This is not a definitive article, just a disconnected series of my outpourings. Comments and criticisms welcome, see contact link below.
Naturism - or nudism - the belief that life is lived better without
unnecessary clothing. Why two names,
what's the difference? According to some they are
synonymous, for others nudism is an essential part of naturism, which
then includes respect for and an affinity to the natural environment and
humanity.
Naturism takes great care to separate nudity from sexuality. It might be defined as non-sexual nudity in a social setting. In the world as most of us experience it, this is not how it usually is. I suspect for many if not most people their opportunities to observe naked bodies other than their own are limited to bodies portrayed explicitly or implicitly as sexual objects, typically in red-top newspapers, top-shelf magazines, films and advertisements. An exception may be athletes and sports enthusiasts with communal changing rooms and showers, but I suspect even that is becoming less common.
Types of naturist:
Why might old farts object?
Nudity is good for:
Naturists are:
Technically, here in the UK, is it not specifically illegal to be naked.
The recent Sexual Offences Act was modified (after lobbying from naturists)
to be specific that without intent to cause distress, nudity of itself is
not a sexual offence; nevertheless, the police and the legal system
often continue to behave as if it were. Even if nudity is non-sexual,
various general public order offences are used against anyone who refuses
to immediately cover up, on the grounds of disorderly conduct which might
causes distress. Worse, any complaint about nudity, even if vague and
not referring to a specific incident, can justify action against other
nudity however discreet. Public opinion is not a consideration, a single
complaint from a prude trumps all. Why is this? There are always those who
consider themselves guardians of the national morals, believing that the
masses, if not kept under control, would collapse into turpitude. But the
job of the police is to enforce the law, not to make it.
Are "official" naturist beaches or other sites a good idea? We are
reminded that nudity is not illegal of itself, and it is no more nor
less legal on an "official" beach than on any other. The authorities
do tend to respect the law better on an "official" beach, and there is
the additional gain that non-naturists are warned by signs what to
expect so they have less to complain about if they go there anyway.
Naturism in general may be harmed by the false perception that nudity in
other places is discouraged. A more serious problem is that the general
advertisement that nudity is acceptable attracts those who do not
separate nudity from sexual behaviour, and who come to naturist beaches
for sex. Sexual activity in public is illegal, and the behaviour
of these people can be threatening. Public perception
becomes that "official" naturist status attracts these undesirables and
there is then pressure to ban nudity. In some places, such as Studland,
naturists are working with police and owners to drive out the sex pests
and secure the beach for genuine naturism. At other sites the situation
is worse with authorities already trying to ban naturists; examples being
(in 2007) Perran Sands in Cornwall and Fraisthorpe in Yorkshire.
Another argument is that, were official naturist sites and naturist or clothes-optional sessions at swimming pools and spas more common and well-advertised, that would increase public awareness and encourage further acceptance. Every official beach or swim tells the story that some influential body, a local council, a government agency, a big landowner, believes that nude bathing is legal and respectable and is happy to encourage it. Official beaches very rarely are compulsorily nude, so there could be a further benefit in encouraging co-existence.
Is acceptance of naturism in the UK increasing or decreasing? The official
opinion from BN is that it is increasing. Certainly there is increasing
tolerance of nudity in the media, but is there really more understanding
of naturism? When there are complaints of behaviour on beaches, the
official view is that the problem is nudity. Naturists may make fine
distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, but the
official view is usually automatically that the problem is nudity and
the solution is to ban nudity. And of course it is much easier to ban
nudity, an easily observable fact, than unacceptable behaviour, to prove
which may require extended observation or evidence of witnesses. Each
time this happens at an established location, the naturist movement has
to make another major effort to get its view across just to continue a use
which in many cases has been tolerated for years.
There is a larger commercial naturist market of private resorts and leisure facilities allowing exclusive screened naturist use at set times; showing there is enough demand to make money, but this does not involve any degree of general acceptance, except for the establishments' need to find staff who don't claim to be offended by nudity.
