Dan Ziegler finally professing what Peter Riden has long been preaching/stating
Peter Riden
brought forth times and again
for so many years. Maybe hearing the same from someone else might not
bring as much animosity and
attacks as it did against me. Take note that I didn't nor will I
flinch because few dysfunctional
hypocrites resent that I keep telling it the way it is. Now, one more
voice to simply echo what
I have said...except that rather than seeing it as mere sex, I present
it as fruitful, meaningful,
passionate interactions between consenting individuals.
In Friendship & Universality
Peter Riden
http://thegrandbarn.com
NUDISM AND SEXUAL REPRESSION
By Daniel D. Ziegler
I realize now, some years after writing my book NAKED BEFORE GOD, that
my claim that participating in organized nudism can increase body
awareness and self-acceptance, may not as true as I once thought.
While social nudity itself--that is being nude in the presence of
others--can
certainly increase body acceptance, organized nudism as we know it in
this country has major flaws that I now think may actually have a
negative effect
on self-esteem. This article is an attempt to explain this idea.
By not permitting any open display or expression of sexuality, the
nudism movement merely reinforces our society's already negative
attitude
toward our sexuality, and therefore toward our overall self-image. In
this respect, the organized movement is actually counter-productive to
its claims. They need to quit making that claim or change the rules.
A while back, I received a phone call from a man whom, with his wife,
had visited a nudist park for the first time. There, he had met a
friend of mine with whom he got into a discussion about nudism. Being
new to it, he had a lot of questions and was making a lot of
observations about the nudist lifestyle as he was seeing it, and about
peoples' behavior under these, up-until-now, unusual conditions.
Wanting to be as helpful as possible in explaining the lifestyle, my
friend mentioned my name and that I had written a book about nudism.
His call was to see how he could acquire the book and to ask me a few
questions concerning him and his experience.
Basically what he expressed to me was that he had been very
uncomfortable at the park. He had gone through the normal orientation
that they
required for newcomers in which he was told a number of things,
including how comfortable and relaxing nudism is, and that it is not
sexual and
that, in fact, no outward form of sexual expression would be
tolerated. To further explain this, nudist park owners usually tell
men that "if you should become 'aroused', cover yourself with your
towel or put on a pair of shorts, or you will be asked to leave."
He found the park and surroundings very beautiful and the naked people
generally friendly, and, in fact, all this is what contributed to his
being uncomfortable. He found the whole situation--the sights, the
sounds, the smells--so stimulating that he had an erection most of the
time he was there and, therefore, was forced to wear a pair of shorts
the whole weekend. "It was awful," he said to me, "I could not be
myself. I never want to go through another weekend like that again."
I had very little to offer him at that point except my usual pitch
that I had used when I was the one giving the orientations at that
very same park. I told him not to give up on nudism, that he would get
used to the nudity and that soon he would not find it overly
stimulating and arousing.
"You won't even get a hard-on," I said.
That phone call prompted me to begin to examine my own personal
experience with "organized" nudism and to ultimately change my views
about
it--hence this article. What I told him was, in fact, what I had done
to myself. In my attempt to set an example for others and to not feel
guilty for feeling sexual myself, I had repressed my own sexual urges
at the park to the extent that I was lying to myself about what I was
feeling. What I really wanted to do was to be myself and let everyone
know that I was a healthy sexual person--and that is what he wanted
and I believe what most everyone wants.
To permit nudity yet not allow ANY form of sexual expression, not even
an erection, seems like an impossibility at best and a cruel tease at
worst.
Either way, it is a form or sexual repression. The nudists' claim that
nudism is not about sex, and that nudist parks are in no way sexual,
is hypocritical. The very nature of nudity in an otherwise clothed
society is certainly going to increase sexual awareness; and to not be
able to express that in any way, not even in touching ourselves or
getting aroused, is simply unrealistic AND cruel. And so, when we fail
at this, even if just in our thoughts, we consciously or unconsciously
feel increased guilt, shame and embarrassment over our sexuality,
which merely adds to our already societally-induced poor self-image
problem in general.
We are sexual beings and our sexual energy will manifest itself one
way or another no matter how hard we try to discourage it. If we can't
express it in an open and positive manner, it will cause us to act out
in unhealthy ways, such as aggression or substance abuse. The nudists--
the unsuspecting victims of this sexual repression--seem to have
various ways displaying their behavior and of coping with the dilemma
of being torn between the freedom that they know they could feel and
the repression that they actually do feel. Many do what the rest of
society does--they either numb themselves with substances such as
nicotine and alcohol or they act on their sexual feelings and lie
about it. Some, to the dismay of the owners of the so-called 'family
nudist parks', no longer even lie about it.
They are known as swingers and they are out there in numbers; but in
spite of how we might characterize or judge their lifestyle, they are
the honest ones.
The nudist organizations themselves are not to be too heavily blamed
for their contribution to sexual repression, however. They, after all,
are simply extensions of our Western society that for centuries has
repressed human sexuality, and they have had to conform to present
standards in order to survive at all. We at least need to give them
credit for attempting to defy some of the rules of society and break
free from the pack.
But if we are to ever become the enlightened society we are capable of
being, we need to further free ourselves from the social restrictions
and religious taboos that have forced our sexual energy to manifest
itself in destructive ways. We need to learn to trust our sexuality
and to fully express it; and learn that to be free with it does not
mean we are going destroy ourselves. In fact, by repressing it we are
destroying ourselves.
Rather, being free with it means that we can channel it into creative
expressions such as helping each other and saving the planet. Only
when we fully accept and respect ourselves as sexual beings, will we
truly see ourselves as more than that--as spiritual beings; and seeing
ourselves as spiritual beings having a full human experience--
including our sexually--is the highest form of self-acceptance there
is.
I now have nudist friends who are not only comfortable with their
bodies but with their sexuality as well. We associated outside the
park, in our homes, etc. We feel comfortable to be ourselves and do
not hide our sexuality from each other. In fact, we honor and
celebrate it. The tension and discomfort that the gentleman referred
to in his phone call are not there. IT IS RELAXING because it is self-
acceptance. * * *
*********************
Dan Ziegler can be found at http://less-onsfortruth.com/
Dan Abel
<0ce128b6-fb84-4c79...@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Peter Riden <Affi...@the-grand-barn.com> wrote:
> Doesn't the following sound exactly like what I, Peter Riden, have
> brought forth times and again
> for so many years. Maybe hearing the same from someone else might not
> bring as much animosity and
> attacks as it did against me. Take note that I didn't nor will I
> flinch because few dysfunctional
> hypocrites resent that I keep telling it the way it is. Now, one more
> voice to simply echo what
> I have said...except that rather than seeing it as mere sex, I present
> it as fruitful, meaningful,
> passionate interactions between consenting individuals.
Well, no. It seems clear now that you (as in your family) are running
an adults only kind of operation. Is that true?
All those complaints of yours about harassment on this group in the past
were simply questions that were brought up about whether you were
running a family nudist place or an adult place. You refused to give
clear answers, for whatever reason.
> NUDISM AND SEXUAL REPRESSION
> By Daniel D. Ziegler
>
> I realize now, some years after writing my book NAKED BEFORE GOD, that
> my claim that participating in organized nudism can increase body
> awareness and self-acceptance, may not as true as I once thought.
> While social nudity itself--that is being nude in the presence of
> others--can
> certainly increase body acceptance, organized nudism as we know it in
> this country has major flaws that I now think may actually have a
> negative effect
> on self-esteem. This article is an attempt to explain this idea.
> By not permitting any open display or expression of sexuality, the
> nudism movement merely reinforces our society's already negative
> attitude
> toward our sexuality, and therefore toward our overall self-image. In
> this respect, the organized movement is actually counter-productive to
> its claims. They need to quit making that claim or change the rules.
[snip]
> We are sexual beings and our sexual energy will manifest itself one
> way or another no matter how hard we try to discourage it. If we can't
> express it in an open and positive manner, it will cause us to act out
> in unhealthy ways, such as aggression or substance abuse. The nudists--
> the unsuspecting victims of this sexual repression--seem to have
> various ways displaying their behavior and of coping with the dilemma
> of being torn between the freedom that they know they could feel and
> the repression that they actually do feel. Many do what the rest of
> society does--they either numb themselves with substances such as
> nicotine and alcohol or they act on their sexual feelings and lie
> about it. Some, to the dismay of the owners of the so-called 'family
> nudist parks', no longer even lie about it.
So, let me try to make this really simple. "So-called family nudist
parks" mean that the atmosphere is suitable for all ages, including
children. Are you favoring banning children from all nudist parks, or
just making it more clear as to which is which?
For instance, is a sign in huge letters over the main pool saying, "FUCK
LIKE A PORN STAR!" appropriate at the kind of places you would like to
see?
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Anna
> In article
> <0ce128b6-fb84-4c79-b760-c82ef2e12...@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
He has a "textile" view of social nudity, which is it leads to sexual
feelings.
Zee
> In article
> <0ce128b6-fb84-4c79-b760-c82ef2e12...@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter.....dan is a typical poster here in rec nude that is not a
nudist himself....he at some point in life was searching for something
and he was close to his church or a friend or could be he was reading
those medi physics mags back in the seventies and he spotted something
that was interesting...his church...which by the way a lot of churches
are not churches of the religious kind but a presentation that will
convince the govt that all things are in order to qualify the
establishment to tax folks that they do not have to pay any property
taxes.....we are talking about mega bucks saved...so he spends a few
years there and of course is still looking and he winds up in rec
nude....where as he states in his querry to you...we all wanna know
about what you think about the kids being in these nudist places and
how you feel about..it....see he joins the tribal bunch that attacks
anyone that is not in their cult minded suppressive
mindset ....because he knows they state nothing but lies ....but he
has to reamain in their group because if he joins you i or dan or
dario....he cant ask these questions and he fears any type of attack
from his phony buddies....well enough of that sick crap......and back
to how funny and sick assed they all are.....for instance if all of a
sudden the world order was established and a religion of total persona
freedom was ordered and there was no more nudity or sex laws other
than forcible rape.....lets imagine what would happen....there would
be ads on the front page of all newpapers not back in the back where
the little personal ads are and safe from attack....as newpapers do
state ....hey mr bill we luv ya man...but that club of yours has to go
in that group because of public pressure on the newspapers not to
accept sex business ads....so back to a different world.....i would
say....hey people ...THINK NEKKID ...NAKED...NUDE ...FUN ...JACKIN OFF
AND BRING OUT THE KIDS AND DOGS...YEP THIS IS WHAT YOU ALL WANTED IN
THE OLD WORLD SO HERE IT IS CUM...ER AH....COME AND ENJOY.......see
Peter....everyone is suppressing their real intent...as we are talking
about nudist being the worst of the offlicted...this is the reason
that actually in a nudist camp ...the conversations run different to
here in rec nude...around the pool you hear a woman usually
saying ...my husband had hinted a few times that he would like us to
go to a nudist camp...and he finally brought home a nudist magazine
and i thought ....maybe moma was right he really is a pervert but i
finally took a look at the mag while he was at work and we were new in
the area and had no real friends and maybe i could go with him and at
least meet some friends that we could spend time with.....i think this
was the original presentation of the mags to show the happy faces and
friendly social atmosphere.....so the reason we do not ever ever ever
hear typical nudist conversations in rec nude is because they are all
trying to hide their past and i am sure some of these jokers might
have a sordid past ....but you i and dan have escaped these type past
history as we tend to be honest all through our lives.....so is you
can think of how to help this phony tribal guy dan abel...please do
they are just trying to find answers to their delemma....keep the
light on....bill
Anna
You have had a lot of experiences where nudism hasn't lived up to what
it claims to be. It is understandable why you have such a poor view of
nudism.
Nudiarist
Naturist Society today, nudism or naturism has been seen as beneficial
to human sexuality for both body and mind. This is not a secret, or
something that is being hidden.
I do think that genophobes like "Anna", and misanthropes like "Zee"
are in the minority, zealots who decry any form of sexual expression
that is not behind a locked door with the lights out and the covers
pulled all the way up.
Once again I refer people to the 205 ARGUMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS IN
SUPPORT OF NATURISM http://www.naturistsociety.com/resources/PDF/205ARGUE.pdf
That TNS document contains no less than 152 references to the word
"sex" or variations theof. #30 states that " Nudists, as a group, are
healthier sexually than the general population. Nudists are, as a
rule, far more comfortable with their bodies than the general public,
and this contributes to a more relaxed and comfortable attitude toward
sexuality in general."
This whole notion that nudism has nothing to do with sexuality is a
myth perpetuated by those who are not experienced in clothes-free
recreation and socializing.
All Americans come into contact with evidence of human sexuality every
day. A simple trip to the mall brings people face to face with stores
like Victoria's Secret, and if you go into a bookstore there's
everything from Nabokov's "Lolita", to nude photography monographs,
swimsuit magazines, and straight-out sex manuals.
The heart of this issue is behavior, not sexuality. How do we want
people to behave at nudist events and venues? I think that's mostly up
to the individual organizations. AANR and TNS provide guidelines, and
it's well known what happened with Caliente, Paradise Lakes and
Seminole over the past few years when complaints began to emerge about
open sexual behavior.
I have stated on my blog that I think it's a mistake for nudist
organizations to lose adult-oriented venues. Far better to establish a
ratings system and let people make up their own minds about which one
would be most suitable to their needs. I think it's perfectly valid to
differentiate between adult nudism and family nudism, just as we draw
distinctions between movies and television shoes, bars and
restaurants, and other entertainment.
Let's face it - there are already plenty of adults-only venues already
in the AANR network, and the Bulletin advertises for resorts and
cruises where children are not permitted.
What needs to happen is that places like Bare Oaks and The Grand Barn
need to recognize each other as legitimate venues for nude recreation,
just as movies like "Blue Valentine" and "Toy Story 3" recognize each
other as legitimate cinematic works of art.
But really, besides "Anna", I don't personally know of anyone that
denies that nudism and sexuality are strongly related. Hell, a high
school prom and sexuality are strongly related.
nudiarist
Diary of a Nudist
http://www.nudiarist.blogspot.com
Peter Riden
Tribe who will come and rather than acknowledge what I have been
saying for so many years (duplicated in what is presented by Dan
Ziegler), not to confuse with some other narrow minded Dan's, they
will instead re-invent idiotic scenarios not even related to why I was
tentatively attacked. I say tentatively because they all failed
miserably and, with what I see taking place everywhere, I'd say
justice is done and most are now following my way to proceed. So the
few frustrated ones will keep with their mantra while the public at
large will keep endorsing what I present and that you and many others
have long understood. ON~Anna couldn't resist either and she's the
spokesperson for the likes of Abel and his few friends.
But again, a mere distraction as compared to the continued endorsement
I'm getting in so many places..;-)http://www.the-worldwide-affiliate-network.com
http://www.myspace.com/peter_riden
http://www.myspace.com/conceptpeterriden
http://ca.youtube.com/user/PeterRiden
{TGB Conceptor}:http://www.the-grand-barn.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The-Grand-Barn
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheGrandBarn
Peter Riden
> What needs to happen is that places like Bare Oaks and The Grand Barn
> need to recognize each other as legitimate venues for nude recreation,
> just as movies like "Blue Valentine" and "Toy Story 3" recognize each
> other as legitimate cinematic works of art.
Since you bring up THE GRAND BARN and obviously insert Bare Oaks,
whose current owner and past regional FCN president has always
received support from ON~Anna (with some of its previous
impersonation) in vainly trying to attack TGB's owner, what you do is
bring absolute opposite sides of what the current subject matter
presents. I'd say your posts are more often in tune with what I
present but to inject Bare Oaks in the discussion, knowingly Stephane
Deschenes was one of the main character going against TGB along with
now renegaded ON~Anon and upgraded ID, it seems a bit uncertain where
you stand when it comes to saying it the way we know it truly is out
there in the real world. On that, Bill is definitely and realistically
assertive.
I know that Bill might have been aggressive towards some who might not
necessarily deserve it, and that could include you, but when under
attack he proudly stands up for himself, something I always respect in
one individual. As diverging some of our views could be at times... we
respect one another because when the rough gets tough... we stand up.
> But really, besides "Anna", I don't personally know of anyone that
> denies that nudism and sexuality are strongly related. Hell, a high
> school prom and sexuality are strongly related.
You better read all past posts of The Little Tribe and see if you
don't find strong opponents of what you just write above.
I have been unpopular in the eyes of the few tribers for saying what
you just wrote and Bill has been supporting my stance all along on
this.
And many of your posts back up what I present in here.. so maybe Bill
knows a lot better after all.
> nudiarist
> Diary of a Nudisthttp://www.nudiarist.blogspot.com
In Friendship & Universality
Peter Riden
http://thegrandbarn.com
Nudiarist
> Since you bring up THE GRAND BARN and obviously insert Bare Oaks,
> whose current owner and past regional FCN president has always
> received support from ON~Anna (with some of its previous
> impersonation) in vainly trying to attack TGB's owner, what you do is
> bring absolute opposite sides of what the current subject matter
> presents. I'd say your posts are more often in tune with what I
> present but to inject Bare Oaks in the discussion, knowingly Stephane
> Deschenes was one of the main character going against TGB along with
> now renegaded ON~Anon and upgraded ID, it seems a bit uncertain where
> you stand when it comes to saying it the way we know it truly is out
> there in the real world.
Opposite sides need to find common ground on which to agree. There
needs to be recognition that there are other valid philosophies and
practices of social nudism other than the traditional hard line
doctrine.
Nudists cry for acceptance, yet they practice intolerance amongst
themselves.
> You better read all past posts of The Little Tribe and see if you
> don't find strong opponents of what you just write above.
> I have been unpopular in the eyes of the few tribers for saying what
> you just wrote and Bill has been supporting my stance all along on
> this.
> And many of your posts back up what I present in here.. so maybe Bill
> knows a lot better after all.
I find most of what people post on the Internet about nudism is
garbage. People on social networks like the defunct Skinbook are for
the most part not real nudists, just exhibitionists. And there are a
lot of "Annas" out there who are sexually frustrated, looking for some
"idyllic" means of sexual expression without sexuality. They want
nudism to be "pure" so they can take off their clothes and not feel
guilty. For every ten people on the Internet claiming to be nudists,
probably only one has ever been nude in a social situation.
It's the 21st Century, and nudism/naturism needs to grow up and
recognize that we are no longer living in the Victorian age.
Anna
> Nudists do not deny sexuality. From the earliest days of FKK to the
> Naturist Society today, nudism or naturism has been seen as beneficial
> to human sexuality for both body and mind. This is not a secret, or
> something that is being hidden.
>
> I do think that genophobes like "Anna", and misanthropes like "Zee"
> are in the minority, zealots who decry any form of sexual expression
> that is not behind a locked door with the lights out and the covers
> pulled all the way up.
Sorry, but we are in the majority. You are in the minority
> Once again I refer people to the 205 ARGUMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS IN
> SUPPORT OF NATURISMhttp://www.naturistsociety.com/resources/PDF/205ARGUE.pdf
>
> That TNS document contains no less than 152 references to the word
> "sex" or variations theof.
Mostly them saying how nudism ISN'T about SEX.
>#30 states that " Nudists, as a group, are
> healthier sexually than the general population. Nudists are, as a
> rule, far more comfortable with their bodies than the general public,
> and this contributes to a more relaxed and comfortable attitude toward
> sexuality in general."
Yes that is the one number that might suggest what you want it to
suggest. The only problem is it doesn't. It merely means that when
nudists do have sex (away from a nudist venue with their significant
other) they don't have the problems say someone who might feel
uncomfortable naked among their significant other might feel. Sorry,
it doesn't say that nudism itself is sexual it just says that body
acceptance leads to healthier sexuality when, away from the nudist
environment they choose to have sex. This isn't a justification of
nudism as foreplay as you so wish it would be.
> This whole notion that nudism has nothing to do with sexuality is a
> myth perpetuated by those who are not experienced in clothes-free
> recreation and socializing.
Wrong. It is the view of most nudists.
> All Americans come into contact with evidence of human sexuality every
> day. A simple trip to the mall brings people face to face with stores
> like Victoria's Secret
This is why people wear clothes apart from protection from the
elements.
, and if you go into a bookstore there's
> everything from Nabokov's "Lolita", to nude photography monographs,
> swimsuit magazines, and straight-out sex manuals.
Not the bookstores I go to. Wow, you must go to some of those who wrap
their books in plain brown wrappers.
> The heart of this issue is behavior, not sexuality. How do we want
> people to behave at nudist events and venues? I think that's mostly up
> to the individual organizations.
No, it's up to maintaining standards that all nudist organizations
should support.
>AANR and TNS provide guidelines, and
> it's well known what happened with Caliente, Paradise Lakes and
> Seminole over the past few years when complaints began to emerge about
> open sexual behavior.
They were treated as they should be treated.
> I have stated on my blog that I think it's a mistake for nudist
> organizations to lose adult-oriented venues.
