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 isillegal, 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.
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* | 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 but is still used. Eastney was being fought for in 2011 but saved. Holkham went from official to persecution and back to official (but limited in extent) in 2013.
(Distances and times in the table are from Milton Keynes.)