In terms of places where public nudity is accepted, even away from popular areas, I suspect the situation is at present stagnant or going backwards.
Unlike the world of clothes and fashions, in a state of nature there is
little you can do, at least in the short-term, about your appearance.
Supposedly many people are so sensitive about the way they appear to
others that they would never be seen without the camouflage of clothes;
in some cases even by spouses. For someone to appear naked in public
voluntarily therefore it can be assumed that they are reasonably happy
with the way they look, or just don't care what others think. But some
naturists do seem to care a lot what other people look like, they have
a standard of body conformity which rivals the dress codes they'd probably
enforce in the clothed world. Dare not to be overweight or skinny or
flabby. Fortunately in practice, as any scan through a naturist magazine
will show, all shapes and sizes are there.
Where does the line come between individual liberty and collective norms?
To what extent should the freedom to do something overrule someone else's
"disgust" rather than harm? Why should a group of people claiming an
"offence" to their "religion" take precendence over a collection of
individuals wanting to do something that is not illegal? Why should
the views of any religion be allowed to have any influence on someone
not adherent to that religion? Why should any religion be allowed to have
influence on any activity by non-adherents saving only that the activities
are not maliciously directed against the adherents? Why are people assumed
to be "offended" by nudity while I am not allowed to be "offended" by
fanatical enforcement of zero exposure?
Religions have the power of a block vote. Their members are discouraged
from thinking for themselves and take their opinions ready-formed from
their leaders (interpreting the always-ambiguous official texts). Thus they
can effectively amplify the ambitions of a few non-representative wrinklies
and megalomaniacs by the millions of zombies that obey them. OK, this is a
rather extreme caricature, but in general religions get too much influence
over legislation and behaviour, and the millions of independent individual
views nowhere near enough. This is seen in the influence of fundamentalist
Christianity in the US and elsewhere, and the increasing influence of Islam
and others in Europe. Religions almost universally desire to restrict
liberty and individuality. Naturism is an expression of liberty and
individuality.
Dream. Single-interest groups are always latching onto the latest worry to
promote their cause. Well, what would be a better security measure than to
insist that all air travellers are completely naked; less possiblity of
disguise (certainly no Islamic terrorists escaping dressed as women in
costumes with only eye-slits), no (or very small) strap-on bombs, no
weapons.
What proportion of adults sleep naked I wonder? I haven't found any reliable
figures from web searching, but one small sample showed a surprising number
of people who thought it wrong, or who wouldn't dare because of the risk of
being found out accidentally, or by an evacuation for a fire. I suppose
sleeping nude is a sort of introductory nudism. So I wonder what proportion?
Indirectly reported from a survey of sleeping habits in The Times: 9 of 88 respondents.
Another, unattributed report said 1 in 3, of which 2:1 in favour of male (ie 44% of males and 22% of females).
A survey of 500 women in Bella, 2007, in UK, supposedly found 17% of them slept always nude; 19% of married women.
A survey in Naturist Life, December 2007, reveals that of 125 naturists 86% always sleep nude only and 3% never do, which is hardly surprising.
One of the issues exercising naturists seems to be body modifications,
specifically shaving, tattoos and piercings. Some private clubs have strict
rules, especially against genital piercings and other genital ornaments.
A true natural state would presumably include, for men at least, long hair
and a full beard, and maybe these are more common among naturists than
elsewhere, but no-one suggests that facial shaving and cutting of head hair
is unnatural. Modification to the genital region is supposedly dubious in
that it is drawing attention to that region, though facial shaving is
not deemed to be drawing attention to the face.
From my observations in 2007, pubic shaving is common, almost the norm, small tattoos are almost unnoticed, but genital metalwork can still start an argument. Which luckily fits my view exactly.
