I'm not going to apologize for bringing this topic up - which many nudists are sick to death of - because in addition to being a nudist, I am also a sex-positive philosopher and erotic photographer. And let's be honest, people love talking about erections. Why else do you think it comes up so often? And it's one of those topics that even prudes enjoy - they just have to find a way to talk about it without coming off as being too supportive or interested (and the best way to do that is to complain and talk about how repulsive they are - in great length and detail).
And no, that doesn't mean we have to mention nudism in our discussion of erections, but honestly, it's no secret why men would be more self-conscious of the state of their genitalia if they're expecting to be completely naked around other people. This just isn't that much of an issue when your organ is hidden beneath your clothes. Sure, you get topics sometimes about swim shorts and blackboards, but it's just that much more of an issue when your loins are laid bare.
So the question comes up, of what to do about erections in nudist settings. The consensus is to politely hide them, and not feel too badly about it, because we all understand. But as it's a fact of life for males, and part of their physiology, it's hard not to have some anxiety, and hiding always contributes to feelings of shame - particularly in a lifestyle that's supposed to be about being proud of your body, and comfortable in your skin. So is it at all possible to enact a more sex-positive and humanitarian approach to erections, without the lifestyle devolving - as fire-and-brimstone nudists are wont to predict - into total hedonism?
In my vision of an ideal world - of course, everyone would have good intentions. But no man would be judged (at least as a pervert) for the size of his penis, nor its relative state of flaccidity. If someone is repeatedly touching his genitalia in an obvious way, or grinding his hips into his towel, or purposefully poking other people, et cetera - that would be an obvious display of sexual intent.
The penis is an organ that may become "stimulated" due to a variety of triggers, not all of which are sexual in nature, and even some of those that are, are not voluntarily controlled by the penis' owner. Simple physical contact - of an incidental nature - or say, perhaps, sitting a heavy book in one's lap - may be enough, even devoid of sexual intent. In other cases, one's thoughts may stray towards subjects of an erotic nature, but one should not be held responsible for these thoughts unless one consciously chooses to dwell on them. And even then, since we cannot read minds, and should not police thought regardless, our judgment should be up to the man's conscious decision on how to behave, with these thoughts in his head.
Would this, potentially, create an environment in which a suddenly not-so-surreptitious pervert could walk around with a continuous hard-on? I hardly think so. Even when erections occur spontaneously, they will not maintain themselves of their own volition beyond a certain period of time, without active stimulation (barring the ingestion of certain drugs, I suppose - but I do not think anyone would argue the inappropriateness of being on Viagra in a nudist setting). So that again, repeated patterns of unusually common arousal could indicate a less than innocent motivation.
In all of these cases, it would still be possible to weed the perverts out - that is, those who are willing to engage in the types of behaviors that are inappropriate in nudist settings - without stigmatizing the physiological response of the male sexual organ, or giving males undue anxiety about the involuntary functioning of their own genitalia. The difference is that the mere appearance of an erection would no longer be taboo.
And why should it? Blood flow is not an explicit sex act. It seems to me that erections are vilified due to their common association with sex - paralleling the same textile attitudes toward nudity that we're trying to correct. One could argue that by outlawing erections, we are making it easier to combat the sexual behaviors they are often associated with (taking advantage of a lower burden of proof), but hasn't the same approach been used in textile codes of law to combat lewdness by judging a naked person as "guilty by state of dress"?
I suppose it all comes down to the question of how common it really is for a male to get an erection absent sexual intent. And I think that we're victims of a stereotype that, although men do often get hard at the drop of a hat (at least at certain ages, as the stereotype goes - older nudists use this argument to dismiss the realities of youth, and then turn around and complain that they haven't created a welcoming enough environment for young people), they are always in the mood for sex, and so it cannot simply be that they are hard and not interested in doing anything about it. Certainly the toxic stereotype of the "blue balls" phenomenon supports this view. But I do not think it accurately reflects reality.
I know this firsthand, as a person who possesses properly functioning male genitalia (whatever my gender identity or presentation may be). Erections come and go like the wind, are perfectly natural and no more indecent than the penis in its flaccid state, and may or may not be accompanied by the desire or intent to "do anything about it" - a voluntary decision that may very well be reached after considering one's surroundings. I do not think there is anything wrong, or particularly sexually explicit about a world in which the penises of men who go nude may be in any state of tumescence at any given time, judged independently of the actual behavior of the men in question.
But I've been known to be a bit of an idealist.