No mistake at all.
> Far better to establish a
> ratings system and let people make up their own minds about which one
> would be most suitable to their needs.
A rating system already exists. Either you are a nudist resort or you
are a nude resort or a resort where clothing optional is allowed. The
rating is whether the resort is a member of legitimate nudist
organizations such as ANNR and the Naturist Society or not.
>I think it's perfectly valid to
> differentiate between adult nudism and family nudism,
Nudism is nonsexualized social nudity. Sexualized social nudity isn't
nudism.
> just as we draw
> distinctions between movies and television shows, bars and
> restaurants, and other entertainment.
By clearly separating nudism from adult sexualized social nudity it
makes it clear to the public what nudism is all about and it makes it
clear to people who visit nudist venues what to expect and how to
behave.
> Let's face it - there are already plenty of adults-only venues already
> in the AANR network,
Well there shouldn't be. Shame on them!
>and the Bulletin advertises for resorts and
> cruises where children are not permitted
Well the issue shouldn't be exactly if children are permitted or not
but if the cruise is sexualized or not. I have heard about these
cruises and indeed they are sexualized so AANR is wrong to advertise
such cruises.
> What needs to happen is that places like Bare Oaks and The Grand Barn
> need to recognize each other as legitimate venues for nude recreation
I think they do, but they just don't want them to be mistaken for nude
sexualized place. Sure, have your jollies just don't think you are a
nudist place.
> But really, besides "Anna", I don't personally know of anyone that
> denies that nudism and sexuality are strongly related.
Really? How many nudists here agree with that statement?
It looks like I need to defend nudism from YOU nudiarist. You seem to
have a textile mindset about this!
Anna
> But really, besides "Anna", I don't personally know of anyone that
> denies that nudism and sexuality are strongly related.
Wow, Zee did you think that you would ever get someone who claims to
be a nudist to admit that?
Nudiarist is absolutely one of the large minority who attend nudist
venues who want to ruin it for the rest of them.
Nudiarist
> > I do think that genophobes like "Anna", and misanthropes like "Zee"
> > are in the minority, zealots who decry any form of sexual expression
> > that is not behind a locked door with the lights out and the covers
> > pulled all the way up.
>
> Sorry, but we are in the majority. You are in the minority
Sexually frustrated shut-ins are not the majority.
> > Once again I refer people to the 205 ARGUMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS IN
> > SUPPORT OF NATURISMhttp://www.naturistsociety.com/resources/PDF/205ARGUE.pdf
>
> > That TNS document contains no less than 152 references to the word
> > "sex" or variations theof.
>
> Mostly them saying how nudism ISN'T about SEX.
Sigh. You simply don't have the mental capacity to differentiate
between sexual activity and sexuality. No wonder you are a genophobe.
> Yes that is the one number that might suggest what you want it to
> suggest. The only problem is it doesn't. It merely means that when
> nudists do have sex (away from a nudist venue with their significant
> other) they don't have the problems say someone who might feel
> uncomfortable naked among their significant other might feel. Sorry,
> it doesn't say that nudism itself is sexual it just says that body
> acceptance leads to healthier sexuality when, away from the nudist
> environment they choose to have sex. This isn't a justification of
> nudism as foreplay as you so wish it would be.
This is Anna's pathetic fantasy, that nudists don't have sex at nudist
resorts. Do you really think that couples drive their trailer down to
Florida for the winter for three months and never have sex with each
other? I personally hope they are screwing at least twice a day, it's
good exercise and healthy for the body.
Again, you are simply blind to the fact that nudism and human
sexuality are related.
And if some couple uses a day at a nudist resort as foreplay, good for
them! You do realize, don't you, that dinner and a movie is a form of
foreplay? Perhaps dating is too idyllic for the real world.
nudiarist
Diary of a Nudist
http://www.nudiarist.blogspot.com
> > This whole notion that nudism has nothing to do with sexuality is a
Nudiarist
Then you'd better petition the Naturist Society to remove the 152
references to sex and sexuality from their 205 ARGUMENTS document.
Once again, for the hard of comprehending, nudism is related to human
sexuality. Putting on makeup every day and wearing high heels is
related to human sexuality. Just about every bar and saloon across the
planet is related to human sexuality. Buying a little girl a doll is
related to human sexuality.
But a genophobe like you, locked up in your basement with only the
glare of your 1999 14" Viewsonic CRT to light the room, is somehow the
guru of nudism, the keeper of the flame, the messiah to save nudism
from itself.
Right.
Zee
he he.....Anna....i know.....richard or anyone of the tribal members
whould never admit any..none....zip ...zero .....amount of sex or
sexuality or hint of it would be connected with familynudism....so i
bet the nudist are familiar with his wide sweeping erroneous
statement....but read in my other post about his medical
condition....you might know the name of it.....also i would also say
that cocaine and opium is more legal in the usa than pot is.....as for
many years all doctors have the authority to use those drugs in
treatment of patients....but it is limited that they can use
pot ...only in ca and maybe az.....z
Anna
> This is Anna's pathetic fantasy, that nudists don't have sex at nudist
> resorts.
Oh, I am concerned that some do.
> Do you really think that couples drive their trailer down to
> Florida for the winter for three months and never have sex with each
> other?
As long as they aren't using nudism for foreplay. As long as they
aren't going to the nudist park to have sex then as long as they keep
it in their trailer then it would be just like your neighbor having
sex. As long as you don't know it's going on it's no problem.
>I personally hope they are screwing at least twice a day, it's
> good exercise and healthy for the body.
That's because you are a pervert.
Anna
> Again, you are simply blind to the fact that nudism and human
> sexuality are related.
Then okay, no children! Only people who are adults should be at nudist
venues if you are correct!
Anna
Well at least they are being honest now. Too bad I though it was
about skinny dipping, nude hiking, and the other NONSEXUAL stuff I do
around my property. I was afraid that for some nudism wasn't that but
indeed sexual.
Well, then textiles are right. Do what you want but keep it away from
the kids!
I hope nudists will speak out against Nudiarist here.
Anna
> Again, you are simply blind to the fact that nudism and human
> sexuality are related.
If that's the case all I have to say is Old People - UGH.
Fat people - UGH.
When nudism wasn't about human sexuality sure I could tolerate seeing
such images. No body is perfect (well maybe some are) and you aren't
supposed to be judging anyone there and it's not about scoping people
out.
But since you say it is about human sexuality...UGH!
Anna
>
> > On Jan 26, 10:36 am, Nudiarist <nudiar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But really, besides "Anna", I don't personally know of anyone that
> > > denies that nudism and sexuality are strongly related.
>
> > Wow, Zee did you think that you would ever get someone who claims to
> > be a nudist to admit that?
>
> > Nudiarist is absolutely one of the large minority who attend nudist
> > venues who want to ruin it for the rest of them.
>
> Then you'd better petition the Naturist Society to remove the 152
> references to sex and sexuality from their 205 ARGUMENTS document.
I only see THE ONE reference which I clearly explained.
Anna
> But really, besides "Anna", I don't personally know of anyone that
> denies that nudism and sexuality are strongly related.
How about 70 percent of the people who attend nudist venues! You are
in the minority here. An ever growing minority but nonetheless still
a minority.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
well Anna...one has to consider the world situation at this time and
the many horrible things we are facing....you remember acorn.....not
really too much of an outrage over their importing young girls for
prostitution from uraquay i think.....well our debt and unemployment
and medicaid and welfare and food stamps are a high expenditure and
the states are suffering.....could it be that storey in florida has
the right idea....that nudist needs to advance to adult behavior and
include the kids.....this would equal all nudism from al
perspectives....and it would probably be a new dawning of the nudism
concept as we have never seen before.....and if it progresses in a
certain way ....where children will be granted their sexual rights
same as adults....it could be that refugee women and families with
husbands could live in nudist camps and pedos the world over could
come here and employ these kids and all of a sudden the social
expenditures could be lessened for their upkeep and the way the usa
has become so hardened against other folks kids because of the
educational cost...it might be there would be little indifference to
this new family nudism..as we did see in nazi germany a certain amount
of look the othre way attitude about killing the jews...it is
frightful to think it could happen here but things are a changing for
the worst daily and obame does not have a clue ....so what you and i
think about the nudism thing is really something that will shock us
maybe a year or two from now......and then we will be turning our
heads.....oh well the Bible says these things will happen in the final
days of which no one knows when....we are only human.....z
Anna
> Buying a little girl a doll is
> related to human sexuality.
Maybe for you it is but if that is the case I hope you are caught.
"Uncle Nudiartist bought you a doll little girl. Can I help you
undress it?"
I hope you are caught, arrested. and put in a cell with a big fat man
who farts all the time and wants to make you his wife.
You know, even criminals have their standards. Many were abused as
children themselves and when they find out that an inmate is a child
molester they really treat that person bad. Let's say the life
expectancy for such a person in there is not that long.
Anna
Yeah, that was sad and outrageous that no one seemed to have cared.
> i think.....well our debt and unemployment
> and medicaid and welfare and food stamps are a high expenditure and
> the states are suffering.....could it be that storey in florida has
> the right idea....that nudist needs to advance to adult behavior and
> include the kids.....this would equal all nudism from al
> perspectives....and it would probably be a new dawning of the nudism
> concept as we have never seen before.....and if it progresses in a
> certain way ....where children will be granted their sexual rights
> same as adults....it could be that refugee women and families with
> husbands could live in nudist camps and pedos the world over could
> come here and employ these kids and all of a sudden the social
> expenditures could be lessened for their upkeep
I hope you are making a "Modest Proposal" in the vein of Jonathan
Swift.
>and the way the usa
> has become so hardened against other folks kids because of the
> educational cost...it might be there would be little indifference to
> this new family nudism..as we did see in nazi germany a certain amount
> of look the othre way attitude about killing the jews...it is
> frightful to think it could happen here but things are a changing for
> the worst daily
I am sure some would like such a situation. Remember NAMBLA. Sex
before eight or it's too late.
> and obame does not have a clue ....so what you and i
> think about the nudism thing is really something that will shock us
> maybe a year or two from now......and then we will be turning our
> heads.....oh well the Bible says these things will happen in the final
> days of which no one knows when....we are only human.....z
It does shock me that Nudiarist admits what textiles has been saying
for years yet he still doesn't call for the end of family nudism.
Nudiarist
Buying a doll for a little girl is teaching that her sexuality is
feminine. Buying a toy truck for a little boy is teaching that his
sexuality is masculine.
Your insinuations are disgusting, sick, twisted and perverted. I'm
pleased that you finally exposed yourself for the obsessed, out of
control, sexually frustrated shut-in that you are.
I sincerely hope you get some help soon.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
well nudarist is a strange person ....but rec nude gets em all.....but
i might go to playing golf and stop watching the news or observing the
deteriation of man right in front of our eyes daily....but the reason
i think hard times will bring out the worst in man like we have never
seen before....is the ones under fifty have never thrown hay in the
barn or slopped hogs before sunup and get ready for school then walk a
mile in mud a holes in their shoes to catch a bus to school ....they
have all they want to eat and what they want to eat when they want it
and get allowances.....that is a strange concept...we did not get
allowances....and we had to work in the summertime....these kids go on
foreign vacations and if their parents dont have the money there is
money to support them to go also......and they just aint gonna be to
compassionate about humans in general as they have grown up on total
violence against women children old folks and it old hat for them by
now......i remember seeing old men and women walking down those dusty
road with toe sacks over their backs asking if you had a patato or
apple to spare and they slept in the ditches at night...these folks
aint gonna do that....they will kill before they suffer.....z
Nudiarist
There are 152 references. Anyone with a second grade education should
be able to read them.
You know, "Anna", you have really exposed yourself this past week when
pressed. You have no arguments, no facts, no experience, and, worst of
all, no scruples. You run around in circles chasing your own tail. You
are a professional troll, someone who is here merely to get kicks out
of trying to destroy people. You have no interest in nudism, you are
not a nudist, you are not even who you say you are based upon your
multiple IDs portraying yourself as a man, and then as a woman.
Yet somehow you press on,day after day, week after week, year after
year, repeating the same things over and over again. Have you no life
whatsoever? Are the rats taking over the upstairs of your house while
you sit in your dank basement pounding away at your keyboard? Have you
even seen the daylight in the past six years?
I really do pity you. You're a lost soul searching for something you
really seem to want, but you are so afraid of your own sexuality that
you want to deny sexuality to everyone else. You have concocted some
"idyllic" asexual vision of nudism where people strip naked and don't
even look at each other, where they don't hug, they don't dance, they
don't have sex behind closed doors. They don't bend over, they don't
jiggle when they walk, they don't flop when they play volleyball - no,
it's some sort of little Garden of Eden without an apple in sight,
just shiny happy Stepford people that you want to control from your
little computer.
Well it didn't work, you've been exposed as one of the biggest phonies
ever to infect Usenet.
Time for you to go away. Even Zee the misanthrope homophobe is egging
you on to leave. You have nothing left. Bye bye.
James Dale Guckert
> Too bad I though it was
> about skinny dipping, nude hiking, and the other NONSEXUAL stuff I do
> around my property.
All by yourself, of course, dude.
That's not social nudity.
--
JDG
Anna
> > > Then you'd better petition the Naturist Society to remove the 152
> > > references to sex and sexuality from their 205 ARGUMENTS document.
>
> > I only see THE ONE reference which I clearly explained.
>
> There are 152 references. Anyone with a second grade education should
> be able to read them.
I read them. Heck, here they all are.
http://www.naturistsociety.com/resources/PDF/205ARGUE.pdf
205 Arguments and Observations
In Support of Naturism
Extensively documented with quotes, references,
supporting research, and resources for further study
Compiled by K. Bacher
Preface
THE UNITED STATES LAGS FAR BEHIND most of the rest of Western
Civilization in its negative attitude
toward the human body. While most of Europe is comfortable with the
concept of nude recreation on beaches and in
vacation resorts, here in the U.S., conservative political action
groups seek to criminalize even the most innocent
exposure of the human body. Often these groups gain support by
purporting to defend "family values" or "Christian
morality."
Although these groups are growing in political power, they represent
only a small portion of the American
population. And participation in nude recreation is also growing. More
and more Americans are discovering the
pleasures of skinny-dipping with their families in the local
reservoir, or sunbathing in the buff at the local beach.
Membership in nudist organizations is growing by leaps and bounds.
More than ever, Naturists need powerful arguments to defend their
chosen lifestyle against those who
cannot see beyond their own misconceptions and preconceived notions.
We need evidence and testimony to
encourage others to give Naturism a try. For several years, I found
myself making claims like these:
"Actually, Mom, taking the kids to a nudist park is good for them."
"The ideals of Naturism are consistent with the goals of women's
rights."
"A lot of famous people don't think skinnydipping's such a bad thing."
"There's nothing in the Bible that says it's wrong to go nude."
"Naturism has some real psychological benefits."
"Not everyone in the world thinks nudity is so bad, you know."
I knew that these statements were true, but when pressed, I could not
back them up with concrete
references. And so, this project was born. Here are all the arguments
in support of Naturism, backed up by up-todate
scientific research and supported by the writings of leading thinkers
in psychology, sociology, history, law, and
philosophy. Here also you will find related musings on subjects
including modesty, nudity in art, the history of
fashion, women's rights, the benefits of breast-feeding, and the
psychology of clothing.
This compilation draws on sources including nudist and mainstream
publications, scholarly research, and
my own thought. Some arguments are stronger than others. Taken as a
whole, I think they make a compelling case
in favor of Naturism. They support a perspective that sees the human
body as complete and good in and of itself,
regardless of how--or whether--it is adorned. They support an honest,
open, and accepting attitude toward the human
body, a perspective that is physically, mentally, and spiritually
healing, socially constructive, and thoroughly
freeing.
This compilation is by no means complete or comprehensive. All ideas,
suggestions, comments,
corrections, additions, references, and insights are welcome! Many of
these quotes and ideas are taken from other
sources or excerpted from larger works. An extensive bibliography and
endnotes are included at the end of the
document, and I strongly encourage anyone who is interested to refer
to the original sources for more information.
These ideas should be shared freely. Every mother concerned about
"family values" should know about the
extensive scientific research demonstrating the positive benefits of
nudism for children. Every woman concerned
about pornography should know how strongly the philosophy and practice
of Naturism repudiates the objectification
of women's bodies. Every lawmaker concerned about honoring the
original intent of our nation's founders should
know that many of them were unabashed skinnydippers. Christians
concerned about upholding sexual morality
should know that the earliest Church leaders accepted nudity as a
natural part of life, and not in the least inconsistent
with the teachings of Christ. The world-weary businessman in his urban
office and three-piece suit should know
how relaxing and therapeutic a weekend at a nudist park can be. The
mother on the beach with sand in her
swimming suit should know that there are places in the world where she
may enjoy the feeling of sun and water on
her body without attracting unwanted attention.
It is my hope that this document may help you to share this good news,
and to speak articulately about the
native goodness of the human body in its natural state.
Nudity is often more comfortable and practical than clothing.
1. There are times when clothing is physically uncomfortable. Nudity,
on the other hand, is often much
more comfortable.
2. For many activities, nudity is often far more practical than
clothing.
Bernard Rudofsky writes: "The custom of wearing a bathing suit, a
desperate attempt to recapture some of
our lost innocence, represents a graphic expression of white man's
hypocrisy. For, obviously, the bathing suit is
irrelevant to any activity in and under water. It neither keeps us dry
or warm, nor is it an aid to swimming. If the
purpose of bathing is to get wet, the bathing suit does not make us
wetter. At best, it is a social dress, like the dinner
jacket." 1 Yet Americans spend $900,000,000 each year on bathing
costumes.2
3. Clothing also restricts movement, and encumbers the athlete.
Studies done by the West German Olympic
swim team showed that even swimsuits slow down a swimmer.3
Naturism promotes mental health.
4. A nudist is not a body lacking something (that is, clothing).
Rather, a clothed person is a whole and
complete naked body, plus clothes.
5. Many psychologists say that clothing is an extension of ourselves.
The clothes we wear are an expression
of who we are.4 The Naturist's comfort with casual nudity, therefore,
represents an attitude which is comfortable
with the self as it is in its most basic state, without modification
or deceit.
6. Clothes-compulsiveness creates insecurity about one's body. Studies
show that nudism, on the other
hand, promotes a positive body self-concept.5
These effects are especially significant for women. Studies by Daniel
DeGoede in 1984 confirmed research
done 16 years earlier,6 which established that "of all the groups
measured (nudist males, non-nudist males, nudist
females, and non-nudist females), the nudist females scored highest on
body concept, and the non-nudist females
scored lowest." 7
7. Nudism promotes wholeness of body, rather than setting aside parts
of the body as unwholesome and
shameful.8
8. Clothes-compulsiveness locks us into a constant battle between
individuality and conformity of dress.
Nudity frees us from this anxiety, by fostering a climate of
comfortable individuality without pretense.
9. The practice of nudism is, for nudists, an immensely freeing
experience. In freeing oneself to be nude in
the presence of others, including members of the other sex, the nudist
also gives up all the social baggage that goes
along with the nudity taboo.
The North American Guide to Nude Recreation notes that "one reason why
a nude lifestyle is so refreshing
is that it delivers us temporarily from the game of clothes. It's hard
to imagine how much clothing contributes to the
grip of daily tensions until we see what it's like to socialize
without them. Clothing locks us into a collective
unreality that prescribes complex responses to social status, roles
and expected behaviors. In shedding our daily
'uniforms,' we also shed a weighty burden of anxieties. For a while,
at least, we don't have to play the endless
charade of projected images we call 'daily life.' . . . For once in
your life you are part of a situation where age,
occupation and social status don't really count for much. You'll find
yourself relating more on the basis of who you
really are instead of who your clothes say you are." 9 This analysis
is borne out by experience.
10. The sense of "freedom" that comes from the nudist experience is
consistently rated by nudists as one of
the main reasons they stay in it.10
11. Nudism, by freeing the body, helps free the mind and spirit. An
irrational clothes-compulsiveness may
inhibit psychological growth and health.
Dr. Robert Henley Woody writes, "fear of revealing one's body is a
defense. To keep clothing on at all
times when it is unnecessary for social protocol or physical comfort
is to armour oneself in a manner that will block
new behaviors that could introduce more healthful and rewarding
alternatives; and promote psychological
growth." 11
12. The nudist, literally, has nothing to hide. He or she therefore
has less stress, a fact supported by
research.12
In the words of Paul Ableman: "Removing your clothes symbolizes
'taking off' civilization and its cares.
The nudist is stripped not only of garments but of the need to 'dress
a part,' of form and display, of ceremony and all
the constraints of a complex etiquette. . . . Further than this, the
nudist symbolically takes off a great burden of
responsibility. By taking off his clothes, he takes off the pressing
issues of his day. For the time being, he is no
longer committed to causes, opposed to this or that trend, in short a
citizen. He becomes . . . a free being once
more." 13
13. Clothing hides the natural diversity of human body shapes and
sizes. When people are never exposed to
nudity, they grow up with misunderstandings and unrealistic
expectations about the body based on biased or
misinformed sources--for instance, from advertising or mass media.