Official naturist beaches in the south of England (just 8?):
| beach | location | range | aa route | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| St Osyth | TM112124 | 131km | 193km 2:19 | |
| Eastney | SZ680989 | 140km | 191km 2:13 | |
| Leysdown | TR053684 | 141km | 188km 2:26 | |
| Brighton | ~TQ320050 | 142km | 190km 2:07 | |
| Holkham | TF871454 | 150km | 193km 2:47 | |
| Studland | ~SZ030850 | 172km | 236km 3:02 | |
| TM547967 | 182km | 207km 2:55 | ||
| Budleigh Salterton | SY048809 | 237km | 325km 3:49 |
Yes, just 8, and some of these are under threat. Corton lost its official status in November 2009.
Should naturists be secretive? In days gone by, naturist clubs were hidden
away, the members often known only by first names. This attitude is still
common today. And yet many naturists say that they want greater acceptance
of naturism. This is to come about by the national organisation, BN, doing
things. It's my opinion that naturism would be promoted more effectively
if every member of BN became an individual promoter of naturism, by being
completely open among family, friends, work colleagues.
Not only does this make life easier, not having to keep a part of your life secret, or to remember who knows how much about what, but a whole new range of people are aware what a naturist looks like out of uniform, can learn the difference between naturism and sex, can ask questions or be told what it's about. If everyone knows a hundred other people, the ten thousand BN members could spread the message through a decent fraction of the population directly, and with friends passing on the message to their friends most of the population.
And yet people don't. They are worried about being mocked. They are worried that they might have problems with their job. They seem to believe themselves that naturism ought to be something secret.
What is a naturist photo? There are many opinons, apparent from postings on
naturist web sites and forums, ranging right into the deliberately erotic. The
ideal for me is an outdoor image that would continue to be pleasing or
interesting without the naked humans, and which is not overpowered by them.
Another definition might be that the image contains all or at least most
of the body, preferably including the face, is not set in a sexually
charged location such as a bed and is not posed to emphasise the genitals.
Is naturism a hobby? Sometimes naturists look at other groups that have
experienced discrimination, by race, religion, sex or sexual orientation, and
wonder why naturism shouldn't benefit from a similar emancipation. In each
case there has been a prolonged campaign including direct, sometimes offensive
action as well as softer methods. Often it is said that in these cases there
was good reason for forcing change, membership of these groups is
involuntary so discrimination is unfair; naturism is just a hobby, a matter
of choice, so does not justify causing any offence in its promotion. I don't
believe that naturism is just a hobby, like stamp collecting. Maybe for
some people it is, but for me it is an expression of a moral view; not a
religion, but certainly a belief, and a saner moral view than I see around
me. I want to get its values more widely understood, accepted and even
encouraged, and I believe this would benefit everyone. Looking at that list
above, we see that only two of the groups really have no choice: race and
sex. The other two, religion and sexual orientation, can and often do
behave in ways that deny their beliefs or emotions, they are suppressed rather
than discriminated against. To me naturism fits this category. I imagine
most naturists have some of this feeling. Naturism is not a hobby. It's a
belief. The freedom to practice it should be balanced fairly to the degree
of offence it arouses.
What is a hobby? It's an activity of some sort. What is naturism? It's
being naked, or it's a belief in a connection with nature. It's not an
activity. The activities that can be done while naked can be and usually
are also done by non-naturists. Non-naturists can sunbathe, they can play
volleyball, they can clean beaches, they can walk in the countryside, they
can camp, they can swim, they can sing round bonfires. Is there anything
a naturist can do that no-one else can? Naturism is either a belief or a
comfortable dress style. It's not a hobby.
There's no doubt a great sense of freedom and separation from the stress
of the world to be found in walking the countryside with nothing, absolutely
nothing, no clothes, no shoes, no possessions. But is naturist hiking a
good enough approximation to that? Walking in boots and socks, wearing a
hat, toting a rucksack and carrying a cover-up garment, you might think
yourself so nearly dressed that you might as well be. Wear a T-shirt to stop
the rucksack rubbing and you're more nearly a flasher than a naturist. You
need to be a hermit, or to have a accomplice to come along and carry or to
meet at dressing and refreshment points. Wouldn't it be good to be able to
walk really naked in accessible places.
What is the best cover-up garment for walking in the countryside? It depends.
