the letter "S" branded on their foreheads, how can you
tell? You are pre-judging people here.

I'll go to Danny Boy Abel and then Anna's blurts and give an answer to
that...

Hi Anna,
TGBis for *all* kinds of people, whether it be gays, swingers, or
nudists.
Who gave you the authority to say that nudists can't go there for their
vacations?

"Nudists wouldn't want to go there because they wouldn't want the
sexified atmosphere of the place."
I don't think that Lily and Charles would agree with you on that, nor would
any other nudist. There is more to TGB than sex. I have seen the "Canada
Naturally" film and "The Grand Barn" film, and I can tell you that the place
has much more to offer. It is set in a very peaceful environment with
well-kept lawns, as well as a man made lake. In TGB's film, I did not see
any scenes where there were instances of unfettered open sex going on in
full force.

Charles and Lily are not swingers, yet they visitedTGB.

"They must have been pretty disappointed then, or else they wanted for
once to see what sexualized social nudity was like. I guess
whatever. I can understand someone wanting to try something once to
see what it is like."
Why not write to them and ask them yourself instead of assuming they were?
Charles has been friends with Peter for years, though Lily has only known
him for the last two. Charles' webpage ishttp://www.synetechvideo.comand
you can ask him about his own experiences through that. As far as I know he
still has the TGB DVD for sale on there.

As for Dave
Hutchinson, I don't know him in real life but going from his history he
is
not monogamous.

"I don't care what he does as long as he keeps it from the nudist
venue. Like with gays, don't ask don't tell, and there's no problem
(because how would you know unless he was somehow disrupting the vibes
of the nudist venue)."
Again, you should write to him for his own opinions through his site athttp://www.libchrist.comandhttp://www.lovetouch.info
<Dan Abel's piece snipped>
"I respect people's right to do what they want as long as no other
party is hurt by the action."
I think everybody on this NG would agree with this. In the whole 22 years
that the Grand Barn has been operating, I have heard of only one instance
where Peter's friend Alex Neaves told me that somebody had behaved
inappropriately and it took only one warning for him to return to order.
Since then there have not been any repeat instances of bad behaviour.

"Hey, I am a capitalist. I am not against someone making money.
Except for one thing. With nudism it seems that when nudism becomes
about the money the place starts allowing all kinds of bad behavior to
attract more people. That is why nudism seems to work best as a
non profit."
Nudism has got many faces. I tend to enjoy non profit nude recreation more
such as going to the beach, house parties, and nuding up for events like
WNBR and WNGD as I am fed up of the tired club politics (e.g. no single
males, no families, no signs of public affection between couples, no cameras
or filming, no goggles in the pool etc. etc. and so forth). These are the
sorts of things that are killing nudism off in Australia and the nudist club
operators who adhere to them are too blind, deaf, and mad to be able to
figure it out.

"It is not so much blame but defining what you are."

Peter used to heavily promote his place on this group as being for
nudists, and as being "family friendly".

"If that is the case then that was wrong. Peter was wrong when he did
that just like Caliente was wrong, just like Paradise Lakes is wrong,
just like the Four Seasons (nudist camp not Hotel chain) is wrong. And
back then I would have criticized him heavily for that."
The only difference is that Peter does not lobby the FCN to keep his place
affiliated with them, unlike the likes of PL, Caliente and FS.

"Nudists would not want to go to your place. If they do it is because
they are curious about sexualized social nudity. So, they aren't
behaving as "nudists" while they are there and hopefully their mindset
isn't corrupted when they go back to nudist venues."
As I cannot afford to visit Canada at the moment, the DVDs about TGB would
suffice for me. I watched them from cover to cover, and I did not get a
'corrupted' mind afterwards. I am sure that there are people who have
vacationed at TGB and also gone to other nudist places and behaved
themselves just fine at them.

But to each their own. As long as there's no children around

Peter has five children. At the time he was promoting the place for
swingers as well as nudists, they all lived there.