As a result, breast augmentation has long been the leading form of
cosmetic surgery in the U.S. In the
1980s, American women had more than 100,000 operations per year to
alter their breasts.14 Helen Gurley Brown,
past editor of Cosmopolitan, says, "I don't think 80 percent of the
women in this country have any idea what other
women's bosoms look like. They have this idealized idea of how other
people's bosoms are. . . . My God, isn't it
ridiculous to be an emancipated woman and not really know what a
woman's body looks like except your own?" 15
Paul Fussell notes, by contrast, that "a little time spent on Naturist
beaches will persuade most women that their
breasts and hips are not, as they may think when alone, appalled by
their mirrors, 'abnormal,' but quite natural,
'abnormal' ones belonging entirely to the nonexistent creatures
depicted in ideal painting and sculpture. The same
with men: if you think nature has been unfair to you in the sexual
anatomy sweepstakes, spend some time among the
Naturists. You will learn that every man looks roughly the same--quite
small, that is, and that heroic fixtures are not
just extremely rare, they are deformities." 16
14. Clothing hides and therefore creates mystery and ignorance about
natural body processes, such as
pregnancy, adolescence, and aging. Children (and even adults) who grow
up in a nudist environment have far less
anxiety about these natural processes than those who are never exposed
to them.
Margaret Mead writes, "clothes separate us from our own bodies as well
as from the bodies of others. The
more society . . . muffles the human body in clothes . . . camouflages
pregnancy . . . and hides breastfeeding, the
more individual and bizarre will be the child's attempts to
understand, to piece together a very imperfect knowledge
of the life-cycle of the two sexes and an understanding of the
particular state of maturity of his or her body." 17
Some observations on the nature of modesty.
15. Children are not born with any shame about nudity. They learn to
be ashamed of their own nudity.
16. Shame, with respect to nudity, is relative to individual
situations and customs, not absolute.
For example, an Arab woman, encountered in a state of undress, will
cover her face, not her body; she
bares her breasts without embarrassment, but believes the sight of the
back of her head to be still more indecent than
exposure of her face. (James Laver notes that "an Arab peasant woman
caught in the fields without her veil will
throw her skirt over her head, thereby exposing what, to the Western
mind, is a much more embarrassing part of her
anatomy.") In early Palestine, women were obliged to keep their heads
covered; for a woman, to be surprised
outside the house without a head-covering was a sufficient reason for
divorce. In pre -revolutionary China it was
shameful for a woman to show her foot, and in Japan, the back of her
neck. In 18th-century France, while deep
décolletage was common, it was improper to expose the point of the
shoulder. Herr Surén, writing in 1924, noted
that Turkish women veiled their faces, Chinese women hid their feet,
Arab women covered the backs of their heads,
and Filipino women considered only the navel indecent.18
The relative nature of shame is acknowledged by Pope John Paul II.
"There is a certain relativism in the
definition of what is shameless," he writes. "This relativism may be
due to differences in the makeup of particular
persons . . . or to different 'world views.' It may equally be due to
differences in external conditions--in climate for
instance . . . and also in prevailing customs, social habits,
etc. . . . In this matter there is no exact similarity in the
behavior of particular people, even if they live in the same age and
the same society. . . . Dress is always a social
question." 19
17. The dominant idea that clothing is necessary for reasons of
modesty is a cultural assumption. It is an
assumption that is not shared by all cultures, nor by all members of
our own culture.20
18. There is evidence that modesty is not related to nakedness at all,
but is rather a response to appearing
different from the rest of the social group--for instance, outside the
accepted habits of clothing or adornment.21
For example, indigenous tribes naked except for ear and lip plugs feel
immodest when the plugs are
removed, not when their bodies are exposed.22 Likewise, a woman feels
immodest if seen in her slip, even though
it's far less revealing than her bikini.23 This also explains why
clothed visitors to nudist parks feel uncomfortable in
their state of dress. Psychologist Emery S. Bogardus writes:
"Nakedness is never shameful when it is unconscious,
that is, when there is no consciousness of a difference between fact
and the rule set by the mores." In other words,
for first-time visitors to a nudist park, there is no hint of
embarrassment after an initial reticence, because it is not
contrary to the moral norms.
19. Shame comes from being outside mores, not from specific actions or
conditions. Because nudity is
unremarkable in a nudist setting, nudists may even forget that they
are nude--and often do.
20. Psychological studies have shown that modesty need not be related
to one's state of dress at all. For the
nudist, modesty is not shed with one's clothes; it merely takes a
different form.24
Psychological studies by Martin Weinberg concluded that the basic
difference between nudists and nonnudists
lies in their differently-constructed definitions of the situation. It
isn't that nudists are immodest, for, like
non-nudists, they have norms to regulate and control immorality,
sexuality, and embarrassment. Nudists merely
accept the human body as natural, rather than as a source of
embarrassment.25
21. Many indigenous tribes go completely naked without shame, even
today. It is only through extended
contact with the "modern" world that they learn to be "modest." 26
Paul Ableman writes: "The missionaries were usually disconcerted to
find that the biblically recommended
act of 'clothing the naked', far from producing an improvement in
native morals, almost always resulted in a
deterioration. What the missionaries were inadvertently doing was
recreating the Garden of Eden situation. Naked,
the primitive cultures had shown no prurient concern with the
body. . . . the morality was normally geared to the
naked state of the culture. The missionaries, with their cotton shorts
and dresses, disrupted this. Naked people
actually feel shame when they are first dressed. They develop an
exaggerated awareness of the body. It is as if Adam
and Eve's 'aprons' generated the 'knowledge of good and evil' rather
than being its consequence." 27
Many Amazon rainforest people still live clothing-optional by choice,
even given an alternative.28 The
same is true of the aborigines of central Australia.29
22. Even in North America, nudity was commonplace among many
indigenous tribes prior to the arrival of
Europeans.
Lewis and Clark reported nearly-naked natives along the northern
Pacific coast, for example,30 as did
visitors to California.31 Father Louis Hennepin in 1698 reported of
Milwaukee-area Illinois Indians, "They go stark
naked in Summer-time, wearing only a kind of Shoes made of the Skins
of [buffalo] Bulls." He described several
other North American tribes as also generally living without clothes.
32 The natives of Florida wore only
breechclouts and sashes of Spanish moss, which they removed while
hunting or gardening.33 Columbus wrote of
the Indians he encountered in the Caribbean in 1492, "They all go
around as naked as their mothers bore them; and
also the women." 34 The Polynesian natives of Hawaii wore little
clothing, and none at all at the shore or in the
water, until the arrival of Christian missionaries with Captain Cook
in 1776.35
23. For some indigenous tribes, nudity or near-nudity is an essential
part of their culture.
Paul Ableman explains, "very few primitives are totally naked. They
almost always have ornamentation or
body-modification of some kind, which plays a central role in their
culture. . . . Into this simple but successful
culture comes the missionary, and obliterates the key signs beneath
his cheap Western clothing. Among many
primitives, tattooing, scarification and ornamentation convey highly
elaborate information which may, in fact, be the
central regulatory force in the society. The missionary thus, at one
blow, annihilates a culture. It was probably no
less traumatic for a primitive society to be suddenly clothed than it
would be for ours to be suddenly stripped
naked." 36
24. Yet missionaries have consistently sought to impose their own
concepts of "decency" on other cultures,
ignoring the elaborate cultural traditions regarding dress already in
place.
Bernard Rudofsky writes: "People [in other cultures] who traditionally
do not have much use for clothes are
not amused by the missionary zeal that prompts us to press our notions
of decency upon them while being
insensitive or opposed to theirs." 37 Julian Robinson adds:
"Eighteenth and nineteenth century missionaries and
colonial administrators were blissfully blind to their own religious,
cultural and sexual prejudices, and to the
symbolism of their own tribal adornments--their tight-laced corsets,
powdered wigs, constricting shoes and styles of
outer garments totally unsuited to colonial life. These missionaries
and administrators nevertheless took it upon
themselves to expunge all those 'pagan, barbaric and savage forms of
body packaging' which did not conform to
their body covering standards. . . . Thus the social and symbolic
significance of these traditional forms of body
decoration which had evolved over countless generations were, in many
cases, destroyed forever." 38
Russell Nansen records that "Henry Morton Stanley, the rescuer of
David Livingstone in the Belgian
Congo. . . . from 1847 to 1877 . . . wandered across Africa suffering
every hardship but when he went back to
England he made a notable speech to the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce. He explained to the audience how
many natives there were in the Congo, and the fact that they lived
naked. He told the audience that their duty as
Christians was to convert these misguided naked savages to
Christianity and to the wearing of clothes. And when
this missionary work had progressed sufficiently to convince the
natives of the need for wearing clothes on Sunday,
that would mean three hundred and twenty million yards of Manchester
cotton cloth yearly. Instantly the audience
rose to its feet and cheered him." 39
25. Most anthropologists consider modesty an unlikely reason for the
development of clothes.
J.C. Flügel writes: "The great majority of scholars . . . have
unhesitatingly regarded decoration as the
motive that led, in the first place, to the adoption of clothing, and
consider that the warmth- and modesty-preserving
functions of dress, however important they might later on become, were
only discovered once the wearing of clothes
had become habitual for other reasons. . . . The anthropological
evidence consists chiefly in the fact that among the
most primitive races there exist unclothed but not undecorated
peoples." 40 Anthropologists agree nearly
unanimously on this point.41
26. Many psychologists and anthropologists believe that modesty about
exposure of the body may well be a
result of wearing clothes, rather than its cause.42
27. It is interesting to note that it is only possible to be immodest
once an accepted form of modesty has
been established.43
28. Modesty with respect to nudity is a social phenomenon, not
biologically instinctive. This is evidenced
by the fact that nudity is venerated in art.44
Naturism promotes sexual health.
29. Nudity is not, by itself, erotic, and nudity in mixed groups is
not inherently sexual. These are myths
propagated by a clothes -obsessed society. Sexuality is a matter of
intent rather than state of dress.
In our culture, a person who exposes their sexual parts for any reason
is considered to be an exhibitionist. It
is assumed that they stripped to attract attention and cause a sexual
reaction in others. This is seen as a perversion.
Hypocritically, if someone dresses specifically to arouse sexual
interest, they are considered to have pride in their
appearance. Even if they get great sexual gratification out of the
attention others give, there is no suggestion of
perversion or sexual fixation.
30. Nudists, as a group, are healthier sexually than the general
population.
Nudists are, as a rule, far more comfortable with their bodies than
the general public, and this contributes to
a more relaxed and comfortable attitude toward sexuality in general.
31. Sexual satisfaction in married couples shows a correlation to
their degree of comfort with nudity.45
32. Studies show significantly less incidence of casual premarital and
extramarital sex, group sex, incest,
and rape among nudists than among non-nudists.46
33. Studies have demonstrated that countries with fewer hangups about
nudity have lower teen pregnancy
and abortion rates.47
34. Clothes enhance sexual mystery and the potential for unhealthy
sexual fantasies.
Photographer Jock Sturges says, "our arbitrary demarcations [between
clothing and nudity, sexual and
asexual] serve more to confound our collective sexual identity than to
further our social progress. America sells
everything with sex and then recoils when presented with the realities
of natural process." 48 C. Willet Cunnington
writes: "We have to thank the Early Fathers for having, albeit
unwillingly, established a mode of thinking from
which men and women have developed an art which has supplied . . . so
many novel means of exciting the sexual
appetite. Prudery, it seems, provides mankind with endless
aphrodisiacs, hence, no doubt, the reluctance to abandon
it." 49
35. Clothing focuses attention on sexuality, not away from it; and in
fact often enhances immature forms of
sexuality, rather than promoting healthy body acceptance.50
36. Complete nudity is antithetic to the elaborate semi-pornography of
the fashion industry.
Julian Robinson observes, "modesty is so intertwined with sexual
desire and the need for sexual display--
fighting but at the same time re-kindling this desire--that a self-
perpetuating process is inevitably set in motion. In
fact modesty can never really attain its ultimate end except through
its disappearance. Hiding under the cloak of
modesty there are to be found many essential components of the sexual
urge itself." 51
37. Clothing often focuses attention on the genitals and sexual
arousal, rather than away from them. 52
At various times in Western history different parts of female anatomy
have been eroticized: bellies and
thighs in the Renaissance; buttocks, breasts, and thighs by the late
1800s (and relatively diminutive waists and
bellies). Underwear design has historically emphasized these erogenous
body parts: corsets in the 1800s deemphasized
the midriff and emphasized the breasts--using materials including
whalebone and steel; the crinoline in
the mid 1800s emphasized the waist; and the bustle, appearing in 1868,
emphasized the buttocks.53 Bathing suit
design today focuses attention on the breasts and pubic region.
E.B. Hurlock writes: "When primitive peoples are unaccustomed to
wearing clothing, putting it on for the
first time does not decrease their immorality, as the ladies of
missionary societies think it will. It has just the
opposite effect. It draws attention to the body, especially for those
parts of it which are covered for the first time." 54
Rob Boyte notes wryly that "textile people, when they do strip in
front of others, usually do it for passion, and find
the bikini pattern tan-lines attractive. This is reminiscent of the
scarification practiced by primitive societies, and
shows how clothing patterns become a fetish of the body." 55 Havelock
Ellis writes: "If the conquest of sexual
desire were the first and last consideration of life it would be more
reasonable to prohibit clothing than to prohibit
nakedness." 56
38. The fashion industry depends on the sex appeal of clothing.
Peter Fryer writes: "The changes in women's fashions are basically
determined by the need to maintain
men's sexual interest, and therefore to transfer the primary zone of
erotic display once a given part of the body has
been saturated with attractive power to the point of satiation. . . .
Each new fashion seeks to arouse interest in a new
erogenous zone to replace the zone which, for the time being, is
played out." 57
39. Differences of clothing between the sexes focus attention on sex
differences.58
Psychologist J.C. Flügel writes: "There seems to be (especially in
modern life) no essential factor in the
nature, habits, or functions of the two sexes that would necessitate a
striking difference of costume--other than the
desire to accentuate sex differences themselves; an accentuation that
chiefly serves the end of more easily and
frequently arousing sexual passion." 59
40. Many psychologists believe that clothing may originally have
developed, in part, as a means of
focusing sexual attention.60
41. Partial clothing is more sexually stimulating (in often unhealthy
ways) than full nudity.
Anne Hollander writes: "The more significant clothing is, the more
meaning attaches to its absence and the
more awareness is generated about any relation between the two
states." 61 Elizabeth B. Hurlock notes that "it is
unquestionably a well-known fact that familiar things arouse no
curiosity, while concealment lends enchantment and
stimulates curiosity . . . a draped figure with just enough covering
to suggest the outline, is far more alluring than a
totally naked body." 62 And Lee Baxandall observes, "the 'almost'-nude
beaches, where bikinis and thongs are
paraded, are more sexually titillating than a clothes-optional resort
or beach. What is natural is more fulfilling,
though it may not fit the tantalize-and-deliver titillation of our
consumer culture." 63
42. Modesty--especially enforced modesty--only adds to sexual interest
and desire.64
Reena Glazer writes: "Women's breasts are sexually stimulating to
(heterosexual) men, at least in part
because they are publicly inaccessible; society further eroticizes the
female breast by tagging it shameful to expose.
. . . This element of the forbidden merely perpetuates the intense
male reaction female exposure allegedly
inspires." 65
43. Topfree66 inequality (requiring women, but not men, to wear tops)
produces an unhealthy obsession
with breasts as sexual objects.
44. The identification of breasts as sexual objects in our culture has
led to the discouragement of breastfeeding,
the encouragement of unnecessary cosmetic surgery for breast
augmentation, and avoidance of necessary
breast examinations by women.
Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer write: "When a woman learns to
treat her breasts as objects that
enhance appearance, they belong not to the woman, but to her viewers.
Thus, a woman becomes alienated from her
own body." 67
45. Naturism is the antithesis of pornography.68
Nudity is often confused with pornography in our society because the
pornography industry has so
successfully exploited it. In other words, nudity is often damned as
exploitative precisely because its repression
causes many to exploit it.
46. Pornography has been defined as an attempt to exert power over
nature. In most cases in our culture, it
manifests itself as an expression of sexual power by men over women.69
Naturism, by contrast, seeks to coexist
with nature and with each other, and to accept each other and the
natural world in our most natural states.
47. Non-acceptance and repression of nudity fuels pornography by
teaching that any form and degree of
nudity is inherently sexual and pornographic.
In the words of activist Melissa Farley, "pornography is the
antithesis of freedom for women. . . . to treat
the human body as anything less than normal and beautiful is to
promote puritanism and pornography. If the human
body is accepted by society as normal, the pornographers won't be able
to market it." 70
48. Naturism is innocent, casual, non-exploitative, and non-commercial
(and yet is often suppressed); as
opposed to pornography, which is commercialized and sensationalized
(and generally tolerated).
In some American communities it is illegal for a woman to publicly
bare her breasts in order to feed an
infant, but it is legal to display Penthouse on drug-store magazine
racks.
49. Many psychologists believe that repression of a healthy sexuality
leads to a greater capacity for, and
tendency toward, violence.
Paul Ableman writes: "We have divorced ourselves from our instincts so
conclusively that we are now
menaced by their perverted expression. The blocked erotic instinct
turns into destructiveness and, in our age, many
thinkers have perceived that some of the most ghastly manifestations
of human culture are fueled by recycled
eroticism. Channelled into pure cerebration, the sexual instinct may
generate nightmares impossible in the animal
world. Animals are casually cruel and are usually, not always,
indifferent to the pain of other animals. Animals kills
for food or, rarely, for sport but they do not torture, gloat over
pain or exterminate. We do. What's more, we can
tolerate our own ferocity. What we cannot tolerate is our own
sexuality." 71
Thus extreme violence is tolerated even on television, while the
merest glimpse of sexual anatomy,
however innocent, is enough to cause movie ratings to jump.
Naturism promotes physical health.
50. Clothing limits or defeats many of the natural purposes of skin:
for example, repelling moisture, drying
quickly, breathing, protecting without impeding performance, and
especially sensing one's environment.
C. W. Saleeby writes: "This admirable organ, the natural clothing of
the body, which grows continually
throughout life, which has at least four absolutely distinct sets of
sensory nerves distributed to it, which is essential
in the regulation of the temperature, which is waterproof from without
inwards, but allows the excretory sweat to
escape freely, which, when unbroken, is microbe-proof, and which can
readily absorb sunlight--this most beautiful,
versatile, and wonderful organ is, for the most part, smothered,
blanched, and blinded in clothes and can only
gradually be restored to the air and light which are its natural
surroundings. Then, and only then, we learn what it is
capable of." 72
51. Exposure to the sun, without going overboard, promotes general
health.
Research suggests that solar exposure triggers the body's synthesis of
Vitamin D, vital for (among other
things) calcium absorption and a strong immune system. 73 Exposure to
the sun is especially essential for the growth
of strong bones in young children.
52. Recent research has suggested an inverse relationship between
solar exposure and osteoporosis, colon
cancer, breast cancer, and even the most deadly form of skin cancer,
malignant melanoma.74
53. An obsessive sense of modesty about the body often correlates with
a reluctance to share healthy forms
of touch with others.
Research has increasingly linked touch-deprivation, especially during
childhood and adolescence, to
depression, violence, sexual inhibition, and other antisocial
behaviors. Research has also shown that people who are
physically cold toward adolescents produce hostile, aggressive, and
often violent offspring. On the other hand,
children brought up in families where the members touch each other are
healthier, better able to withstand pain and
infection, more sociable, and generally happier than families that
don't share touch.75
54. Tight clothing may cause health problems by restricting the
natural flow of blood and lymphatic fluid.
Recent research by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer demonstrated
that women who wear bras
more than twelve hours per day, but not to bed, are 21 times more
likely to get breast cancer than those who wear
bras less than twelve hours per day. Those who wear bras even to bed
are 125 times more likely to get breast cancer
than those who don't wear bras at all. Testicular cancer, similarly,
has been linked to tight briefs. The theory is that
tight clothing impedes the lymph system, which removes cancer-causing
toxins from the body.76
55. Clothing can harbor disease-causing bacteria and yeast (especially
underclothing and athletic clothing).
56. Medical research has linked clothing to an increased
susceptibility to bites and stings by animals such
as ticks and sea lice, which hide in or get trapped in clothing.77
57. Clothing fashions throughout history, especially for women, have
often been damaging to physical and
psychological health.78
For instance, the wearing of corsets led to numerous physical ailments
in women in the late 19th century.
Men and women both suffered through many ages of history under hot,
burdensome layers of clothing in the name
of fashion. Footwear has been especially notorious for resisting
reason and comfort in the name of fashion.
