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.
Is acceptance of naturism in the UK increasing or decreasing? The official
opinion from BN is that is 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 | |
| Corton Beach | TM547967 | 182km | 207km 2:55 | |
| Budleigh Salterton | SY048809 | 237km | 325km 3:49 |
Yes, just 8, and some of these are under threat.
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.
Next rant...
©2007 nib - 2007-02-20 -> 2008-11-05