"That makes him a bad father. CPS should have taken his children away."
That's a bit rough. His son Thaila is now running the place, and going from
how I saw his children behaving in the TGB video they did not display any
evidence of being abused kids. They were very friendly, polite and positive
types. If Peter was really a bad father (as you claim), then his children
would have not wanted anything to do with promoting TGB in the first place.

And my adult pleasures would never be mixed with my children roaming
in quiet times on the grounds in early days. Again.. common sense.

"If that is indeed the case. This is a tough one because it is indeed
on the line. You don't want the Government to take away children just
because the parents are more libertine than most of society but where
is the line there. Surely if the parent was having sex while the
children watch them that crosses the line. The parent masturbating in
front of the child, that crosses the line. The parent teaching the
child and watching as the child masturbates, crosses the line, etc."
I'm with Peter on this one, Anna. Just because some parents might be more
libertine than others does not mean to say that they are irresponsible. If
anybody had laid a finger on Peter's kids when they were younger, then they
would have been turfed out and had the police onto them in no time at all.
I also know a nudist/swinger couple in Brisbane who have a daughter in her
mid teens and a son who is about 12 now. Both the children are very well
behaved and they have never been taken away from their folks, even though
their dad is in poor health with Parkinson's disease.
In some cultures and societies, the parents do couple in front of their
children and have no problem with answering any questions the kids might
have. One friend of mine on several Christian nudist groups on Yahoo! said
that he was brought up in a one bedroom house right out in the country back
in the late 50's, and his dad sometimes had friends calling over whilst he
was having sex. He was not embarrassed by it, and he has not grown up to be
an amoral person because of that.
If you want more proof, then have a look athttp://www.libchrist.com/bible/child.html
Before you think that Bill and myself advocate child abuse after reading
that article, I can assure you that we do not. With the way that our
cultures are currently structured, such upbringings are not practical. If
children are raised in a household where nudity is seen as normal, and sex
is not seen as being 'naughty', 'dirty', or 'shocking' then they will not
grow up to hate or abuse themselves or other people for that matter. Yet,
many so-called "Good Christians" sought to kill off as many parents and
families of the kind that Bill was referring out of fear and ignorance of
them being 'pagan sinners'. These so-called 'pagans' actually had more
respect and compassion for life than any militant pro-life Christian out
there.
"But being around swingers as they are dressed up sexy like? Does that
cross the line? So, I can see the difficulty there."
No. I don't know any swinger parents who want to sexualise their children
too.

"Look, I accept what you do but that doesn't mean I don't think you
aren't a sleazy person. ...
read more »

Dario.....i just the train cars back on the track...yeah this Dan
character is a true nudist as seen by the little tribe...so i will use
him to get you and Anna straight.....you not Anna seems to have
contempt for the Christians....but you have no right to do that as
they are trying not to sin but they admit they do ....but their
examples of living stands up to scrutiny...they dont
gamble...cheat...go naked in public..dont cuss and their kids are the
achievers in the community and a few of them become leaders and are
good leaders but not many as leaders have become so corrupt their
family is more important than power.....now Dan is looked down upon by
Christian churches because he calls his place a church and they have
social nudity there at times....and Anna does not scold him for using
the word church as to offend other churches....but i have not heard
folks from other churches sounding off their outrage....so looking
down upon nudist is justified and probably the hidden reason most are
trying to act holier than thou at all times....and it could be some
have children that have went the swinger route and are contemptable
and trying to blame a club for being swinger friendly and welcoming
nudist ..that is the biggest market for swinger clubs...wo why
not...if that person would just stop and think a minute...they would
say i am to blame for not teaching my kids to keep their underwear on
in public....but humans tend not to ever do that in their wretched
lives....so maybe we got this thing straight now....regards...jz

Neosapienis

2009-04-08 20:37:33 UTC

Permalink

Hi Zee,

I am not spouting contempt for Christians uniformly, just some of the CINOs
who were sent by the white colonists from countries like England, France,
Portugal and Spain.
--
Best wishes,

Dario Western

"As long as you have three meals a day and a roof over your head, your four
limbs and five senses, nothing else matters"
Home: (07) 3267-0099

http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://larrikin70.bebo.com
http://www.facebook.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://www.wayn.com/dario_western
http://www.friendster.com/
http://www.tagged.com
http://www.hi5.com/
http://twitter.com/Dario_Western
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's the mindset of the "swinger". If you can tell they are
"swingers" somehow then they should be booted from nudist venues."
Unless they have the letter "S" branded on their foreheads, how can you
tell? You are pre-judging people here.