58. The idea that clothing is necessary for support of the genitals or
breasts is often unwarranted.
For example, research shows that the choice of wearing a bra or not
has no bearing on the tendency of a
woman's breasts to "droop" as she ages. Deborah Franklin writes:
"Still, the myth that daily, lifelong bra wearing is
crucial to preserving curves persists, along with other misguided
notions about that fetching bit of binding left over
from the days when a wasp waist defined the contours of a woman's
power." Christine Haycock, of the New Jersey
Medical School, says that while exercising without a bra may be
uncomfortable for large-breasted women, "it's not
doing any lasting damage to chest muscles or breast tissue." In fact,
given the tendency of sports bras to squash
breasts against the rib cage, her research concluded that "those who
wore an A cup were frequently most
comfortable with no bra at all." 79 Complete nudity presents no
difficulties for conditioned male athletes, either; and
thus the athletes of ancient Athens had no trouble performing entirely
in the nude.80
59. Clothing hides the natural beauty of the human body, as created by
God.
In the words of Michelangelo: "What spirit is so empty and blind, that
it cannot grasp the fact that the
human foot is more noble than the shoe and human skin more beautiful
than the garment with which it is clothed?"
60. Clothing makes people look older, and emphasizes rather than hides
unflattering body characteristics.
Paul Fussell writes: "Nude, older people look younger, especially when
very tan, and younger people look
even younger. . . . In addition fat people look far less offensive
naked than clothed. Clothes, you realize, have the
effect of sausage casings, severely defining and advertising the shape
of what they contain, pulling it all into an
unnatural form which couldn't fool anyone. . . . The beginning
Naturist doesn't take long to master the paradox that it
is stockings that make varicose veins noticeable, belts that call
attention to forty-eight-inch waists, brassieres that
emphasize sagging breasts." 81
61. Clothing harbors and encourages the growth of odor-causing
bacteria.
Naturism is socially constructive.
62. Naturism is a socially constructive philosophy.
As defined by the International Naturist Federation, "Naturism is a
way of life in harmony with nature
characterized by the practice of communal nudity, with the intention
of encouraging self-respect, respect for others
and for the environment." 82
63. Naturism, by philosophy, is tolerant of others and their
differences. It expects only the same in return.
Naturism rejects obstreperous, provocative nudity--but because it is
anti-social effrontery and disorderly
conduct, not because it is nudity.
64. Nudity promotes social equality, feelings of unity with others,
and more relaxed social interaction in
general. As mentioned earlier, clothing locks us into a collective
unreality that prescribes complex responses to
social status, roles and expected behaviors.83 As the artificial
barrier of clothing is done away with, social class and
status disappear. People begin to relate to each other as they are,
and not as they seem to be.
This is a phenomenon that is intimately familiar to the Finnish
people. L.M. Edelsward writes: "People can
relax in the sauna in a way that is difficult to do in other contexts
and with others than one's family, for here the
tensions associated with maintaining one's social mask
disappear. . . . Without their social masks, sauna bathers are
able to meet others not in terms of their social personas, but in
terms of their inner personalities. . . . Sweating
together in the sauna, removed from the impinging demands of ordinary
life, Finns can be the people they 'really'
are, and can recreate their relationships with others as they ideally
should be--open, equal, and trusting. . . . Sweating
together in the sauna, stripped of all symbols of rank, wealth or
prestige, all are equal; distance and respect become
openness and sincerity." 84
65. Naturists tend to be especially accepting of other people, just as
they are. This is an attitude that is
undoubtedly related to the fact that Naturists are generally more
accepting of their own bodies, just as they are, than
the general public.85
66. Socially and demographically, nudists are almost exactly like the
rest of the population, except that they
are tolerant of nudity. There are few other trends, social or
psychological, positive or negative, that correlate to a
statistically significant degree with nudists as a demographic group.
86
67. Naturism rejects blind conformity to cultural mores and
assumptions about the body, which see clothing
as a constant necessity, in favor of a more reasoned, rational
approach which recognizes the need for clothing to be
dependent on context.
68. For Americans, non-acceptance and sexualization of their own
nudity encourages a biased or racist
attitude contrasting "clothed civilization" against the "naked
savage." 87
Rob Boyte asks, "Why is it permissible [in National Geographic] to
show the penis and scrotum of an
African Surma (Feb. 91) or a Brazilian Urueu-Wau Wau (Dec. 88) but not
a Yugoslav Naturist in his natural setting?
Why are photographs of breasts on Nuba (Feb. 51, Nov. 66), Zulu (Aug.
53), Dyak (May 56), Masai (Feb. 65), Yap
Island (May 67, Oct. 86), Turkana (Feb. 69), Adama Islands (July 75),
New Guinea (Aug. 82), Woodabe (Oct. 83),
Ndebele (Feb. 69), and Surma (Feb. 91) women shown, yet not one white
Canadian can be found to face the camera
at Wreck Beach? Why are the breasts shown of Josephine Baker (July
89), a black native of East St. Louis, but the
breasts of white native women of Miami Beach are not shown? The
unanswered question implies but one
conclusion: that the National Geographic has in fact a Eurocentric
bias (racist) in portraying nudity." 88
Jeremy Seabrook writes: "The absence of self-consciousness is not some
natural 'primitive' impulse to
acknowledge the universal truth that sex is the centre of their
world. . . . The nakedness of tradition speaks of a
social order in which sex, although not denied, has its place in the
totality of living and growing things; it speaks of
another ordering of the world, one that is a reproach to, and denial
of, those nude westerners [vacationing on nude
beaches far from home], although at the same time, is dismissed,
marginalised, not taken seriously by them." 89
Naturism is healthy for the family.
69. True nudists emphasize a decent, family atmosphere and morality.
70. Research shows that children who grow up in a nudist setting tend
to be more self-confident, more selfaccepting,
and more sexually well-adjusted. They feel better about their bodies,
and more comfortable with their
sexuality.90
Research conducted at the University of Northern Iowa found that
nudist children had body self-concepts
that were significantly more positive than those of non-nudist
children--and that the "nudity classification" of a
family was one of the most significant factors associated with
positive body self-concept. Furthermore, nudist
children showed a significantly higher acceptance of their bodies as a
whole, rather than feeling ashamed of certain
parts.91 A study by psychologists Robin Lewis and Louis Janda at Old
Damien University reported that "increased
exposure to nudity in the family fosters an atmosphere of acceptance
of sexuality and one's body." They concluded
that children who had seen their parents nude were more comfortable
with physical contact and affection, had higher
self-esteem, and showed increased acceptance of and comfort with their
bodies and their sexuality.92 Research by
Marie-Louise Booth at the California School of Professional Psychology
found that "individuals with less childhood
exposure to parental nudity experienced significantly higher levels of
adult sexual anxiety than did the group with
more childhood exposure to parental nudity." 93 Separate research by
Diane Lee Wilson at The Wright Institute
reached the same conclusion.94 Research by Lou Lieberman of the State
University of New York at Albany, in the
late 1960s, found that "those young people who had casually seen both
of their parents nude in the home were far
more likely to feel comfortable with their bodies and to also feel mo
re satisfied with the size and shape of their
genitalia and breasts." 95
71. In general, "experts" such as Joyce Brothers and Dr. Spock speak
out against family nudity without
empirical evidence to back them up. When research is actually done, it
contradicts their dire warnings.96
In several years of research at major national research libraries, I
have yet to come across a scientific study
which contradicts the premise that openness about nudity is healthy
for children.
72. Most commentators say that it's the context in which family nudity
takes place, not the nudity itself, that
determines whether it's problematic. Children respond far more to
parents' attitudes toward nudity than to the nudity
itself, and nudity is only a problem when it is treated as one.97
73. Many psychologists argue that the implicit message conveyed by a
lack of nudity in the home is that the
body is basically unacceptable or shameful--an attitude which may
carry over into discomfort about nudity in the
context of adult sexual relationships.98
74. Children of "primitive" tribes, surrounded by nudity of all forms,
suffer no ill effects. Neither do
children who grow up in other societies which are more open about
nudity than our own.99 Presumptions that
exposure to nudity will lead to problems for children grow out of the
preconceptions of our culture.
Paul Ableman writes: "It is interesting to speculate as to what kind
of model of the human mind Sigmund
Freud would have constructed if he had based it not on clothed
Europeans but on, say, a study of the naked Nuer of
the Sudan. Almost all the processes which he discerns as formative for
the adult mind would have been lacking.
Freud assumes that children will not normally see each other naked and
that, if they do happen to, the result will be
traumatic. This is not true of naked cultures. . . . Thus great
provinces of Freud's mind-empire would simply be
missing. There would be no Oedipus complex (or not much, anyway), no
penis envy or castration complex, probably
no clear-cut phases of sexual development. We are emerging rapidly
from the era of Freudian gospel . . . and can
now perceive the extent to which he himself was the victim of
prevailing ideas and prejudices." 100
75. Children who grow up in a nudist environment witness the natural
body changes brought on by
adolescence, pregnancy, and aging. They have far less anxiety about
these natural processes than children who are
never exposed to them except through layers of clothing.
76. Research has demonstrated that countries with fewer reservations
about nudity (and sexuality in
general) also have lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates.101
A 1985 study by the Guttmacher Institute found rates of pregnancy and
abortion among teenage girls in
America to be more than twice those of Canada, France, Sweden,
England, and The Netherlands. The disparity
couldn't be explained by differences in sexual activity, race, welfare
policies, or the availability of abortion, but only
in cultural attitudes toward nudity and sexuality. The study found
American youth to be particularly ignorant of
biology and sexuality, partly due to a climate of moral disapproval
for seeking such knowledge. It found that lower
levels of unwanted pregnancy correlated with factors such as the
amount of female nudity presented by public media
and the extent of nudity on public beaches.102
77. Clothes-compulsion intimidates millions of mothers from breast-
feeding their children, even though
breast-feeding is healthier and often more convenient for both the
child and the mother.103
In the U.S., barely half of all mothers breast-feed; only 20% do so
for a full 6 months, and only 6% for the
Surgeon General's recommended 12 months.104 Breast-feeding is also
declining in developing countries.105
Gabrielle Palmer writes: "In Victorian England, famous for its
prudery, a respectable woman could feed
openly in church, yet in contemporary industrialized society where
women's bodies and particularly breasts are used
to sell newspapers, cars and peanuts, public breast-feeding provokes
cries of protest from both men and
women." 106 Lisa Demauro notes that "our society is far more at home
with the idea of sexy breasts than functional
ones." 107 "Millions of boys and girls have grown up never having seen
a mother breast-feeding her baby," adds
Marsha Pearlman, the Florida Health Department coordinator for breast-
feeding. "This is a sad commentary on our
culture." 108
Naturism is especially consistent with feminism and the struggle for
women's freedom.
78. The repression of healthy nudity, especially for females, has been
one of the chief means of mind and
destiny control by the patriarchy. Breaking this pattern shatters the
invisible bonds of an inherited sex role.109
79. Limitations on women's nudity, an acceptance of pornography, and
demanding fashion requirements
may, individually, seem like minor issues. Taken as a whole, however,
they form a pattern of repressive maleoriented
expectations.
Marilyn Frye explains: "Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely
at just one wire in the cage, you
cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you
is determined by this myopic focus, you could
look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to
see why a bird would not just fly around the
wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. . . . There is no physical
property of any one wire, nothing that the closest
scrutiny could rediscover, that will reveal how a bird could be
inhibited or harmed by it except in the most
accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the
wires one by one, microscopically, and take a
macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does
not go anywhere; and then you will see it in
a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is
perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a
network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be
the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by
their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of
a dungeon." 110
80. Topfree inequality (requiring women, but not men, to wear tops) is
demeaning and discriminatory
toward women, and reinforces patterns of male domination over women.
111
In our culture, breasts may be exposed to sell drinks to men in bars,
but women may not be topfree on a
beach for their own comfort and pleasure. Reena Glazer writes: "The
criminalization of women baring their breasts,
therefore, indicates that society views women's bodies as immoral and
something to hide. There is something
potentially criminal about every woman just by virtue of being
female." 112
Herald Price Fahringer writes, "men have the right to cover or expose
their chests as they see fit--women do
not. Men have the right to enjoy the sun, water, and wind without a
top; women do not. Few men would be willing
to give up this right. Then why shouldn't women enjoy the same
advantage? . . . Requiring women to cover their
breasts in public is a highly visible expression of inequality between
men and women that promotes an attitude that
demeans women and damages their sense of equality. . . . For
centuries, men have held the power to generate these
misconceptions. The male view on the exposure of a woman's breasts is
crucially influenced by the need of men to
define women. . . . This reaction stems from a masculine ideology that
has . . . doomed generations of women to a
secondary status." 113
Raymond Grueneich writes: "So what is really at stake is whether women
will be free to bare their own
breasts in appropriate public places for their own personal purposes
on these occasions in which they feel free to do
so, or whether they will only be allowed to bare their breasts in
public on an occasion that can be exploited
commercially and that reinforces the idea that the sole function of
the female breast is for the satisfaction of male
fantasy. It is as though it is a crime for a woman to be undressed in
public, unless she was undressed in the service
of a corporation or a commercial entrepreneur." 114
81. Laws banning exposure of female breasts do so in part because of
the reaction such exposure would
supposedly cause in men. Such laws are written entirely from the male
point of view, and ignore the point of view of
women, who may want to go topfree for their own comfort.
82. By refusing to accept the need to "protect" themselves from men by
covering their bodies, women gain
power, and shift the burden of responsible behavior to men, where it
rightfully belongs.
Reena Glazer notes that "male power is perpetuated by regarding women
as objects that men act and react
to rather than as actors themselves. . . . their entire worth is
derived from the reaction they can induce from men. In
order to maintain the patriarchal system, men must determine when and
where this arousal is allowed to take place.
In this way, the (heterosexual) male myth of a woman's breasts has
been codified into law. Because women are the
sexual objects and property of men, it follows that what might arouse
men can only be displayed when men want to
be aroused." This emphasis on women as temptresses "shifts the burden
of responsibility from men to women;
because women provoke uncontrollable urges in males, society excuses
male behavior and blames the victim for
whatever happens. . . . To sanction the concept that men have
uncontrollable urges implies that violence against
women is inevitable." 115
83. Patriarchal laws strip women of the right to control their own
bodies, but there have always been
"exceptions" to obscenity laws which permit the use of women's bodies
in consumer seduction. Thus female nudity
is considered inappropriate on the beach, but is ubiquitous in
advertising and pornography.
84. By enforcing arbitrary clothing requirements for women (requiring
them to cover their tops), the
government acts in loco parentis, in the role of a parent. This is
demeaning to women. Like children, they aren't
conceded the ability or right to decide how to dress, much as they
formerly weren't allowed to vote, own property, or
exercise other rights.116
85. The repression of healthy female nudity fuels pornography.
Herbert Muschamp observes: "To object to the nude figure in a general
interest magazine while allowing it
to remain in men's skin magazines is one way of keeping women in their
place." 117
86. Pornography, in turn, limits women's ability to participate in
healthy nude recreation, and to be casually
nude in other ways. Naturism breaks the power of pornography over
women.
As mentioned earlier, in many places it is legal to display Penthouse
on drug-store magazine racks, yet it is
illegal for a woman to publicly bare her breasts to feed an infant.
Pornography seeks "freedom," particularly "freedom of expression." But
an acceptance of pornography
restricts women's capacity to go topfree or nude for their own
enjoyment. It limits the freedom to control their own
bodies, and silences their own freedom of self-expression. Our
pornographic culture has contributed to attitudes
which often discourage women from even trying clothing-optional
recreation, even though Naturism is in many
ways the antithesis of pornography.
87. The fight for freedom should mean civil rights for women--not
license for pornographers.
88. Clothing fashions and legal requirements have historically
contributed to the repression of women.118
For example, in the mid-nineteenth century, a tiny waist was
considered a sign of beauty, and, in order to
achieve this standard, women bound themselves into corsets designed to
constrict the stomach (and other internal
organs) inward and upward, creating the appearance of a tiny middle.
In addition, women wore up to fifteen layers
of petticoats and crinolines under their floor-length skirts. In the
latter half of the century the wire hoop and springlike
bustle were also added for the appearance of fullness. The weight of
this assemblage came close to 20 pounds.
We now know that many of the physical characteristics associated with
the "frail sex" resulted from such restrictive
clothing, including "bird-like" appetites, a tendency to fainting
spells, and reduced physical activity. Thorstein
Veblen has observed that "the corset is in economic theory
substantially [an instrument of] mu tilation for the
purpose of lowering the subject's vitality and rendering her
personally and obviously unfit for work." A variety of
respiratory and reproductive ailments (including frequent
miscarriages) from which women once suffered have been
directly linked to the unhealthy dictates of the "hourglass" fashion.
Many of the associations of female frailty which
have their roots in the nineteenth century remain with us today,
though they are now unsubstantiated.119
Corsets and, in modern times, cosmetic breast surgery also damage the
internal physiology of the breasts,
often eliminating the capacity to breast-feed.120
89. Naturism defies relationships based on a balance of power, and is
thus consistent with contemporary
feminism, which seeks to break down power hierarchies.
Naturism is more natural than clothes-compulsiveness.
90. Naturism, as a celebration of the natural human body free of the
artificiality of fashion, is highly
compatible with the ideals of a natural, simple, and environmentally
friendly lifestyle.121
91. As we work for the good of nature, we must also work for the good
and the freedom of our bodies,
especially as they may be integrated with the rest of nature.
As the Quebec Naturist Federation has observed, "Nature is not just
the trees; it is also our bodies." 122
92. The goals of Naturism and environmentalism are often parallel.
Like environmentalism, Naturism
usually seeks to preserve the natural character of landscapes, and
opposes development and commercial
exploitation. The greatest risk to most beaches is not nudity, but
development--the takeover of pristine public areas
by private resorts or hotels.
93. One feels much more a part of a natural setting in the nude than
clothed.123
94. The nudist is far more sensually aware, because nudity enhances
responsiveness and sensory
experience.
95. Clothing cuts us off from the natural world, by inhibiting the
skin's ability to sense the environment. It
in fact distracts from our ability to sense the natural environment,
by artificially irritating the skin.
Paul Ableman writes, "if primitives lost their culture [through being
clothed by missionaries], they also lost
their environment. They lost the sun, the rain, the grass underfoot,
the foliage which brushed their skin as they
moved through forest or jungle, the water of lake, river or sea
slipping past their bodies, above all the ceaseless
communion with the wind. Anyone who has ever spent any time naked
outdoors knows that the play of the elements
over the body produces an ever-changing response that may reach almost
erotic intensity. The skin becomes alive
and responsive and a whole new spectrum of sensation is generated.
Clothe the body and this rich communion is
replaced by mere fortuitous, and often irritating, contact with inert
fabric. It is a huge impoverishment and its
measure can perhaps best be judged by the reluctance of the Indians of
Tierra del Fuego, who live in a climate so
harsh that Darwin observed snow melting on the naked breasts of women,
to adopt protective clothing. They
preferred dermal contact with the environment, hostile though it was,
to the loss of sensation implied by wearing
clothes." 124
96. Clothes-compulsiveness is incompatible with the natural patterns
of nature, as expressed by every other
member of the animal kingdom. Humans are the only species to clothe
themselves.
97. Some psychologists theorize that humans developed clothing, in
part, to set themselves apart from
animals.
Fred Ilfeld and Roger Lauer write: "Man's major goal is
superiority . . . and one way that he strives for it is
through clothing. Not only do clothes protect and decorate, but they
also give status to the wearer, not just with
respect to peers but, more importantly, in relation to man's place in
nature. Clothes make a human being appear less
like an animal and more like a god by concealing his sexual organs."
125 Lawrence Langner adds: "Modern man is a
puritan and not a pagan, and by his clothing has been able to overcome
his feeling of shame in relation to his sex
organs in public, in mixed company. He has done this by transforming
his basic inferiority into a feeling of
superiority, by relating himself to God in whose sexless image he
claims to be made. But take all his clothes off, and
it is plain to see that he is half-god, half-animal. He is playing two
opposing roles which contradict one another, and
the result is confusion." 126
98. The physical barrier of clothing reinforces psychological barriers
separating us from the natural world.
In our clothing-obsessed society, we have distanced ourselves so much
from nature that the sight of our
own natural state is often startling. Allen Ginsberg writes: "Truth
may always surprise a little, because we are
creatures of habit, especially in our hypermechanized,
hyperindustrialized, hypermilitarized society. Any
presentation of nature tends to appear shocking." 127
99. Lifestyles which are incompatible with the natural patterns of
nature (including clothes-obsessiveness)
may be psychological damaging.