For men, by far the easiest is a wrap-around skirt or kilt, Velco-fastened.
Properly-designed, this can be light, can roll up to something very easy
to carry and can be put on quickly and easily. The alternative of some kind
of shorts is more awkward especially if it's necessary to get them on over
boots. On the other hand, once on, shorts are more conventional. Casually
wrapping
on a kilt shows the intention of being ready to cover-up so as to not cause
offence without trying to hide the fact that you really want to walk naked,
which is exactly what some may want to say, whereas hopping around trying to
put shorts on might look more furtive. Many regular walkers devise their
own system, often based on shorts split in various ways so that they wrap
rather than go over the feet. Many of these suffer from there being no
easy way to fasten between the legs without bending and fiddling. One good
idea I have seen is to split just one side and to wear the other side around
one ankle; deployment is then a simple matter of pulling them up that one leg
and wrapping around the other. It's harder for women, especially if wearing
a backpack. I have seen it done, but I didn't ask the details.
What's the best place for a first naturist experience? You might make an
appointment to visit a naturist club. Finding one and making contact can
be difficult, some do tend to hide themselves, but having got that far it
is possible
to have that first experience in a completely safe environment among people
who are there to help you. You might go to a nude beach and find a quiet
spot. You might find other friendly naturists there, you might find voyeurs;
ideally though you can find a spot where you'll be by yourself, or yourselves,
and can soak up the experience. You could go to a clothing-optional event. An
outstanding example of such is Abbey House Gardens in Wiltshire in England
which holds several clothes-optional events each year. Here you can just turn
up, pay your entry fee, and wander the gardens or sunbathe on the lawns
wearing as much or as little as you like. A more adventurous way might be
to book a holiday at a naturist resort, but that might be a bit ambitious
for a first time. Which is best? I prefer the anonymity and complete lack
of pressure in an Abbey House type environment. You can try, and if you don't
like it you can just go away without any embarrassment or explanation; if you
like it you can stay all day. Others prefer the club, where everyone's nude
and known to be a committed naturist.
It's not possible to visit any naturist discussion forum or letters page and
not hear a complaint about exclusion of the single male. In the UK at
least, there appear to be many more male naturists than there are couples
or single females, and many of them are men whose partners are not
interested. Many, if not most naturist clubs have some sort of system for
discouraging single males. There is a general suspicion of the single male
as a sexual predator. Naturism is supposed to be a family pursuit, and
couples or families are the most prized members. You would have thought that
there would have appeared clubs that attract the single male, to mop up
the surplus, but generally that hasn't happened. It seems that the single males
really want to join a club with a "balanced" membership, just like everyone
else. That of course is not possible. So we will continue to hear the
complaints.
It is not universal. There is at least one non-landed club that does specialise in the single, mostly male, naturist. It seems that many of the complainers are not interested in joining it.
Among non-naturists ("textiles"), any naturist is an "exhibitionist". Among
naturists, an exhibitionist is any other naturist who is slightly less
worried about being seen by non-naturists than one is oneself. A better
and more objective way of looking at this is to assume that an exhibitionist
is looking for an audience. A man who tries to walk naked into Tesco is
probably expecting to be looked at; whatever his motive, protest or drunkeness,
he is intending to be seen, that is the point. On the other hand, a naturist
who walks naked in the countryside, choosing times when no-one else is about,
carrying a cover-up, is probably not. If this naturist walks naked every day,
in all weathers, and maybe has to cover up once in a while, and is surprised
and therefore "exposes" himself say once a month, then we can say he is
doing it for his own satisfaction, and not deliberately seeking an audience,
rather he is going to a deal of trouble to avoid one.
He is therefore not an exhibitionist. There is a whole range in between these
extremes. In each case the decider is whether the nudity is looking for an
audience or in spite of a possibility of being seen.
Is that man a naturist or a flasher? A flasher covers up until he finds a
victim, and then exposes himself. A naturist is naked until he sees
someone, then covers up.
Next rant...
© nib - 2007-02-20 -> 2010-11-29