I'll go to Danny Boy Abel and then Anna's blurts and give an answer to
that...

Hi Anna,
TGBis for *all* kinds of people, whether it be gays, swingers, or
nudists.
Who gave you the authority to say that nudists can't go there for their
vacations?

"Nudists wouldn't want to go there because they wouldn't want the
sexified atmosphere of the place."
I don't think that Lily and Charles would agree with you on that, nor would
any other nudist. There is more to TGB than sex. I have seen the "Canada
Naturally" film and "The Grand Barn" film, and I can tell you that the place
has much more to offer. It is set in a very peaceful environment with
well-kept lawns, as well as a man made lake. In TGB's film, I did not see
any scenes where there were instances of unfettered open sex going on in
full force.

Charles and Lily are not swingers, yet they visitedTGB.

"They must have been pretty disappointed then, or else they wanted for
once to see what sexualized social nudity was like. I guess
whatever. I can understand someone wanting to try something once to
see what it is like."
Why not write to them and ask them yourself instead of assuming they were?
Charles has been friends with Peter for years, though Lily has only known
him for the last two. Charles' webpage ishttp://www.synetechvideo.comand
you can ask him about his own experiences through that. As far as I know
he
still has the TGB DVD for sale on there.

As for Dave
Hutchinson, I don't know him in real life but going from his history he
is
not monogamous.

"I don't care what he does as long as he keeps it from the nudist
venue. Like with gays, don't ask don't tell, and there's no problem
(because how would you know unless he was somehow disrupting the vibes
of the nudist venue)."
Again, you should write to him for his own opinions through his site
athttp://www.libchrist.comandhttp://www.lovetouch.info
<Dan Abel's piece snipped>
"I respect people's right to do what they want as long as no other
party is hurt by the action."
I think everybody on this NG would agree with this. In the whole 22 years
that the Grand Barn has been operating, I have heard of only one instance
where Peter's friend Alex Neaves told me that somebody had behaved
inappropriately and it took only one warning for him to return to order.
Since then there have not been any repeat instances of bad behaviour.

"Hey, I am a capitalist. I am not against someone making money.
Except for one thing. With nudism it seems that when nudism becomes
about the money the place starts allowing all kinds of bad behavior to
attract more people. That is why nudism seems to work best as a
non profit."
Nudism has got many faces. I tend to enjoy non profit nude recreation more
such as going to the beach, house parties, and nuding up for events like
WNBR and WNGD as I am fed up of the tired club politics (e.g. no single
males, no families, no signs of public affection between couples, no cameras
or filming, no goggles in the pool etc. etc. and so forth). These are the
sorts of things that are killing nudism off in Australia and the nudist club
operators who adhere to them are too blind, deaf, and mad to be able to
figure it out.

"It is not so much blame but defining what you are."

Peter used to heavily promote his place on this group as being for
nudists, and as being "family friendly".

"If that is the case then that was wrong. Peter was wrong when he did
that just like Caliente was wrong, just like Paradise Lakes is wrong,
just like the Four Seasons (nudist camp not Hotel chain) is wrong. And
back then I would have criticized him heavily for that."
The only difference is that Peter does not lobby the FCN to keep his place
affiliated with them, unlike the likes of PL, Caliente and FS.