Robert Bahr writes: "Nakedness is the natural state of humankind;
clothing imposes a barrier between us
and God, nature, the universe, which serves to dehumanize us all." 128
"Paradoxically," muses Jeremy Seabrook,
"the very presence of the westerners [on nude beaches] in the south is
an expression of some absence in their
everyday lives. After all, whole industries are now devoted to
enabling people 'to get away from it all.' What is it,
precisely, they want to get away from, when the iconography of their
culture is promoted globally as the provider of
everything? Many will admit they are looking for something not
available at home (apart from sunshine), something
to do with authenticity, a state of being 'unspoilt'. . . . They have
been stripped of their cultural heritage; and this is
why they have to buy back what ought to be the birthright of all human
beings: secure anchorage in celebrations and
rituals that attend the significant moments of our human lives." 129
100. A Naturist lifestyle is more environmentally responsible. For
example, the option of going nude
during hot, humid weather greatly reduces the need for air
conditioning. Most air conditioners use tremendous
amounts of energy, and many use coolants which are damaging to the
stratospheric ozone layer.
101. Clothing is produced by environmentally irresponsible processes
from environmentally irresponsible
sources.
For instance, synthetics are developed from oil; and cotton is grown
with intensive pesticide-loaded
agricultural techniques. Cotton constitutes half of the world's
textile consumption, and is one of the most pesticidesprayed
crops in the world. Clothing manufacture may also include chlorine
bleaching, chemical dyeing, sealing
with metallic compounds, finishing with resins and formaldehyde, and
electroplating to rust-proof zippers, creating
toxic residues in waste water.130
Accepted clothing requirements are arbitrary and inconsistent.
102. Clothing standards are inconsistent.
For instance, a bikini covering is accepted and even lauded on the
beach, but is restricted elsewhere--in a
department store, for example. Even on the beach, an expensive bikini
is considered acceptable, whereas underwear-
-though it covers the same amount--is not.
103. Clothing requirements are arbitrarily and irrationally based on
gender.131
Until the 1920s, for example, female ankles and shins were considered
erotic in Western cultures, though
men wore knickers. The Japanese considered the back of a woman's neck
erotic, and contemporary Middle Eastern
cultures hide the woman's face. During the 1991 Gulf War, female U.S.
army personnel were forbidden from
wearing t-shirts that bared their arms, since it would offend the
Saudi Arabian allies. Women (but not men) were
forced to wear full army dress in stifling heat.132
104. Today in America, women's breasts are seen as erotic and
unexposable, even though they are
anatomically identical to those of men except for lactation capacity,
and no more or less a sexual organ.
Medical experts note that men's breasts have the same erotic
capacities as women's.133 In addition, studies
suggest that women are as sexually attracted by men's unclothed chests
as men are by women's.134
105. The arbitrary nature of clothing requirements is reflected by
different standards in different cultures.
For example, a review of 190 world societies in 1951 found that,
contrary to the standards of our own
culture, relatively few considered exposure of a women's breasts to be
immodest.135 Julian Robinson observes,
"few cultural groups agree as to which parts of our bodies should be
covered and which parts should be openly
displayed. . . . Indeed, many people find it difficult to comprehend
the logic behind any other mode of clothing and
adornment than what they are currently wearing, finding them all
unnatural or even uncivilized. The thought of
exposing or viewing those parts of the body which they generally keep
covered so frightens or disgusts them that
they call upon their lawmakers to protect them from such a
possibility." 136
106. The arbitrary nature of clothing requirements is reflected by
history. Even in the same culture, taboos
about what parts of the body could or could not be revealed have
changed radically over time.137
For example, until statutes were amended in the 1930s, men were
arrested in the United States for
swimming without a shirt.138 Many of the paintings and sculptures
today considered "classic"--for example,
Michelangelo's Last Judgment--were considered obscene in their day.139
The body taboo reached its height in mid
19th-century England and America, when it was considered improper to
mention almost any detail of the human
body in mixed company. Howard Warren writes: "A woman was allowed to
have head and feet, but between the
neck and ankles only the heart and stomach were permitted mention in
polite society. To expose the ankle (even
though properly stockinged) was considered immodest." 140 On the other
hand, in the early part of the 19th century,
women's clothing fashions in France were so scant that an entire
costume, including shoes, may not have weighed
more than eight ounces.141 Lois M. Gurel writes: "One must remember
that clothing itself is neither moral nor
immoral. It is the breaking of traditions which makes it so." 142
The degree to which women's breasts may be exposed has varied
especially in Western cultures. At various
times in history, women's necklines have plunged so deeply that the
breasts have been more exposed than covered.
Historian Aileen Ribeiro notes that in the early 15th century,
"women's gowns became increasingly tight-fitted over
the bust, some gowns with front openings even revealing the nipples."
Breasts came back on display throughout the
early 17th century, and again in the 18th century, especially in the
Court of King Charles II of England. Ironically,
in this latter period, a respectable woman would never be found in
public with the point of her shoulders
revealed.143
Naturism is growing in acceptance.
107. Most world societies are much more open about nudity than the
United States.144 For example, many
cultures, especially in Europe, are more open to nudity on beaches and
in other recreational settings.
A 1995 poll conducted by a French fashion magazine found that only 7%
of the population was shocked by
the sight of naked breasts on the beach, and that 40% of women had
tried going topfree.145 A 1983 poll found that
27% of French women went topfree on the beach on a regular basis,
while another 6% went nude. A 1982 Harris
poll found that 86% of French citizens favor nudity on public beaches.
146 In Munich and Zurich, topfree and nude
sunbathing are permitted in many parks. A Zurich municipal ordinance
in 1989 officially accepted nudity in
municipal pools after a public opinion poll found only 18% opposition.
147 Two separate polls conducted in the mid-
1980s found that 68% of Germans did not object to nude bathing.148 A
1983 public opinion survey in Greece found
that 65% of the population favored legislative establishment of four
official nudist facilities.149 A 1984 poll found
that 82% of a cross section of Lisbon residents approved of nude
beaches reserved for that purpose.150 In Denmark,
judicious nudity is legal on the seashore except on a few specifically
clothed beaches!151 Sweden's coastline is
nearly as tolerant as Denmark's.152 Beach nudity has also become the
norm in inflation-stricken Romania, where
the average monthly wage is about $65 and a swimsuit costs from $4 to
$20.153 Saunas are ubiquitous in Finland,
with a sauna for every 3.5 inhabitants, and are always used nude,
commonly in mixed company.154
108. Participation in nudist organizations is high in other parts of
the world.
In Holland, 1 in 422 members of the population is a dues-paying
nudist. In Switzerland, the number is 1 in
519; in France, 1 in 630; in Belgium, 1 in 890; in New Zealand, 1 in
1250; in the U.K., 1 in 2784; in Englishspeaking
Canada, 1 in 5200; and in the U.S., 1 in 6856.155 According to a
French survey, one in ten members of the
nation's population have tried nudism at least once, and an equal
number are ready to give it a try.156
109. Naturist vacations are a significant part of the tourist trade in
many countries.
As of 1983, about 2 million people vacationed at French Naturist clubs
and resorts each year.157 Before its
devastating fragmentation and civil war, more than one hundred
thousand tourists visited Yugoslavian nudist camps
and resorts every summer.158 According to the president of the
Naturism and Camping Department of Yugoslav
Tourism, Naturist vacations in 1984 accounted for 25% of the foreign
tourism income.159 And while American
travel brochures make almost no mention at all of nude or topfree
beaches in other countries--essentially lying to
vacationers--foreign travel agencies offer opulent, uncensored
brochures, and openly advertise and promote Naturist
resorts.160
110. Nudity is much more common in foreign media.
For example, one of Brazil's most popular T.V. shows, "Pantanal," has
featured frequent nudity; a survey
conducted by the local newspaper found that 83% of viewers were
"comfortable" with the nude scenes. A University
of Sao Paulo survey in June 1990 counted 1,145 dis plays of nudity in
one week of television.161
111. Public nudity, including clothing-optional recreation, enjoys
growing acceptance in North America.
A 1983 Gallup poll revealed that 72% of Americans don't think
designated clothing-optional beaches
should be against the law, and 39% agreed that such areas should be
set aside by the government. One third said
they might try going to one. Fourteen percent said they'd already
tried coed nude recreation.162 A 1985 Roper Poll
agreed, reporting that 18% of all Americans--including 27% of those
age 18-28, and 24% of college-educated
Americans--had already gone swimming in the nude with a group that
included members of the other sex; other
studies suggest these numbers are on the increase.163 A Psychology
Today study found that 28% of couples under
the age of 35 swim in the nude together, 24% of couples age 35-49, and
9% of couples 50 or older, and that such
activities tended to correspond to a higher level of satisfaction in
the marriage.164 A 1990 Martini and Rossi poll
reported that 35% of Americans would "bare it all" on a nude beach.165
A 1986 poll conducted by People Weekly
asked people how guilty they would feel if they engaged in any of 51
activities, rating their probable guilt on a scale
of 1 to 10, where 10 represented the greatest feeling of guilt. Nude
sunbathing came in second to last with a rating of
2.76, behind not voting (3.07), swearing (3.34), smoking (3.38), and
overeating (4.43).166
In 1991, visitation at Wreck Beach, British Columbia on a nice day was
estimated at 15,000, and 90,000
beach users were recorded in one month on a single access trail.167 A
survey conducted by West Area Park Staff
revealed that half of those visitors go nude. When that option was
threatened in 1991, more than 10,000 people sent
letters or signed petitions to protect the beach's clothing-optional
status.168
Given the opportunity and license to do so, women do take advantage of
the option of going topfree.
During the 1984 Olympics in L.A., Police decided not to arrest
European women who went topfree on local
beaches. American wo men, noting the double standard, took their tops
off too, and feigned inability to understand
English when told to cover up. Police called it "taking advantage of
the relaxed rule," 169 though it should more
accurately be considered "taking advantage of a more civilized
custom."
112. Membership in nudist organizations is growing rapidly.
Membership in the American Association for Nude Recreation, for
example, topped 40,000 in 1992, up
15,000 in just five years!170 By 1995, the number had climbed past
46,000. According to a study commissioned by
the Trade Association for Nude Recreation, participation in nudism is
currently growing by about 20% per year.171
113. The tourism industry is discovering that it is in their economic
best interests to accept clothingoptional
recreation.
When it became a favorite vacation spot for Europeans in the
mid-1980s, Miami Beach began permitting
G-string swimsuits on its beaches, and ceased enforcing its ordinance
against topfree swimming and sunning.172
Dade County is the only county in Florida that experienced an increase
of tourism in 1991, a year of deep recession.
All other counties, and Disney World, had significant losses in
tourism. 173 Nikki Grossman, director of the Ft.
Lauderdale Convention and Visitors' Bureau, acknowledges that
"requests for nude or top-free beaches rank among
the top five priorities of international conventioneers," 174 and
Fodor's Travel Guide has observed that "nudism" is
"tourism's fastest growing sector." 175 Nudism, in the United States,
brings in about $120 million per year in direct
revenues alone.176
Constitutional support for Naturism. 177
114. In a free society such as the United States, one's lifestyle
should not be dictated by anyone else
(majority or otherwise), especially if that lifestyle does not
infringe on anyone else's rights.
In the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "Our Constitution is
designed to maximize individual
freedom within a framework of ordered liberty." 178
115. The Constitution was, in fact, written to protect the rights of
minority points of view. This principle
alone should justify the right to recreate peacefully in the nude
without government interference.
Justice William O. Douglas, for a unanimous court in 1972, wrote:
"These amenities have dignified the
right of dissent and have honored the right to be nonconformists and
the right to defy submissiveness. They have
encouraged lives of high spirits rather than hushed, suffocating
silence." 179
116. The Constitution has been interpreted to protect individual
freedoms except where they are overridden
by a "compelling state interest." It is never the responsibility of
individuals to justify their freedoms. It is rather the
responsibility of government to justify any restriction of freedom.
Justice Douglas enumerated three levels of rights: "First is the
autonomous control over the development
and expression of one's intellect, interests, tastes, and personality.
Second is freedom of choice in the basic decisions
of one's life respecting marriage, divorce, procreation,
contraception, and the education and upbringing of children.
Third is the freedom to care for one's health and person, freedom from
bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to
walk, stroll, or loaf." 180 Douglas would permit no state restriction
of the first level of freedom; only narrow
restrictions on the second; and in the third, "regulation on a showing
of 'compelling state interest.'"
117. Naturism has always claimed that nudity offers "freedom from
bodily restraints." Such freedoms may
only be restricted in the case of "compelling state interest;" if none
can be shown, the restriction is invalid.
Unfortunately, though the courts have "recognized as a protectible, if
minor interest . . . an individual right
concerning one's own appearance and lifestyle," especially where
supported by tradition and custom, in the case of
public nudity such protection is not "fundamental" or directly
"constitutional" 181 and thus can be overruled or
limited by other considerations, such as environmental concerns182 or
"community standards." 183 Often the
reference is to moral principles. These can usually be shown to be
"overbroad" by constitutional standards, because
they prohibit innocent behavior (such as skinnydipping) along with
behavior of legitimate government concern
(such as lewd conduct).184
118. The Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted to protect the
right of individuals to associate with
others of similar philosophy, and also to raise their children in the
context of a particular philosophy. This principle
protects the right of nudist families to associate and recreate in the
nude.
119. The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of
expression. This protects every other form of
clothing, and should protect the right not to wear clothing as well.
120. Recent court decisions in Florida, New York, and elsewhere have
upheld nudity as part of the
expression of free speech.185
Unfortunately, the courts have consistently concluded that mere nudity
per se (for example, nude
sunbathing on a public beach), without being combined with some other
protected form of expression, is not
protected as free speech under the first amendment.186 The courts have
distinguished between protected First
Amendment beliefs and actual conduct based on those beliefs, arguing
that going nude on a beach is "conduct"
rather than merely the natural state of a human being.187
121. The "body language" of the nude human form has extraordinary
symbolic and communicative power
which should be protected by the First Amendment.
Examples may be seen in painting, photography, sculpture, drama,
cinema, and other visual forms of
communication throughout history.188
122. The Supreme Court has ruled that people can't be forced to
communicate ideas they oppose (for
example, saying the Pledge of Allegiance). It has also ruled that
clothes can be a protected form of free speech (for
instance, students and public employees had the right to wear black
armbands to protest the Vietnam War). It is
unconstitutional to force Naturists to express conformity to ideas of
modesty and body shame that they disagree
with, by forcing them to wear swimsuits at the beach.
As attorney Eleanor Fink says, "If people are allowed to wear the
clothes of [Nazis], should they not also
be allowed to wear the clothing of the Creator?" 189
123. The courts have thus far permitted the publishers of pornography
to express attitudes which are
exploitative of women, on the grounds that this is protected free
speech; but it has been unsuitably reluctant to grant
the same protection to the natural expression of body freedom through
casual, non-exploitative nudity on the beach.
124. Clothing is both publicly expressive and privately symbolic,
connoting identity in a particular cultural
group. Restricting the state of dress of nudists is no less
restrictive than prohibiting any other cultural group from
wearing the clothing particular to their group. Preventing nudists
from going nude is equivalent to preventing a
person of Scottish descent from wearing the family colors, or
preventing a priest from wearing his robes.
125. With the emergence of national organizations promoting nudism as
a doctrine, nude recreation may
eventually come to be seen as a protected medium of speech expressing
that doctrine, and as an example of
protected free association.190
126. The Ninth Amendment makes it clear that no freedoms shall be
denied that are not specifically
prohibited.191 Thus, mere nudity is not illegal except where there are
specific laws that prohibit it.
Most laws prohibit only lewd conduct, not nudity per se; and there is
in fact no universal legal prohibition
against nudity on public land.
127. Many prohibitions against nudity stem, historically, from the
political climate of the early Christian
church.192 Even today, much of the objection to nudism is based on
religious principles. The constitutional
separation of church and state should make this an invalid argument.
128. Extensive legal precedent suggests that laws requiring women, but
not men, to conceal their breasts
are sexist, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.193
For example, in 1992, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's
highest court, unanimously overturned
the conviction of two women found guilty of exposing their breasts in
public. The ruling held that the state's antinudity
law was intended to apply only to lewd and lascivious behavior, not to
"non-commercial, perhaps accidental,
and certainly not lewd, exposure." Herald Price Fahringer, the women's
lawyer, said that the ruling meant that
women in New York State could sunbathe topfree or even walk down the
street without a top, as long as this was not
done in a lewd manner, or for such purposes as prostitution. Judge
Vito Titone pointed out that women sunbathe
topfree in many European countries, adding: "To the extent that many
in our society may regard the uncovered
female breast with a prurient interest that is not similarly aroused
by the male equivalent, that perception cannot
serve as a justification for different treatment because it is itself
a suspect cultural artifact rooted in centuries of
prejudice and bias toward women." 194 This ruling, however, is just
one of many statutes and legal precedents
nationwide that uphold the position that breast exposure is not
inherently indecent behavior.195
Additional legal support for Naturism.196
129. Case history demonstrates that laws requiring women to cover
their breasts are not justified by cultural
prejudices and preconceptions.197
130. Laws requiring women, but not men, to cover their breasts are
written entirely from a male
perspective, assuming that men's bodies are natural and normal, and
that women's bodies must be covered because
they are different.
Reena Glazer observes that "under sameness theory, women can get equal
treatment only to the extent that
they are the same as men." 198 Physical differences among the races do
not justify discrimination, and neither
should physical differences between the sexes.
131. Laws requiring women to cover their breasts are not justified by
claims that women's bodies are
significantly different from men's; nor by inaccurate claims that
breasts are sex organs; nor by the fact that breasts
may play a role in sex or sex play; nor by the fact that breasts are
prominent secondary sex characteristics.
It can't be argued that women have breasts and men don't, because both
do; nor can it be argued that
women have larger, often protruding breasts, because many women are
flat-chested while many men have large
breasts. Breasts are not sex organs, for they are not essential to
reproduction, and in fact have nothing to do with it.
A woman with no breasts can have a baby. Breasts serve the
physiological function of nourishing a baby--but this is
a maternal function, not a sexual one. Breasts may play a role in sex
play, but other body parts do too, and are not
censured--particularly the hands, and the mouth (which, incidentally,
is veiled by Shi'ite Moslems, partly for that
very reason, though only on women). And while breasts are secondary
sex characteristics, so are beards, which are
not restricted on men.
132. Mere nudity is not in itself lewd or "indecent exposure," a
distinction upheld by extensive legal
precedent nationwide.199
133. Mere nudity cannot be offensive or immoral "conduct"--for it is
not conduct at all, but merely the
natural state of a human being.
It should be no less legitimate to be in this natural human state than
to be clothed. One's ethnicity is also a
natural state of being, and discrimination on this basis is illegal.
It should be equally illegal to discriminate on the
basis of appearing in the natural state common to all humanity.
134. Given the challenge of defining modesty standards, which are by
nature ambiguous, legislators have
often found it to be more complicated to prohibit nudity than to
sanction it.
For examp le, in the local anti-nudity legislation of St. John's
County, Florida, we find this painstakingly
elaborate definition of "buttocks:" "The area at the rear of the human
body (sometimes referred to as the gluteus
maximus) which lies between two imaginary straight lines running
parallel to the ground when a person is standing,
the first or top such line being a half-inch below the top of the
vertical cleavage of the nates (i.e., the prominence
formed by the muscles running from the back of the hip to the back of
the leg) and the second or bottom such line
being a half-inch above the lowest point of the curvature of the
fleshy protuberance (sometimes referred to as the
gluteal fold), and between two imaginary straight lines, one on each
side of the body (the 'outside lines'), which
outside lines are perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal
lines described above, and which perpendicular
outside lines pass through the outermost point(s) at which each nate
meets the outer side of each leg.
Notwithstanding the above, buttocks shall not include the leg, the
hamstring muscle below the gluteal fold, the
tensor fasciae latae muscles, or any of the above described portion of
the human body that is between either (i) the
left inside perpendicular line and the left outside perpendicular line
or (ii) the right inside perpendicular line and the
right outside perpendicular line. For the purpose of the previous
sentence, the left inside perpendicular line shall be
an imaginary straight line on the left side of the anus (i) that is
perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal
lines described above and (ii) that is one third of the distance from
the anus to the left outside line. (The above
description can generally be described as covering one third of the
buttocks centered over the cleavage for the length
of the cleavage.)" 200
135. A large portion of state and local government anti-nudity
regulations have been legislated by
individual high officials or small groups, without public review. This
is undemocratic and contrary to the principle
of due process.
Florida, for example, closed most of its nude beaches in 1983 without
public review.
136. By extensive legal precedent, it is unquestionably legal to be
nude in private, on private property.
137. Many state or local governments have also explicitly legislated
the right to be nude in designated
public areas, such as legally-sanctioned nude beaches.
Legal nude beaches are rare but not non-existent in North America.
British Columbia, for example,
currently has one legally sanctioned nude beach, and Oregon has two.
138. There is no universal federal prohibition against nudity on
public land. In general, public land agencies
view nude recreation--conducted with discretion and sensitivity to the
varying values of others--as "legitimate
activity." 201
Many state and local governments (notably Oregon, Vermont, and the
California Department of Recreation
and Parks) have followed the federal policy as well, without conflict.
William Penn Mott, a former Director of the National Park Service,
wrote: "NPS must consciously seek to
respect and accommodate wide ranging differences among visitors and
professional colleagues in lifestyles and
values with sympathy, dignity, and tolerance. I believe that parks are
a place where the human spirit is more free,
more capable of permitting people to be themselves, closer to a
oneness with universal truths about humankind and
about our relationship to nature and the sacred truths by which we
live. . . . I believe it is too easy for government
employees--all of us--to think there is only one way to enjoy and use
the parks and that when the visitor enters 'our
parks' they must 'do it our way.'" 202
139. The nude use of most federal lands is, in fact, constitutional
because there is no universal federal law
prohibiting it. The Ninth Amendment specifically says that no freedoms
shall be denied which are not specifically
prohibited.203
140. The mandate of public land agencies such as the U.S. Forest
Service provide for diversity of
recreation. Historically, provisions have been made even for extreme
minority forms of recreation. Recreational
diversity ought to also include provisions for nude recreation.
A 1983 Gallup poll found that 14% of Americans occasionally enjoyed
nude recreation.204 How many
activities does 14% of the American public participate in, of any
kind? Surely not hunting, snowmobiling, mountain
biking, or the use of off-road vehicles, all of which have designated
areas set aside for their use!
141. Clothing-optional recreation is less offensive to most people
than many other forms of recreation
which are openly tolerated and even promoted on public land.
A study by Dr. Steven D. Moore of the University of Arizona
demonstrated that encountering nude bathers
on public land is five times more acceptable to the public than
encountering hunters.205
142. Naturists certainly deserve at least as much consideration by
land management agencies as resourcedamaging
activities such as off-road vehicle use.
As Pat O'Brien points out, "avoiding nude people in places where
they're expected to be is easy. That isn't
true when it comes to other sanctioned uses of our public lands and
waterways. The roar and stink of a snowmobile
or other off-road vehicles can't be ignored, and you'd best not
overlook a jetskier in the water near you. Why then is
it so objectionable for us to ask to use a small amount of space on a
non-exclusive basis, in ways that do not pollute
and do not drive others away?" 206
143. The Wilderness Act of 1963 defined wilderness areas as "lands
designated for preservation and
protection in their natural condition." They are to be managed in a
manner that maintains them in as natural a state
as possible. It follows that human should be able to enjoy wilderness
areas in their own most natural state, free from
the artificial constraints of clothing.
144. Public wilderness areas ought to be places where human freedoms,
including nude recreation, are
observed more freely than anywhere else. Wilderness should be our
measure of carefully controlled anarchy, our
refuge free of any but the most necessary intrusions by government
rules and regulations. Do we not go to
wilderness for these very reasons, and would it not be compromised by
undue outside interference, such as
unnecessary clothing regulations?
145. Recreation managers unfortunately often "solve" the issue of nude
recreation, not by managing it, but
by ignoring it.
Thus managers "permit" nudity on remote beaches without facilities or
lifeguards, then point to litter, drug
use, and other problems as a consequence of the nudity rather than the
lack of active management.
146. If public nude recreation can be widely accepted in societies
considered repressive by Americans (for
example, formerly-socialist Yugoslavia, once-communist East Germany,
Orthodox Greece, or Catholic France), it
ought to be tolerated in democratic Europe and in America, "the land
of the free." 207
Lee Baxandall has reported that "almost every town [on East Germany's
coast] has an FKK [nude] beach,
some 90 sites serving 200,000 campers/lodgers annually; more FKK than
textile beaches. A GDR poll found 57% of
the population approving of nude recreation, 30% had no opinion, and
only 13% opposed." 208 Unfortunately, with
the reunification of Germany, the West has exported to the East both
pornography and beach restrictions: now that
East Germany is "free," many of its beaches aren't. A June 1992 UPI
dispatch from Ahlbeck noted that "the
controversy stems from the introduction of western German-style
regulations on traditionally nude eastern German
beaches." 209 Ironically, authority for the new prohibitions of nudity
stems from a Nazi-era regulation carrying the
signature of Heinrich Himmler.210
147. Anti-nudity laws are demeaning because they replace individual
responsibility with state control.
148. It is inappropriate to use police resources to crack down on
peaceful bathers at a beach simply because
they are nude, while taking valuable resources away from other more
urgent needs.
149. It is a cruel reversal of justice when the law frowns on innocent
skinnydippers, while gawkers on the
fringe of the nude beach, who pervert and fetishize the body, are
accepted as "normal."
Historical support for Naturism.
150. Social nudity is part of a long historical tradition.211 Recent
Western civilization stands almost alone,
in the entire known history of humanity, in its repressive code
against nudity.
151. Nudity was commonplace in the ancient Greek civilization,
especially for men.212
By the Classical Period of ancient Greece, nude exercise and athletic
competition had become part of the
way of life for Greek men, and a practice which separated "modern"
Greeks both from other, "barbarian" cultures
and from their own past. The original Olympic games were conducted in
the nude. Plato described nudity in exercise
as a practical, useful, and rational innovation; Thucydides promoted
it as simpler, freer, and more democratic, a
cultural distinction between the Greek soldier who must be in shape,
lean and muscular, not portly and prosperous,
and the "barbarians" who announced their status and wealth by wearing
expensive garments that gave a false
impression of elegance and authority.213
152. Old Testament ceremonial washings, including baptism, were
performed in the nude.214 Christ, too,
was probably baptized naked--as depicted in numerous early works of
art.215
153. Roman citizens, including early Christians, bathed communally in
the nude at the public baths
throughout most of the second through the fourth centuries. Nudity was
also common during this period in other
parts of ancient Roman society.
154. The writings of early Christians such as Irenaeus and Tertullian
make it clear that they had no ethical
reservations about communal nudity.216
Christian historian Roy Bowen Ward notes that "Christian Morality did
not originally preclude nudity. . . .
There is a tendency to read history backward and assume that early
Christians thought the same way mainstream
Christians do today. We attribute the present to the past." 217
155. For the first several centuries of Christianity, it was the
custom to baptize men, women, and children
together nude. This ritual played a very significant role in the early
church. The accounts are numerous and
detailed.218
Margaret Miles notes that "naked baptism was observed as one of the
two essential elements in Chris tian
initiation, along with the invocation of the Trinity. . . . In the
fourth century instructions for baptism throughout the
Roman Empire stipulated naked baptism without any suggestion of
innovation or change from earlier practices." 219
A typical historical account comes from Cyril of Jerusalem, bishop of
Jerusalem from A.D. 387 to 417:
"Immediately, then, upon entering, you remove your tunics. . . . You
are now stripped and naked, in this also
imitating Christ despoiled of His garments on His Cross, He Who by His
nakedness despoiled the principalities and
powers, and fearlessly triumphed over them on the Cross." After
baptism, and clothed in white albs, St. Cyril would
say: "How wonderful! You were naked before the eyes of all and were
not ashamed! Truly you bore the image of
the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden and was not
ashamed." 220 J.C. Cunningham notes that "there
is nothing in the present rubrics of the Roman rite against doing this
today. In fact, in the Eastern rites the rubrics
even state the option of nude adult baptism." 221
156. Nudity was common and accepted in pre-medieval (circa 6th
century) society, especially in places like
Great Britain, which had been "barbarian" lands only a few hundred
years before.222
E.T. Renbourn notes that nudity was widespread throughout Ancient
Britain and northern Europe, in spite
of the climate. Even as late as the 17th century, travellers such as
Coryat and Fynes Moryson found the Irish people
living nude or semi -nude indoors. He writes that Moryson, in his
Itinery (circa early 17th century), found Irish
gentlewomen "prepared to receive visitors and even strangers indoors
when completely unencumbered by
clothing." 223
157. Nudity was fairly common in medieval and renaissance society,
especially in the public baths and
within the family setting.224
Havelock Ellis records that "in daily life . . . a considerable degree
of nakedness was tolerated during
medieval times. This was notably so in the public baths, frequented by
men and women together." 225 Lawrence
Wright observes that nudity was common in the home, too: "The communal
tub had . . . one good reason; the good
reason was the physical difficulty of providing hot water. No modern
householder who . . . has bailed out and
carried away some 30 gallons of water, weighing 300 lb., will
underrate the labour involved. The whole family and
their guests would bathe together while the water was hot. . . . Ideas
of propriety were different from ours, the whole
household and the guests shared the one and only sleeping apartment,
and wore no night-clothes until the sixteenth
century. It was not necessarily rude to be nude."226
The high-ranking nobles of Edward IV's court were permitted by law to
d isplay their naked genitals below
a short tunic, and contemporary reports indicate that they did so.
Chaucer commented on the use of this fashion in
The Parson's Tale, written about 1400. Many men's garments, he wrote,
were so short they "covere nat the shameful
membres of man." 227 Between the 14th and mid -17th centuries, and
especially during the reign of Louis XIV,
women would often leave their bodices loose and open or even entirely
undone, exposing the nipple or even the
whole of the breasts, a practice confirmed by numerous historical
accounts.228 The Venetian ambassador, writing in
1617, described Queen Anne of Denmark as wearing a dress which
displayed her bosom "bare down to the pit of the
stomach." Aileen Ribeiro writes that in the early 15th century,
"women's gowns became increasingly tight-fitting
over the bust, some gowns with front openings even revealing the
nipples. . . . In 1445 Guillaume Jouvenal des
Ursins became Chancellor of France and his brother, an ecclesiastic,
wrote to him urging him to tell the king that he
should not allow the ladies of his household to wear gowns with front
openings that revealed their breasts and
nipples." 229
158. Even in the Victorian era, before the invention of bathing suits,
swimming nude in the ocean was
commonplace; and music halls often featured nude models as living
"sculpture." 230
159. Few people realize that swimsuits, as we know them today, are a
relatively recent concept. The idea of
wearing special clothing to swim in is barely a century old.
160. Skinnydipping, in the local river or farm pond, is well-
documented as an important historical part of
our national heritage.
Skinnydipping and outdoor nudity appear in the writings of Walt
Whitman, Mark Twain, William Allen
White, Lincoln Steffens, William Styron, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Herman
Melville, James Michener, and Henry
Miller, among many others, and in the depictions of Norman Rockwell,
Rockwell Kent, Andrew Wyeth, Thomas
Eakins, John Sloane, and Grant Wood.
161. Many YMCA, college, and high school male-only pools or swimming
classes were historically
"swimsuit-optional" or nude-only until federally-mandated "equal
access" athletic programs (for the sake of women)
were instituted in the mid 1970s.231
162. Today, there are still public locations where nudity is, by local
tradition or custom, the accepted
practice.
Nudity is the norm, for instance, in natural primitive hot springs and
on nude beaches; and, almost
universally, for models in art classes.
163. The few officially sanctioned nude beaches in the U.S. (for
example, Rooster Rock State Park,
Oregon) and Canada (Wreck Beach, British Columbia)--and most of the
unofficial beaches as well--have existed for
decades without significant problems.232
164. Many highly respected people, historical and contemporary, have
espoused and/or participated in
Naturism to some degree.
Benjamin Franklin took daily naked "air baths." 233 So did Henry David
Thoreau, who was also a frequent
skinnydipper.234 Alexander Graham Bell was a skinnydipper and nude
sunbather.235 George Bernard Shaw, Walt
Whitman, Eugene O'Neill, and painter Thomas Eakins argued in favor of
social nudity.236
President John Quincy Adams was a regular skinnydipper. According to
reports, "each morning he got up
before dawn, walked across the White House lawn to the Potomac River,
took off his clothes and swam in the nude.
Then he returned to the White House to have breakfast, read the Bible
and run the country." 237 President Theodore
Roosevelt frequently swam nude in Rock Creek Park in Washington, once
skinny-dipping with the French diplomat,
Jules Jusserand.238 President Lyndon Johnson occasionally swam nude
with guests in the white house pool,
including evangelist Billy Graham. 239 Senator Edward Kennedy has been
photographed skinnydipping at public
beaches in Florida. At the White House of his brother, John F.
Kennedy, nudity had been common around the White
House pool.240 Many U.S. congressmen enjoy nude recreation, albeit
segregated: U.S. Senate members may use the
Russell Senate Office Building Pool in the nude (the few female
Senators make appointments to assure there won't
be males on hand), and Representatives may use a clothing-optional
steam room, where President Bush was said by
Newsweek to hang out sans towel with his buddies. Congressmen also
sunbathed nude on the Speaker's Porch until
one day in 1973 when Rep. Patricia Schroeder wandered into the
gathering inadvertently.241
Billionaire insurance man John D. MacArthur frequently went
skinnydipping, and left a beach to the state
of Florida, intending that a portion be designated clothing-optional
(a wish that has been spurned); word has it that
MacArthur went skinnydipping with Walt Disney at this beach in the
late 1960s.242 World Bank president and
former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and American Civil
Liberties Union founder Roger Baldwin,
both have been regular skinnydippers.243 Charles F. Richter, the co-
inventor of the earthquake measuring system,
was a life -long nudist and Naturist.244 Actress Lynn Redgrave and her
family practice social nudism.245 Actresses
Bridget Fonda and Brigitte Bardot enjoy social nudity.246 The late
actor Gary Merrill advocated nudism.247
Christy Brinkley openly admits to frequenting nude beaches,248 and
Christian singer Amy Grant goes topfree on
foreign beaches while on tour overseas.249 Even the late Dr. Seuss
published approval of a nudist philosophy, in
one of his first books.250
165. Historically, a great many writers and artists have regarded
Naturism, or something close to it, to be
part of the utopian ideal.
R. Martin writes: "Anthropologically, nakedness would seem to be the
best and worst of conditions.
Involuntary stripping to nakedness is defeat or poverty, but willed
nakedness may be a perfect form." 251 Nudity is
also consistent with the Christian utopian concept of heaven, in
which, according to biblical accounts, clothing is not
necessary.
166. Nudity has often been used, historically, as a symbol of protest
or rebellion against oppression.
For example, the early Quakers, in mid-17th century England, often
used nudity as an element of protest.
Historian Elbert Russell notes that "A number of men and women were
arrested and punished for public indecency
because they appeared in public naked 'as a sign.' George Fox and
other leaders defended the practice, when the doer
felt it a religious duty to do so. . . . The suggestion of such a sign
came apparently from Isaiah's walking 'naked and
barefoot three years' (Isaiah 20:2,3)." 252 The Doukhobors, a radical
Christian sect, used nudity as a social protest in
Canada in the early 1900s.253 Paul Ableman records that "In May, 1979,
Emperor Bokassa . . . a minor Central
African tyrant, arrested a large number of children on charges of
sedition and massacred some of them. According to
The Guardian (London) of 18 May, 'Hundreds of women demonstrated naked
outside the prison until the survivors
were released.'" 254
In the 1920s, as part of a widening rebellion against genteel society,
the size of bathing suits began to
diminish. Nude beaches, reaching their height of popularity in the
1970s, are the ultimate result of this process of
social emancipation. The free body movement in general in the 1970s
fit this social and historical pattern. Examples
include casual nudity at Woodstock; "nude-in" demonstrations; and a
record-setting demonstration by Athens,
Georgia university students on March 7, 1974, when more than 1500 went
naked on their college campus. It took
tear gas to make the students dress.255
Historical origins of the repression of nudity.
167. Repressive morality was developed by the state and the Church as
a tool to maintain control over
otherwise free individuals.256
Paul Ableman writes: "A complex civilization has an enormous
investment in differentiated apparel. It is
no accident that one of the first matters that a revolutionary regime
turns its attention to is clothing. The French
Revolution decreed classical grace and simplicity. The Chinese
homogenized clothing. The Ayatollah Khomeini in
Iran returned women to the black chador and so on. . . . Sexual energy
is needed by the authorities of the world to
maintain order. . . . It immediately becomes obvious why the true
obscenity of killing and violence has always been
of less concern to those in power than the pseudo-obscenity of erotic
acts. Death provides no scope for a network of
regulations by which society can be manipulated. . . . But sex is a
permanent fountain of dynamic energy, which can
be tapped for social purposes by regulations concerning marriage,
divorce, adultery, fornication, incest,
homosexuality, bestiality, chastity, promiscuity, decency and so on.
All those who wield power intuitively perceive
that in the last resort their authority derives from the repression,
and regulation, of sexuality, and that free-flowing
sexuality is the biological equivalent of anarchy. All transferrals of
power, all revolutions, are invariably
accompanied by transformations of the regulations governing
sexuality." 257 Seymour Fisher writes: "The
implications of nudity as a way of declaring one's complete freedom
have often elicited strong countermeasures
from those in authority. Nudity is punishable by death in some
cultures. The Roman Catholic church has taught in
convent schools that it is sinful to expose your body even to your own
eyes. The wearing of clothes represents a
form of submission to prevailing mores. It is like putting on a
'citizen's uniform' and agreeing to play the game." 258
168. Repressive morality has often sought to control not only nudity,
but sexuality in general.
Margaret Miles observes that "the regulation of sexuality was a major
power issue in the fourth-century
Christian churches. Regulation of sexual practices was a way to inject
the authority of church laws and leaders into
the intimate and daily relationships of Christians. Analyzing the
canons of the Council of Gangra in AD 309,
[Samuel] Laeuchli found that 46 percent of the eighty-one canons were
concerned with sexual relationships and
practices." 259 Philip Yancey notes that "between the third and tenth
centuries, church authorities issued edicts
forbidding sex on Saturdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and also during
the 40-day fast periods before Easter,
Christmas, and Whitsuntide--all for religious reasons. They kept
adding feast days and days of the apostles to the
proscription, as well as the days of female impurity, until it reached
the point that, as Yale historian John Boswell
has estimated, only 44 days a year remained available for marital sex.
Human nature being what it is, the church's
proscriptions were enthusiastically ignored." 260 Don Mackenzie notes
that Christ and the very earliest church, in
contrast, emphasized a message of freedom--"from demonic powers, from
tyrannical governments, from fate. . . .
[and] a prevailing commitment to the separation of secular and
ecclesiastical power. . . . [The Church] adopted
asceticism, not in obedience to its founder's teachings but as a bid
for support in the face of competition, offering
spiritual solace to people whose material world (the Roman Empire) was
collapsing. Once the Church was officially
recognized, it promptly discarded Christ's dedication to poverty, but
it clung tightly to sexual asceticism as a
disciplinary tool in a disintegrating society." 261
169. Repression of nudity is still used today as a means to further a
repressive political agenda.
Regarding nude beaches, Patrick Buchanan, on PBS's "McLaughlin
Report," said, "I think we ought to let
the liberals do it, if they want to do it. Then take photographs and
use them in attack ads." 262 The right-wing
Christian Coalition uses blanket attacks on mere nudity and other
matters of "morality" to rally support for their
cause. Their method, as described by ACLU Executive Director Ira
Glasser, is "to prey upon the fears of millions of
people who are all too willing to believe that sacrificing personal
liberty will help solve our nation's problems." 263
A Missouri legislator, in 1993, introduced a bill that would have made
virtually all public nudity--and even some
nudity in the home--a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison!
This bill was fortunately defeated, though by a
narrow margin. Similar bills have been proposed all over the country
in recent years.264
170. Much of the origin of repressive attitudes toward nudity may be
traced to the political setting of the
early church and church-state, though not the teachings of Christ
Himself.
The earliest writings of the Christian church show no evidence of the
negative attitude toward sexuality and
nudity which so characterize later years. This negative attitude grew
slowly among some segments of the faith, but
was by no means universal. For some, asceticism represented a means of
remaining pure for the impending return of
Christ. For others, it was a reaction against the hedonism and
homosexuality common in Greek culture, or against
the sexual excesses of the dying Roman Empire.265 For some, it grew
out of a mixture of Christianity with the
legalism of traditional Judaism; and for many, it grew out of
preexisting personal and cultural prejudices. Clement of
Alexandria, in the late 2nd century, and Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus,
in the mid 3rd century, both condemned the
nudity common in Roman public baths primarily because it offended
their personal ideas of female modesty. (In the
same era, Tertullian was condemning women as the "gateway of the
Devil.") Jerome, in the late 4th and early 5th
centuries, also condemned nude bathing, especially for women. He
considered pregnant women revolting, and felt
that virgins should blush at the very idea of seeing themselves naked.
On the other hand, in the same period,
Jovinianus, a Christian monk, campaigned actively in favor of the
public baths. In the end, the decisive actor in the
controversy was Augustine. He was a firm believer in the doctrine,
introduced long after Christ, that the body and
sexuality are inherently sinful. (He applied this doctrine to women's
bodies and sexuality especially aggressively.)