"Nudists would not want to go to your place. If they do it is because
they are curious about sexualized social nudity. So, they aren't
behaving as "nudists" while they are there and hopefully their mindset
isn't corrupted when they go back to nudist venues."
As I cannot afford to visit Canada at the moment, the DVDs about TGB would
suffice for me. I watched them from cover to cover, and I did not get a
'corrupted' mind afterwards. I am sure that there are people who have
vacationed at TGB and also gone to other nudist places and behaved
themselves just fine at them.

But to each their own. As long as there's no children around

Peter has five children. At the time he was promoting the place for
swingers as well as nudists, they all lived there.

"That makes him a bad father. CPS should have taken his children away."
That's a bit rough. His son Thaila is now running the place, and going
from
how I saw his children behaving in the TGB video they did not display any
evidence of being abused kids. They were very friendly, polite and
positive
types. If Peter was really a bad father (as you claim), then his children
would have not wanted anything to do with promoting TGB in the first place.

And my adult pleasures would never be mixed with my children roaming
in quiet times on the grounds in early days. Again.. common sense.

"If that is indeed the case. This is a tough one because it is indeed
on the line. You don't want the Government to take away children just
because the parents are more libertine than most of society but where
is the line there. Surely if the parent was having sex while the
children watch them that crosses the line. The parent masturbating in
front of the child, that crosses the line. The parent teaching the
child and watching as the child masturbates, crosses the line, etc."
I'm with Peter on this one, Anna. Just because some parents might be more
libertine than others does not mean to say that they are irresponsible. If
anybody had laid a finger on Peter's kids when they were younger, then they
would have been turfed out and had the police onto them in no time at all.
I also know a nudist/swinger couple in Brisbane who have a daughter in her
mid teens and a son who is about 12 now. Both the children are very well
behaved and they have never been taken away from their folks, even though
their dad is in poor health with Parkinson's disease.
In some cultures and societies, the parents do couple in front of their
children and have no problem with answering any questions the kids might
have. One friend of mine on several Christian nudist groups on Yahoo! said
that he was brought up in a one bedroom house right out in the country back
in the late 50's, and his dad sometimes had friends calling over whilst he
was having sex. He was not embarrassed by it, and he has not grown up to
be
an amoral person because of that.
If you want more proof, then have a look
athttp://www.libchrist.com/bible/child.html
Before you think that Bill and myself advocate child abuse after reading
that article, I can assure you that we do not. With the way that our
cultures are currently structured, such upbringings are not practical. If
children are raised in a household where nudity is seen as normal, and sex
is not seen as being 'naughty', 'dirty', or 'shocking' then they will not
grow up to hate or abuse themselves or other people for that matter. Yet,
many so-called "Good Christians" sought to kill off as many parents and
families of the kind that Bill was referring out of fear and ignorance of
them being 'pagan sinners'. These so-called 'pagans' actually had more
respect and compassion for life than any militant pro-life Christian out
there.
"But being around swingers as they are dressed up sexy like? Does that
cross the line? So, I can see the difficulty there."
No. I don't know any swinger parents who want to sexualise their children
too.

"Look, I accept what you do but that doesn't mean I don't think you
aren't a sleazy person. ...
read more »

Anna

2009-04-07 23:15:41 UTC

Permalink

Post by Neosapienis
Hey Anna,
"Do you allow children there. If so, what you are doing is wrong."
Once upon a time he did. If you want to see how TGB used to operate, then
go to http://web.archive.org and type its URL into the search engine.

"It's the mindset of the "swinger". If you can tell they are
"swingers" somehow then they should be booted from nudist venues."
Unless they have the letter "S" branded on their foreheads, how can you
tell? You are pre-judging people here.

No, I am saying that of course I wouldn't know the person was a
swinger unless indeed there was some kind of "tell". and if there was
such a tell it would disrupt the atmosphere of the club and therefore
the person should be booted. Don't ask don't tell.

Post by Neosapienis

I'll go to Danny Boy Abel and then Anna's blurts and give an answer to
that...

Hi Anna,
TGBis for *all* kinds of people, whether it be gays, swingers, or
nudists.
Who gave you the authority to say that nudists can't go there for their
vacations?