Augustine was a shrewd politician. By aligning himself closely with
the imperial court at the beginning of the 5th
century, he effectively ensured that his version of Christianity
became the dominant one. By the Dark Ages, with the
collapse of the Roman Empire, the Church became the last remnant of
Western civilization, with a monopoly on
education, and tremendous control over ideas. Thus Augustine's
heritage of anti-sexuality became the predominant
force in Christianity, even though such ideas are impossible to find
in the teachings of Christ Himself.266
171. The aversion of early Christian church leaders to casual nudity
was due in part to an association of
nudity with paganism and homosexuality in the surrounding cultures.
In many pre-Christian pagan religions, such as those practiced in
western Europe and Great Britain, nudity-
-especially female nudity--was a powerful force, and played an
important role in pagan worship and rituals.267
172. The Church's aversion to nudity derived, in part, from its roots
in the cultures of the ancient Near East,
where nakedness had signified poverty, shame, slavery, humiliation,
and defeat. Naked, bound prisoners were
paraded in the king's victory celebration, and slain enemies were
stripped of clothing and armor.268
173. Before Western civilization, nakedness was a normal element of
life and considered acceptable in
many circumstances. However, as Freud describes in Civilization and
Its Discontents, psychological repression of
the awareness of our natural being was a necessary step in building
civilization, by disciplining the masses into
taking part in vast and self-abdicating social projects.269
Lee Baxandall notes that, by contrast, "the post-industrial, newly
greening era offers fresh options, a chance
to integrate the natural human being with post-industrial values,
technology, and knowledge." 270
174. Nudity has often been censored primarily to avoid the more
difficult task of managing it.271
175. Recreation managers often "permit" nudity on remote beaches
without facilities or lifeguards, then use
nudity as a scapegoat for problems including litter and drug use that
inevitably appear in high-use recreation areas
without active management.
176. One of the greatest challenges faced by clothing-optional beaches
is that their popularity, combined
with their scarcity, leads to intensive use, which in turn conflicts
with environmental and management concerns.
This has been a source of problems at several beaches across the
country, including Sandy Hook in New
Jersey, and Cape Cod National Seashore, which closed its traditionally
nude beach ostensibly for environmental
reasons in the mid 1970s.272
177. The "secondary effects" of an actively managed nude beach have in
actual experience proven to be
less crime, less inappropriate behavior, no drug dealers, an increase
in parking revenues, and an increase in business
in the adjoining commercial area.273
178. Nudity has often been repressed for economic reasons, not because
it was considered immoral.
Bernard Rudofsky writes: "In the 1920s, in some parts of Europe people
used to bathe in public without
feeling the need for a special dress. At the height of summer the
beaches on the Black Sea swarmed with bathers
who had never seen a bathing suit except in newspapers and picture
magazines; their holiday was one of untroubled
simplicity. . . . The idyll came to an end a few years later when
tourism reared its ugly head, and the protests of
foreign visitors led to making bathing suits compulsory." 274 The same
thing has recently happened in the former
East Germany, where traditionally nude beaches are now being
restricted to appease more conservative European
tourists.275
179. We must never forget that for any freedom that is lost, we bear
partial responsibility for letting it be
lost.
In the words of Frederick Douglass: "Find out just what people will
submit to and you have found out the
exact amount of justice and wrong which will be imposed upon
them. . . . The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the
endurance of those who they oppress." 276
Christianity supports Naturism.277
180. Genesis 1:27--The (naked) human body, created by God, in God's
own image, is basically decent, not
inherently impure or sinful. The human body was created by God, and
God can create no evil. It is made in God's
image, and the image of God is entirely pure and good.
181. Genesis 1:31--God saw that everything, including naked Adam and
Eve, was good.
182. Genesis 3:7--Many scholars interpret the wearing of fig leaves as
a continuation and expansion of the
original sin, not a positive moral reaction to it.
Hugh Kilmer explains: "Man wanted to put his life within his own
control rather than God's, so first he took
the power of self-determination (knowledge of good and evil). Next,
finding his body was not within his control, he
controlled it artificially by hiding it. After he was expelled from
paradise, he began to hunt and eat animals; then to
gain complete control over other people, by killing them (the story of
Cain and Abel)." 278
183. Genesis 3:10--Many scholars believe that Adam and Eve's sense of
shame came not from their
nakedness, which God had created and called good, but from their
knowledge of having disobeyed God.
184. An innate, God-given sense of shame related to nakedness is
contradicted by the existence of
numerous indigenous societies in which nudity is the rule and a sense
of shame is totally absent, and by the lack of
shame felt by naked children.
185. Genesis 3:11--It was disobedience that came between Adam and Eve
and God, not nakedness. The
scriptures themselves treat Adam and Eve's nudity as an incidental
issue.
Robert Bahr observes that "when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they grew
ashamed of what they had done
and attempted to hide themselves from God, who was not the least bit
concerned with their nakedness but was
mightily unhappy with their disobedience." 279 Herb Seal notes that
God provided a covering by slaying an
innocent animal: the first prototype of the innocent one slain to act
as a "covering" for sinners.280
186. Genesis 3:21--God made garments of skins for Adam, but the Bible
does not say the state of
nakedness is being condemned. Because of the Fall, Adam and Eve were
no longer in Eden and were thus subject to
the varieties of weather and climate, and God knew they would need
clothes. God loved and cared for them even
after they had sinned.
187. To assume that because God made garments He was condemning nudity
makes as much sense as
concluding that because God made clouds which blot out the sun He was
condemning sunshine.
188. Genesis 9:22-24--Noah was both drunk and naked, but Ham was the
one who was cursed--when he
dishonored his father, by calling attention to Noah's state, and
making light of it.
The shame of Noah's "nakedness" was much more than just being
undressed. It was his dehumanized,
drunken stupor which was shameful. Ham's offense was not merely seeing
his father in this shameful state, but
gossiping about it, effectively destroying Noah's reputation, cultural
status, and authority as a father figure. In the
story, Shem and Japheth were blessed for coming to the defense of
their father's honor. Rather than joining Ham in
his boasting, they reverently covered their father's shame.281
189. Exodus 20:26--The Priest's nakedness was not to be exposed
because it would create dissonance
between his social role, in which he was to be seen as sexually
neutral, and his biological status as a sexual being.
The Priest's costume represented his social role; to be exposed in
that context would be inappropriate and
distracting.282
Rita Poretsky writes: "Personhood, original sexual energy, and
physical nakedness may be either in
synchrony with social institutions or in disharmony. . . . Nakedness
is a nakedness of self in a social context, not just
a nakedness of body." 283 On the other hand, it was quite appropriate
for David to dance essentially naked in public
to celebrate the return of the Ark of the Covenant (II Samuel
6:14-23).
190. Leviticus 18:6-19--Here and throughout the Old Testament and
Torah, the expression "uncover the
nakedness of" (as it is literally translated in the King James
Version) is a euphemism for "have sexual relations
with." The prohibitions do not refer to nudity per se.284
191. I Samuel 19:23-24--Jewish prophets were commonly naked--so
commonly that when Saul stripped off
his clothes and prophesied, no one considered his nakedness
remarkable, but everyone immediately assumed that he
must be a prophet also.
192. II Samuel 6:14-23--King David danced nearly naked in the City of
David to celebrate the return of the
ark, in full view of all the citizens of the city. Michal criticized
his public nudity and was rebuffed.
King David was not strictly naked--he wore a "linen ephod," a sort of
short apron or close-fitting, armless,
outer vest, extending at the most down to the hips. Ephods were part
of the vestments worn by Jewish priests. They
hid nothing.285
193. Isaiah 20:2-3--God directly commanded Isaiah to loose the
sackcloth from his hips, and he went naked
and barefoot for three years. The prophet Micah may have done the same
thing (see Micah 1:8).
194. Song of Solomon repeatedly expresses appreciation for the naked
body.
195. Every Biblical association of nakedness with shame is in
reference to a sin already committed. One
cannot hide from God behind literal or figurative clothing. All stand
naked before God.286
196. Nakedness cannot automatically be equated with sexual sin.
Linking nudity with sexual sin, to the exclusion of all else, makes as
much sense as insisting that fire can
only be connected to the destruction of property and life, and is
therefore immoral. Sin comes not from nakedness,
but from how the state of nakedness is used. Ian Barbour writes: "No
aspect of man is evil in itself, but only in its
misuse. The inherent goodness of the material order, in which man's
being fully participates, is, as we shall see, a
corollary of the doctrine of creation." 287
Pope John Paul II agrees that nudity, in and of itself, is not sinful.
"The human body in itself always has its
own inalienable human dignity," he says. It is only obscene when it is
reduced to "an object of 'enjoyment,' meant
for the gratification of concupiscence itself." 288
197. Nakedness cannot automatically be associated with lust.
It is not reasonable to cover the apples in the marketplace just
because someone might may be tempted by
gluttony, nor is it necessary to ban money because someone might be
overcome by greed. Nor is it reasonable to ban
nudity, simply because an individual might be tempted to lust.
Furthermore, appreciation for the beauty of a member
of the other sex, nude or otherwise, cannot be equated automatically
with lust. Only if desire is added does
appreciation become lust, and therefore sin. Even then, it is the one
who lusts, not the object of lust, who has sinned.
Bathesheba was never rebuked for bathing, but David for lusting (II
Samuel 11:2-12:12). Pope John Paul II writes:
"There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest. If
someone takes advantage of such an occasion to
treat the person as an object of enjoyment (even if his action is
purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of
shamelessness . . . not the other." 289 Margaret Miles observes that
"Nakedness and sexuality or lust were seldom
associated in patristic writings." 290
198. Many historical church leaders have disassociated nudity with
sexual immodesty. St. Thomas
Aquinus, for example, defined an immodest act as one done with a
lustful intention.291 Therefore, someone who
disrobes for the sole purpose of bathing or recreating cannot be
accused of immodesty.
Pope John Paul II writes: "Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple
way be identified with the use of
clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or
partial nakedness. . . . Immodesty is present
only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of
the person, when its aim is to arouse
concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position
of an object for enjoyment. . . . There are certain
objective situations in which even total nudity of the body is not
immodest." 292
199. Through Christ, the Christian is returned spiritually to the same
sinless, shameless state Adam and Eve
enjoyed in Eden (Genesis 2:25). There is no question that their
nakedness was not sinful. When God creates,
nakedness is good. It follows that when God re-creates, nakedness is
also good.
200. The Bible says plainly that sexual immorality is sin. Healthy
Naturism, however, is entirely consistent
for the Christian, who has "crucified the sinful nature with its
passions and desires." (Galatians 5:24)
201. The Bible calls for purity of heart. Anyone who thinks it is
impossible to be pure of heart while nude
is ignorant of the realities of nudism, and anyone who believes that
it is wrong even for the pure of heart to be nude
has fallen into legalism, a vice which St. Paul repeatedly denounces.
293
St. Paul writes: "See to it that no one takes you captive through
hollow and deceptive philosophy, which
depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world
rather than on Christ. . . . Since you died with
Christ to the basic principles of the world, why, as though you still
belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 'Do not
handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!'? These are all destined to perish
with use, because they are based on human
commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of
wisdom, with their self-imposed worship,
their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they
lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
. . . Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe
yourselves with compassion, kindness,
humility, gentleness, and patience." (Colossians 2:8, 20-23; 3:12)
202. Clothes-compulsiveness creates an unwholesome schism between
one's spirit and body. A Christian
morality should deal with the person as a whole, healing both spirit
and body.
203. Nudity has often been used in the Christian tradition as symbolic
of renouncing the world to follow
Christ.
Margaret Miles writes: "In the thirteenth century, Saint Bernard of
Clairvoux popularized the idea of nudity
as symbolic imitation of Christ; it took Saint Francis to act out this
metaphor. Francis announced his betrothal to
Lady Poverty [i.e. his renunciation of material possessions] by
publicly stripping off his clothing and flinging it at
the feet of his protesting father" and the local bishop.294 Several
Christian sects have practiced nudity as part of
their faith, including the German Brethren of the Free Spirit, in the
thirteenth century; the Picards, in fifteenth
century France; and, most famously, the Adamites, in the early
fifteenth century Netherlands.295
204. Many other faiths also support nudity, both historically and in
current practice.
For example, the "Digambar" or "sky-clad" monks of Digambar Jainism
have gone completely naked as
part of their ascetic tradition for 2500 years, though nudity is rare
in the dominant Hindu religion. Many other
(males-only) Hindu religious orders also practice ritualistic nudity
or near-nudity, as they have for hundreds or
thousands of years. Tribal Hindus held an annual nude worship service
attracting 100,000 in Chandragutti, India
until 1987, when it was stopped by the police, in reaction to violence
which had erupted the previous year when
social workers tried to force clothing on the participants.296
Personal experience supports Naturism.
205. One of the most important arguments in support of nudism is
personal experience. Personal
testimonies in favor of nudism are too numerous to mention.297 Based
on my own experience, I find nudists to be
more friendly, open-minded, considerate, respectful, and sharing than
non-nudists in general. Their children are
more active, and healthier, both physically and mentally. None of
these testimonies, of course, compares to personal
experience. A single visit to a nudist park or a nude beach will not
cause permanent harm to anyone. On the other
Anna
should know that the earliest Church leaders accepted nudity as a
natural part of life, and not in the least inconsistent
with the teachings of Christ.
Does that count as one of your references on sex?
9. The practice of nudism is, for nudists, an immensely freeing
experience. In freeing oneself to be nude in
the presence of others, including members of the other sex, the nudist
also gives up all the social baggage that goes
along with the nudity taboo.
Does that count as one of your references on sex?
The same
with men: if you think nature has been unfair to you in the sexual
anatomy sweepstakes, spend some time among the
Naturists. You will learn that every man looks roughly the same--quite
small, that is, and that heroic fixtures are not
just extremely rare, they are deformities."
That's a comment on body acceptance.
to piece together a very imperfect knowledge
of the life-cycle of the two sexes
The word sex again, does that count?
It isn't that nudists are immodest, for, like
non-nudists, they have norms to regulate and control immorality,
sexuality, and embarrassment.
There's the word sexuality, but in a context saying that nudists
control sexuality.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century missionaries and
colonial administrators were blissfully blind to their own religious,
cultural and sexual prejudices,
Again, I wouldn't say a reference on sexuality in the way you are
trying to imply.
Points 29 to 46 are basically about now nudism isn't about sexuality
and indeed clothes can be sexual.
Sorry, the references you give, save for just a few, are not of the
type you suggest they are.
Anna
My husband and I and sometimes my daughter when she visits.
I didn't say it was social nudity.
But it does prove that one can be naked without it being sexual.
Which nudists have been saying for years but which now nudiarist says
is a bunch of BS.
Anna
>
> You know, "Anna", you have really exposed yourself this past week when
> pressed.
Actually you have exposed yourself and your textile mindset regarding
nudity.
Now just admit that nudism isn't for families! At least it's not for
families if what you say is true.
Nudiarist
All positive proof that nudism and sexuality are related. You can't
see the forest for the trees.
Anna
> All positive proof that nudism and sexuality are related. You can't
> see the forest for the trees.
>
> nudiarist
> Diary of a Nudisthttp://www.nudiarist.blogspot.com
Society relates them, that's for sure.
Nudists don't. Well most of them don't. But there are a segment like
you out there who threatens to ruin it for the rest of them.
Nudiarist
It's so simple a child can understand it. Family nudism as espoused by
TNS and AANR is for people of all ages. Some nudist resorts like the
Terra Cotta Inn practice traditional social nudity but do not allow
children. Other nudist resorts like The Grand Barn, which are not in
the AANR and TNS networks, cater to other lifestyle people.
Now you, Anna, are not suited for any of these three examples. Find
another obsession, this one is going nowhere for you.
Anna
> All positive proof that nudism and sexuality are related. You can't
> see the forest for the trees.
>
> nudiarist
> Diary of a Nudisthttp://www.nudiarist.blogspot.com
You know if richard was still alive he would be really arguing against
you right now.
Despite are disagreements regarding public nudity I really respected
that man.
RIP Richard.
Anna
> On Jan 26, 10:06 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > Actually you have exposed yourself and your textile mindset regarding
> > nudity.
>
> > Now just admit that nudism isn't for families! At least it's not for
> > families if what you say is true.
>
> It's so simple a child can understand it. Family nudism as espoused by
> TNS and AANR is for people of all ages.
That's because they claim that nudism isn't sexual.
But you say differently.
Nudiarist
Fucking liar.
What is so difficult about recognizing the clear difference between
sexuality and sexual behavior? It's not rocket science. You're just an
asshole.
AANR and TNS affiliated resorts do not allow sexual behavior, but
nudism/naturism is related to human sexuality.
I know your head is exploding, I just hope it doesn't make too much of
a mess.
Nudiarist
Fucking fucking liar. I did not say that nudism was sexual, I said
clearly and emphatically that nudism and human sexuality were related,
which they are no matter how much you protest.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Have you not an ounce of honesty or
decency?
Dan Abel
<84cf7be7-54c9-44d9...@d16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Nudiarist <nudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:03�pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
[snipped all]
> I know your head is exploding, I just hope it doesn't make too much of
> a mess.
I wouldn't worry. It's completely empty. Nothing to make a mess with.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
James Dale Guckert
> That's because they claim that nudism isn't sexual.
But they do not argue that social nudism is *exclusive* of sexuality.
I have ONLY heard you make that claim.
Only you.
Just you.
And you've never actually taken part.
That kind of puts you on the outside, even as you claim to speak for the
bulk of those on the inside.
Doesn't it.
Yes... it does.
--
JDG
stinso...@hotmail.com
<Affi...@the-grand-barn.com> wrote:
>You better read all past posts of The Little Tribe and see if you
>don't find strong opponents of what you just write above.
You'd do well to re-read it yourself. You can't seem to seperate those
who question you from those who oppose you. You never could. You never
will. A pity, that.
-T.
Dan Abel
stinso...@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
And, of course, TLT (The Little Tribe) was a completely fictitious
organization created by Peter for the sole purpose of assigning all his
imagined "enemies" to, including myself. They were people who had
almost nothing in common, other than asking Peter some hard questions
about how he could spout "family friendly" and "home for swingers" for
the same place (his business). And "An-Anon"? Somebody that *nobody*
agreed with, and yet Peter brings him/her/it up *years* after his last
sighting. I'm beginning to suspect that An-Anon was a creation of Peter.
Dario Western
Nobody is out to 'get you', Peter. If they were, then I'm sure that TGB
would have been closed down yonks ago. The fact that you and your family
are still running it after all these years shows that your so-called
'enemies' don't really care all that much how you run your place - just as
long as there aren't or weren't any kids present when you have your swing
and other adult-orientated events.
Regards,
Dario
"Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dabel-240991....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
Dario Western
OK, let me spell this out for you:
Sex is not inherently bad, because it creates families. Without sex, how
would the human race be able to perpetuate itself? Would you rather that
babies are all created in laboratories in test tubes and petrie dishes,
because you personally do not like sex?
Sex is only bad when it is forced upon another person, or performed upon a
person who is too young to be able to consent and understand the
consequences.
The majority of people, including textiles, see nudism as a means of
extending to and enhancing their sex-lives to some degree. Heck, even my
ex-gf met her fiance at my nudist group nearly 7 years back and they are due
to marry this year. And recently when I advertised to start a young adults
nudist group in the paper, over 75% brought up questions about swinging.
Nudism is for families as well as for adults. Just as long as the parents
don't go bonking each other in front of their kids, what business is it of
yours to tell them what to do?
Seriously, you need to unplug the internet for a time and get out into the
big old world. Take a vacation at a nudist place near you for 6 months. It
would really do you the world of good instead of constantly sitting cooped
at home day in day out. It's not healthy. Shutting yourself off from the
rest of the world for so long eventually leads to mental disturbance as
witnessed in the Australian film 'Bad Boy Bubby' about a mentally deranged
man who lived in an inner-city ghetto dugout with only his incestuous mother
and a cat, and had never ventured outside in the first 35 years of his life.
You seem to want a world where all nudists are eunuchs so they can enjoy the
activity with 100% innocence, or like children whose sexuality has
developed.
Well, I'm sorry to disillusion you but the world don't work that way and it
don't owe you a living. YOU owe yourself and the world a living. Sitting
in front of a computer for hours on end a day scraping up every tiny morsel
of internet stories to do with nudity (and nudism to your credit) is not
living.
Why not go out and smell the roses? The outside world is not as evil as you
might think, despite what some churches rubbish their followers heads with.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best wishes,
Dario Western
"A noble heart embiggens the smallest of men" - Jebediah Springfield
Mobile: (0437) 428-859
Website: http://picasaweb.google.com/westernorama
http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
http://fatpizzaman.blogspot.com
http://www.orkut.com/Main#Profile?uid=2147852057525588972
Groups: http://groups.google.com/group/ausnude
http://groups.google.com/group/brisbane-doctor-who-fan-club
http://groups.google.com/group/Brisbane_Nudists
http://groups.google.com/group/Christiannudist
http://groups.google.com/group/Laissez-Fayre
http://groups.google.com/group/The-Veronicas
http://groups.google.com/group/YoungAussieNudists
"Anna" <annal...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:a27728e7-84d8-4d06...@r5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Anna
wrote:
> Hey Anna,
>
> OK, let me spell this out for you:
>
> Sex is not inherently bad,
Of course not but it must be kept to appropriate times and places.