"Nudists wouldn't want to go there because they wouldn't want the
sexified atmosphere of the place."
I don't think that Lily and Charles would agree with you on that, nor would
any other nudist. There is more to TGB than sex. I have seen the "Canada
Naturally" film and "The Grand Barn" film, and I can tell you that the place
has much more to offer. It is set in a very peaceful environment with
well-kept lawns, as well as a man made lake. In TGB's film, I did not see
any scenes where there were instances of unfettered open sex going on in
full force.

Still it's a sexified environment which does go against practicing
nudity in a non-sexualized context.

Post by Neosapienis

Charles and Lily are not swingers, yet they visitedTGB.

"They must have been pretty disappointed then, or else they wanted for
once to see what sexualized social nudity was like. I guess
whatever. I can understand someone wanting to try something once to
see what it is like."
Why not write to them and ask them yourself instead of assuming they were?
Charles has been friends with Peter for years, though Lily has only known
him for the last two. Charles' webpage is http://www.synetechvideo.com and
you can ask him about his own experiences through that. As far as I know he
still has the TGB DVD for sale on there.

Gosh, I would hate to see what was on that video.

Post by Neosapienis

As for Dave
Hutchinson, I don't know him in real life but going from his history he
is
not monogamous.

It hardly helps nudism to have some guy out prominently promoting it
that is also polygamous.

Post by Neosapienis
Nudism has got many faces. I tend to enjoy non profit nude recreation more
such as going to the beach, house parties, and nuding up for events like
WNBR and WNGD as I am fed up of the tired club politics (e.g. no single
males, no families, no signs of public affection between couples, no cameras
or filming, no goggles in the pool etc. etc. and so forth). These are the
sorts of things that are killing nudism off in Australia and the nudist club
operators who adhere to them are too blind, deaf, and mad to be able to
figure it out.

Well I have said again and again why I don't believe in the WNBR.
Apart from the political aspect of it which I strongly oppose the
event forces people who don't want to see nude people to see nude
people. You could say that it's advertised beforehand but what if the
person doesn't see the ad. What if the person lives or works on the
route and therefore would not be able to avoid it.

Also when I say non-profit I am referring to where a group of people
own the property and yeah, they charge so that the facilities can be
maintained, but the goal isn't to make money but instead it is to
offer a place to practice nudism.

And there should be no filming or cameras. Are you saying you are for
cameras at nudist venues? And as for googles well I can see both
sides of the argument as people don't want to get their eyes irritated
though the goggles could make the water not as clean.

But the other kind of "free naturism" is good to but the problem is
that often perverts, like lurkers, people with cameras and those who
want to have sex on the beach most often Gay Males but sometimes
hetrosexuals or some guy who wants to masturbate on the beach. But if
that was not the case then in theory yeah it would be great to have
some designated places.

Post by Neosapienis
As I cannot afford to visit Canada at the moment, the DVDs about TGB would
suffice for me. I watched them from cover to cover, and I did not get a
'corrupted' mind afterwards. I am sure that there are people who have
vacationed at TGB and also gone to other nudist places and behaved
themselves just fine at them.

Okay, then like I said if one doesn't know these people went to TGB or
that they have a sexualized mindset then obviously they aren't
effected the atmosphere negatively. Don't ask. Don't tell.

Post by Neosapienis
That's a bit rough. His son Thaila is now running the place, and going from
how I saw his children behaving in the TGB video they did not display any
evidence of being abused kids. They were very friendly, polite and positive
types. If Peter was really a bad father (as you claim), then his children
would have not wanted anything to do with promoting TGB in the first place.

Yeah that was a little tough. As for the children well sometimes they
grow up to recognize their abuse and change but other times they
justify their abuse by saying that's the way it is supposed to be. And
this would be more psychological abuse more than anything so I guess
it is a question of when is the line crossed for government
intervention to be necessary. I want to (in cynical terms) give
parents the right to mess up their children to a certain extent but we
all believe that there is a time for the government to step in. The
question is when exactly is that time?

Post by Neosapienis

And my adult pleasures would never be mixed with my children roaming
in quiet times on the grounds in early days. Again.. common sense.

Well, what he did probably didn't rise to the need for government
intervention.

Post by Neosapienis
If
anybody had laid a finger on Peter's kids when they were younger, then they
would have been turfed out and had the police onto them in no time at all.
I also know a nudist/swinger couple in Brisbane who have a daughter in her
mid teens and a son who is about 12 now. Both the children are very well
behaved and they have never been taken away from their folks, even though
their dad is in poor health with Parkinson's disease.

Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened.

Post by Neosapienis
In some cultures and societies, the parents do couple in front of their
children and have no problem with answering any questions the kids might
have.

Again, it's an issue of where one draws the line. I had hoped that
having sex in front of your children was so far past the line that
there would be no disagreement. How about Masturbation's then? Should
they watch as their parents masturbate? Should the parents watch the
children as they masturbate to make sure they are doing it correctly.
Hell, if two teenagers wanted to have sex maybe the parents should say
only if they could watch so they can make sure they are doing it
safely and maybe even give some pointers since the parents are experts
and the teens are only beginners.

Hopefully this sounds repugnant. Again, it's where the line is drawn.

Post by Neosapienis
One friend of mine on several Christian nudist groups on Yahoo! said
that he was brought up in a one bedroom house right out in the country back
in the late 50's, and his dad sometimes had friends calling over whilst he
was having sex.

Who was having sex? Your friend or his father? Did these people
watch the sex when they were over?

Post by Neosapienis
He was not embarrassed by it, and he has not grown up to be
an amoral person because of that.

Sounds like one.

Post by Neosapienis
If you want more proof, then have a look at
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/child.html

Sounds like a pervert to me.

Post by Neosapienis
Before you think that Bill and myself advocate child abuse after reading
that article, I can assure you that we do not.

But how do you define child abuse? I mean in some cases its easy
(well I hope it is) like if a father rapes his daughter or
continuously beats on his children or something like that. But in
other cases, well the line isn't quite as clear.

Post by Neosapienis
With the way that our
cultures are currently structured, such upbringings are not practical.

Or healthy.

Post by Neosapienis
If
children are raised in a household where nudity is seen as normal, and sex
is not seen as being 'naughty', 'dirty', or 'shocking' then they will not
grow up to hate or abuse themselves or other people for that matter.

Most people with the alternative view don't grow up to hate or abuse
themselves or other people. Just because they don't share your view
on nudity or on sex it doesn't make them a "hater".

Post by Neosapienis
Yet,
many so-called "Good Christians" sought to kill off as many parents and
families of the kind that Bill was referring out of fear and ignorance of
them being 'pagan sinners'.

You have to let me know when this great purge happened. I must of
missed it.

Post by Neosapienis
These so-called 'pagans' actually had more
respect and compassion for life than any militant pro-life Christian out
there.

Totally disagree with that. If one can kill for convenience then they
don't have any respect for life. Especially since they are killing
that of their own blood.

Post by Neosapienis
"But being around swingers as they are dressed up sexy like? Does that
cross the line? So, I can see the difficulty there."
No. I don't know any swinger parents who want to sexualise their children
too.

Have you seen some of the Halloween costumes little girls (sometimes
as young as six and under) are wearing these days. Granted the parents
of those girls aren't all swingers but still don't say that there
aren't parents out there who want to sexualize their children. How
about that one picture of that little boy at the Folsom Street fair
wearing leather fetish clothes.

Post by Neosapienis
I think that right from the time when they were very young, Peter would have
explained to them that there are people out there who enjoy having sex with
people other than their partners and with members of the same sex. I think
sex education should be given to kids by parents and the government, not via
schools or reality TV shows which is where most of them today tend to get
the information from.

Not the government's job to teach sex to children. It is the parent's
job how and when to teach it and if they want to be more conservative
or more libertine than the general society or not.

And I don't know what you mean by the reality TV shows. I don't know
what they broadcast in Australia but here in America they don't
broadcast those "porn thinly disguising itself as education" programs
that you see on the BBC and Channel 4.

Post by Neosapienis
I don't get what you're trying to say here. Even though Peter and Tony Fox
are two very different characters, they have got one thing in common

They are both sleazy. Tony Fox is much, much more sleazy than Peter
though/

Post by Neosapienis
are being organised today. I don't have any objections to them at all.
With a more open minded approach, Peter has got a win/win attitude which has
kept his business going since 1987.

I have no problem with Peter though I do with Tony Fox because he
didn't make an effort to clearly separate what he provides from nudism/
naturism.

Post by Neosapienis
There is a time and place for everything,

That is what I always say.

Post by Neosapienis
Anna. I know swingers who have
attended nudist venues and behaved accordingly, as well as some who have not
done so and been thrown out. However, I do find it somewhat off-putting
when swingers contact me after seeing my nudist ads in the newspapers and
after only two minutes into the conversation they come right out with "oh,
my wife and I are swingers as well" as if they are automatically assume that
just because I am open to nudism then I have to be open to getting with them

Agreed. They believe what many in society believes about nudists.
Which is despite what they say about nudism being all nonsexualized
really it is. Unfortunately at too many places that is indeed the case
such as Paradise Lakes, the Four Seasons, etc.

Post by Neosapienis
without even meeting them first or getting to know them over a period of
time. I don't like opportunists, so I just politely say "no thanks, not
interested", hang up and leave it at that. I don't hear from them again.

I think a sign at the front door saying no swingers would be a good
thing. Those swingers who still want to come know that they have to be
very careful about people not finding out they are swingers.

Post by Neosapienis
I wouldn't say that. Defamation whether it be libel or slander is a crime,
and to bear false witnesses against a person because they think differently
to you goes right against God's laws (even though I know you don't believe
in God). It has got nothing to do with fascism. In fact, the word
'fascist' is also derived from the word 'fascia' which is a Latin word that
means 'to protect'.

He is saying that I don't have the right to say that his lifestyle is
immoral. Look I will defend his right to have his place to the death
but he doesn't have the right to force me to think his way!

Post by Neosapienis

I believe that many so called "nudist" or "family oriented"
destinations could end up striving from a bit more to a lot more.

And so be it. They shouldn't change what they are to attract people
just like a church shouldn't "water down it's message" to attract
parishioners. They should be places where if one wants to go and
practice nudism they can go but they shouldn't "destroy nudism to save
nudism" by going more sexualized.

Post by Neosapienis
In Australia, the majority of new nudist places
popping up are not family friendly, as the owners are either paedophobic or
allowed themselves to be pussywhipped by ignorant social workers from the
CPS claiming the lifestyle is not for kids. Nudism is actually protected by
Australian law as a legit way of raising children.

Nudists who want to have there own resort need to get a bunch of them
together, buy property and then practice nudism the appropriate way.
Not saying it's easy, because it isn't but that is what has to be
done.

Post by Neosapienis
Going from my own personal experiences: I have done Tantra meditation
workshops at ConFest where I have hugged men and women I don't know in the
buff, as well as taken part in a polyamoury discussion group, and done a
'mud tribe' where I've caked myself up in mud and run around the site being
boisterous and silly. I have not gone to other nudist places and tried to
instigate such activities.

ConFest isn't a nudist place.

It is a place where social nudity is welcomed and practiced and they
try to keep it nonsexualized. But it isn't exactly a nudist venue.

And yeah, the mud thing sounds like fun. It is too bad that somehow
can't get incorporated into nudism and be provided at nudist camps/
resorts but I guess they are worried that it would attract people with
a WAM fetish.

As for the other stuff, yeah totally inappropriate at a nudist venue
but appropriate at an event that allows social nudity but isn't
exactly nudist.

Neosapienis

2009-04-12 08:23:01 UTC

Permalink

Hi Anna,