> Sex is only bad when it is forced upon another person, or performed upon a
> person who is too young to be able to consent and understand the
> consequences.
And if you show sex around people who don't want to see it or around
children.
> The majority of people, including textiles, see nudism as a means of
> extending to and enhancing their sex-lives to some degree.
How has that been working for you?
>Heck, even my
> ex-gf met her fiance at my nudist group nearly 7 years back and they are due
> to marry this year.
So, as long as they didn't go at it at the group. People meet even at
Bible study.
>And recently when I advertised to start a young adults
> nudist group in the paper, over 75% brought up questions about swinging.
And that's a good thing?
> Nudism is for families as well as for adults.
Not if in your words nudism is a means extending to and enhancing
their sex-lives
> Just as long as the parents
> don't go bonking each other in front of their kids, what business is it of
> yours to tell them what to do?
It's the environment they set for the nudist venue. Most nudists
really don't want to be in a sexualized environment, otherwise they
would go to the "adult" clubs.
> You seem to want a world where all nudists are eunuchs so they can enjoy the
> activity with 100% innocence, or like children whose sexuality hasn't
> developed.
I am just talking about restraining themselves while they are at the
nudist venue.
> Well, I'm sorry to disillusion you but the world don't work that way.
I guess nudism is too idyllic for the real world.
Zee
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dario Western
>
> "A noble heart embiggens the smallest of men" - Jebediah Springfield
>
> Mobile: (0437) 428-859
> Website:http://picasaweb.google.com/westernorama
> http://www.youtube.com/user/fatpizzaman
> http://fatpizzaman.blogspot.com
> http://www.orkut.com/Main#Profile?uid=2147852057525588972
>
> Groups:http://groups.google.com/group/ausnude
> http://groups.google.com/group/brisbane-doctor-who-fan-club
> http://groups.google.com/group/Brisbane_Nudists
> http://groups.google.com/group/Christiannudist
> http://groups.google.com/group/Laissez-Fayre
> http://groups.google.com/group/The-Veronicas
> http://groups.google.com/group/YoungAussieNudists
>
>
> news:a27728e7-84d8-4d06...@r5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 6:41 pm, Nudiarist <nudiar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You know, "Anna", you have really exposed yourself this past week when
> > pressed.
>
> Actually you have exposed yourself and your textile mindset regarding
> nudity.
>
> Now just admit that nudism isn't for families! At least it's not for
> families if what you say is true.
Dario.....Anna...is seen as honorable by most decent folks for her
time spent in challenging the nudist and nudist leadership for stating
to the world that nudism is not sexual.....i really do not think you
think it is not sexual so for families and others to be misled is an
abominal wrong committed against society....and Anna is doing a great
service...as we hope govt and other institutions is being monitored
for lies being perpetucated that can harm innocent
people....regards....z
Peter Riden
> On Jan 26, 10:36 am, Nudiarist <nudiar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But really, besides "Anna", I don't personally know of anyone that
> > denies that nudism and sexuality are strongly related.
>
> Wow, Zee did you think that you would ever get someone who claims to
> be a nudist to admit that?
>
> Nudiarist is absolutely one of the large minority who attend nudist
A fast reply on that.
Nudiarist doesn't claim nothing, he tells it the way he feels it ought
to be.
And the majority of people (or large minority as you call it) will
recognize that he says very much what I've been saying all along and,
in promoting functionality, he's doing far more a service for those
who contemplate being fully AT Ease With Nudity when socializing than
you propagating the fallacies of your friend Stephane Deschenes and
company. Maybe only you, "Anna" want to remain fully clothed when
interacting intimately with someone but I strongly feel much better
not being encumbered with clothes when indulging in mutually sharing
ecstatic moments together. With that in mind, like myself, Nudiarist
connects very well with the majority of the public to recognize that
his non theocratic approach of nudism does jell well with sexuality in
as classy a way it can be expressed.
In Friendship & Universality
Peter Riden
http://thegrandbarn.com
http://www.the-worldwide-affiliate-network.com
http://www.myspace.com/peter_riden
http://www.myspace.com/conceptpeterriden
http://ca.youtube.com/user/PeterRiden
{TGB Conceptor}:http://www.the-grand-barn.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The-Grand-Barn
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheGrandBarn
Zee
Peter....Anna has admitted that some folks do agree with our friend
Dan Siegler that simple social nudity is sexual...i have not heard the
nudarist has agreed with that statement but if he has i agree
also....i am just wondering if everyone including Dario is on the same
page but if they arent now would be a great time to
express ...themselves.....regards...bill
Peter Riden
> > {TGB Conceptor}:http://www.the-grand-barn.comhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/The-Grand-...
>
> Peter....Anna has admitted that some folks do agree with our friend
> nudarist has agreed with that statement but if he has i agree
> also....i am just wondering if everyone including Dario is on the same
> page but if they arent now would be a great time to
> express ...themselves.....regards...bill
picture as you and I have expressed often.
That's why, even if he's quite soft with Bare Oaks's owner, I tend to
let him speak up his mind as, very often, he echoes what is being
presented on this side, Bill.
In the case of Dario.. he's more volatile and vacillating. One moment
he's with you the next who knows?
Dario probably intends well but remains somehow naive with the bigger
picture.
With all the years of futile attacks against me and Dario would dare
say it never happened... You and I know better than this, Bill.
Ask ON~Anna if it is not aware of those little idiotic attempts
directed against myself and my livelihood by The Little Tribe... as
few as they are.
They still come in the conversation with the usual inconsequent blurts
but will never dare admitting that Dan Ziegler and many others are
finally echoing what I've said all along.
Dan Ziegler and even Nudiarist and many, many others have recognized
what I've been stating all along and it is that you can't claim this
inane, non-realistic vision that adults in a nude socializing context
will never encounter the possibility of wanting more than mere
socializing, thus inevitably leading to more torrid and voluntary
interacting situations. That Mantra of denying eventualities has
presented by our few critics and antagonists is erroneous and only
serves the more deficient ones. We're here to gather those who know
better.
In Friendship & Universality
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
well Peter that is the way i had everyone figured.....Anna....and
nudarist always argue and it is so boring...it seems she continues to
say that all nudism is potentially sexual and that the idealic nudism
maybe not possible in the real world.....which more or less is
agreeing with you i and Dan....but nudarist want her to accept the
less than idealic.....but you and i know that people has choices to
participate or not....while Dario is exactly the way you say.....he is
torn between his leadship and followers in austrailia and his ability
to move freely from club to club without upsetting that situation and
i can understand....i gotta tell ya....the nude dance club is like
nudist clubs...it it chock full of emotions and has got to be the most
intricate business in the world to manage and maintain.....but i feel
real good about my history in that business as i always from one
battle to another with the girls and male customers enjoyed a result
of my choice with repect coming from.all...girls are different from
boys and Anna has proven to be like the girls i have known......they
tend to bog down and stop considering that future eventualites that
may occur if all of a sudden it seems everything is so great....so
this has got to be the time to stop and enjoy.....well it really does
not work that way as you probably know also but we can allow for these
folks natural way of thinking and yield but still stay at the wheell
because it is a moving that has to have someone at the
wheel....regards....bill
stinso...@hotmail.com
<nudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Buying a doll for a little girl is teaching that her sexuality is
>feminine. Buying a toy truck for a little boy is teaching that his
>sexuality is masculine.
You are confusing sexuality with gender. Not the same.
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
<nudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What the fuck is wrong with you? Have you not an ounce of honesty or
>decency?
Seriously? I thought you'd figured that out by now. Neither Anna nor
Zee have any scruples whatsoever.
-T.
Nudiarist
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:25:47 -0800 (PST), Nudiarist
>
> >Buying a doll for a little girl is teaching that her sexuality is
> >feminine. Buying a toy truck for a little boy is teaching that his
> >sexuality is masculine.
>
> You are confusing sexuality with gender. Not the same.
>
> -T.
No, you are confusing sex with gender. A child of the male sex can
exhibit feminine gender characteristics. Sexuality is developed
through both biological and cultural causes, so if one is imposing
gender roles upon children through clothing or toys, one is
influencing eventual sexuality.
Zee
now come on nudarist....dont be so vague..the devil is in the
details....influencing eventual sexual orientation or maybe a non
sexual orientation that is absent of interest in sex at all.....see to
be in our lttle honest tribe you have to explain.....z
Peter Riden
On this one, Nudiarist is down right. He shows he is well educated in
that same school of life than mine when it comes to the perception of
sex/gender as opposed to sexuality. A distinction he successfully
makes but that one remnant The Little Tribe is not able to absorb,
yet. Anytime you've seen me mentioning about human intimate
interactions you never ever see me presenting it as simplistically
stating "Having..." but I give it the honorability it deserves. As
such, I believe that some have also walked that considerate road. I
fully agree when Nudiarist tells Tom Stinson that he is confusing sex
with gender which to me both words are synonymous. And I believe that
Tom Stinson also confuses sexuality with gender which one has to do
with expression and the other one with gender identification. I'm of
the male sex and my sexuality is well expressed when I passionately
interact with a willing participant of the opposite sex/gender.
So, on that. we know who is more in tune with what I have presented
all along, Bill.
It shows I've been a Resister Unsocialized for quite a while if 40+
years do matter..;-)
In Friendship & Universality
Zee
> {TGB Conceptor}:http://www.the-grand-barn.comhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/The-Grand-Barnhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheGrandBarn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeah Peter....well as of lately it is rather confusing as to where
folks are coming from....nudarist is new to me but you seem to know
him rather well.....and of course you and the on anon or on anna issue
was before i came to rec nude....i have to admit after all this time
for me that my issue with family nudism can be only the issue of how
family nudist has lied to the general publc and still does about the
issue of how they explain why they expose their genitals.....of course
we all know and can excuse the ol ...self image and body
acceptance.....and all other heath benefits as that is an ongoing
issue by all folks at all times past and present on planet earth....so
that one is of no interest to me one way of the other......but in
keeping with the moral issue of nudist....you i and Anna for the most
part is really of the same mentality ......this is where i am coming
from and of course now we can add Dan Siegler because to our little
honest tribe .....we are the opposing group of all the rest of nudism
until they say they agree....that all nudity is a personal issue
regarding the sexual factor in viewing a naked person whether a statue
fixed or a live naked person....no human is in position to evaluate
this conclusion.....there fore for any person on planet earth to say
that simple nudity is not sexual to an onlooker is simply a lie....and
Dan Seigler has reenforced what i have contended all along......and
Anna joins us in our little group....but this is not to say that you
have a legitimate issue with her....but at least we agree on simple
nudity issue.....and that is just about all i can attest to as i
really do not know anyone personally or have a personal grievance
against anyone here past or present in rec nude.....so just for fun i
thought we could actually start a little group and see if there might
be folks that would want to join our group on that one moral
issue...Dario might but i can understand that any one connected with
the standard higharchy of nudism might not want to stand for a moral
issue publicly ....regards and keep the light on....your friend bil
Peter Riden
> > {TGB Conceptor}:http://www.the-grand-barn.comhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/The-Grand-...Hide quoted text -
Too many people agreeing with me, Bill, to simply be "a little group".
A little group is like those few who kept opposing me, being about 20
- 25 max... so that was/is a little group and that's why they became
The Little Tribe lead by their proclaimed Cheef Dan. Half of them are
dead or gone... so it's now an even littler group..;-)
Look Bill, I just reactivated one of our forum at http://thegrandbarn.com/jcow
and we're already near 300 and counting so it's an impossibility to
remain little or small when it's related to me, Bill..;-)
As for ON~Anna its knows very well where it stands towards me in all
those past years..;-)
There are many silent but supportive readers I also have in here and
that's why I come and keep perking some of them with my thoughts, once
in a while..;-)
In Friendship & Universality
Zee
> and we're already near 300 and counting so it's an impossibility to
> remain little or small when it's related to me, Bill..;-)
> As for ON~Anna its knows very well where it stands towards me in all
> those past years..;-)
> There are many silent but supportive readers I also have in here and
> that's why I come and keep perking some of them with my thoughts, once
> in a while..;-)
> In Friendship & Universality
>
> - Show quoted text -
i definitely commend you for your different endeavers relating to the
sexy nude issue and human sexuality....and over time you have built
up sizable groups Peter.....so i can under stand that you might not
want to join someone elses group as i do not want to even be seen as
the DENNIS of the group rather the group came to all of rec nude out
of thin air.....and all members are subcribers to the issue that the
group advocates......like the Christian religion.....the only common
agreeable thing i know of is they all worship Jesus Christ......so i
thought that the social nudist might adopt at some time this group as
being the only one thing that all nudist or most agree on.....see that
would be having something like the Christians to present to the
world....other they have never really ever presented anything of non
controversial value to the world and that is sad......regards....z
stinso...@hotmail.com
Buying Barbi for a little girl is not teaching her that she fucks men.
That's sex. It may theach her the feminine role in society. That's
gender. I'll stick with my earlier statement, which you will no doubt,
beat to death as usual. Knock yourself out. Genders are feminine or
masculine. Sexuality is not.
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
<Affi...@the-grand-barn.com> wrote:
>I
>fully agree when Nudiarist tells Tom Stinson that he is confusing sex
>with gender which to me both words are synonymous.
That's because you are willfully ignorant. Carry on, Peter. Don't ever
let facts get in the way of your beliefs!
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
<Affi...@the-grand-barn.com> wrote:
>Too many people agreeing with me, Bill, to simply be "a little group".
>A little group is like those few who kept opposing me, being about 20
>- 25 max... so that was/is a little group and that's why they became
>The Little Tribe lead by their proclaimed Cheef Dan.
And how many supported you on this group, huh Peter?
-T.
Nudiarist
"Although one billion Barbie dolls had been sold by the early twenty-
first century, the doll was not immediately popular with consumers and
social critics. Controversy developed shortly after the doll's
marketing debut in 1959 at the New York Toy Fair. Mattel's claims
about the doll's "educational value" did not convince many mothers at
the time who detested the doll's exalted femininity and scandalous
sexuality. Barbie's seductive figure, suggestive look, and provocative
wardrobe designed to attract the attention of men like her boyfriend
Ken led feminists to condemn the doll for its sexual objectification
of women. Social critics denounced the doll's materialism–as
exemplified by her lavish lifestyle and shopping sprees–and the
slavish consumerism it fostered in daughters of hard-working
breadwinners. Although Barbie changed with the times from fashion
model to career woman, many still pointed to the preoccupation with
body image in girls whose beauty ideal was defined by Barbie's
unrealistic physique. (She would be ten feet tall if she were real.)
On the other hand, scholars and others have shown that girls and boys,
children as well as adults, play with Barbie dolls in ways that
contest gendered norms." http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ar-Bo/Barbie.html
------------------
"When Barbie first came out, she was the subject of a lot of
criticism, some of which that claimed Barbie was too sexy for
children. Midge was the first same-size friend of Barbie ever sold,
and was created to oppose these controversies aimed at Barbie. She had
a fuller, gentler face mold that was less sexually intimidating,
although her body proportions were the same as Barbie and they both
stood at 11½ inches (292 mm) tall." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_(Barbie)
-----------------
"Jack Ryan, whose five wives included the actress Zsa Zsa Gabor, is
accused of staging wild orgies at his mansion in the exclusive Los
Angeles suburb of Bel Air and surrounding himself with busty
prostitutes hired because of their resemblance to Barbie.
The Yale-educated executive, who died in 1991 at the age of 65, used
his office at the toy firm Mattel to take calls from a local "madame,"
and liked to pay for sex with "everyone from high-class call girls to
streetwalkers," including "a very thin and childlike hooker".
In Toy Monster: The Big, Bad World of Mattel, the author Jerry
Oppenheimer claims that Ryan, who also created the Chatty Cathy
talking doll, spent decades hiding the seamy private life that might
have sullied Barbie's squeaky-clean reputation.
More sinisterly, the book suggests that Ryan's colourful sexuality
played a formative role in the design of the doll.
"When Jack talked about creating Barbie, it was like listening to
somebody talk about a sexual episode," Mr Ryan's former friend,
Stephen Gnass, reveals. "It was almost like listening to a sexual
pervert." http://mostlywater.org/creator_barbie_was_sex_addict
-------------------
Barbie can grow breasts - http://adolescentsexualitytoday.blogspot.com/2007/11/barbie-can-grow-breasts.html
------------------
Experts agree: Barbie is a slut - http://www.bookslut.com/features/2005_10_006767.php
----------------
"In the new Harlot magazine (I get it for the agony column), Tracy
Quan, the author of Confessions of a Manhattan Call-Girl, claims
Barbie as a role-model for her generation of prostitutes, because of
the way she concealed her murky past beneath Attorney Barbie
respectability. "Marketed as a harmless plaything, the all-American
prom queen turns out to have been a foreign whore on the run," Quan
writes. "Somehow, the kind of girl your brother couldn't take home to
Mom became a role model for millions of young girls." Elsewhere in the
magazine, a San Franciscan writer called Cintra Wilson shockingly
recalls how she used to arrange for her Barbie doll to have sex with a
gruff and violent GI Joe. "Barbie is no unconscious sexual icon to
children," she writes. "Even at seven, we knew she was a wanton,
submissive bimbo."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/john-walsh-barbie-was-based-on-a-cartoon-prostitute-whod-do-anything-for-money-1331669.html
----------------
Nudiarist
No need to 'beat it to death". I've provided several examples of how
Barbie dolls influence sexuality. Your statement about Barbie not
being about sex and sexuality is simply wrong. This goes beyond mere
gender because Barbie is basically the image of a whore for children
to play with.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
bawahahahahehehe.......just gottal luv these political
nudist.......would they be political at the gallows...hmmmmn now for
the real truth.....see tom stinson think for the most part that i
disagree with him on everything as he to me is a bleeding heart
liberal imo......and i view these folks as being on the sinful side of
politics....killing babies and promoting homosexuality.....as i take
the moral hi road on just about everything.....tom maybe you should
buckle your seat belt......nudarist is wrong and you are right becasue
because because......with my knowledgeabe past i like little ten year
ol girls as they are sexy to the nth degree and innocent ..er ah not
really sure yet if innocent is the right word......but i remember a
ten year ol nudist girl that kept appearing in front of me while i
would watch the news and she had her barbie doll and ken and she would
put ken between barbies legs and move them around....she and i often
played non verbal......and of course i was reading the statment she
was trying to make.....it was sexual.....but when nudarist makes the
statement that barbie is for children to play with then he goes across
the line into immaturity er ah fantasy....or ah....wrong for
sure.....i as a child being strongly masculine ...never had any
interst in a little doll of a famale......now if you have seen those
life size dolls in dirty book stores and on the internet ....going
price 3 to 5 thousand dollars.....with all their everything in place
shaved or non shaved...then yes a ten and up little boy might be
interested in that one even it was a ten year old girl life
size.......so little ten inch barbie just does not serve children
rather little girls and your are right......case closed......and how
did we get from dan zigler to barbie so fast in this thread.....er
ah.....politics...gotta luv em nudist.......z
Nudiarist
>......with my knowledgeabe past i like little ten year
> ol girls as they are sexy to the nth degree and innocent ..er ah not
> really sure yet if innocent is the right word......but i remember a
> ten year ol nudist girl that kept appearing in front of me while i
> would watch the news and she had her barbie doll and ken and she would
> put ken between barbies legs and move them around....she and i often
> played non verbal......and of course i was reading the statment she
> was trying to make.....it was sexual.....
There are no words. I just want to vomit.
Anna
So basically you are saying that textile society is very sexualized.
That's why they NEED TO WEAR CLOTHES!
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
but Anna...wher do all dem nudist cum frum...z
Anna
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. For textiles the
reason they get nude in most cases is for sex (and taking a shower).
Seeing others of the opposite sex (and for some same sex) nude is a
sexualized experience for them.
Now, for nudism to work adults have to condition themselves to put the
whole nude body/sexualized connection aside for the time they are
there. They have to think about the nude body the same way children do
(who have not made the connection between nude body/and
sexualization).
It doesn't mean that nudists don't have sex. It just means that the
nude body is not a source of sexualization to them. It also means that
nudist situations must remain nonsexualized. Even situations that may
in a textile context be sexualized. Because in the textile world they
have clothes when confronted with a sexualized situation like say a
prom or something like that. But nudists have nothing.
Nudiartist has the typical response of a textile. Naked bodies, mixed
gender, must be sexualized! In that case keep the children out of
it!!!! And stop pretending nudism is "wholesome".
Now, I believe, and I know Zee you disagree, that nudism can be
wholesome, and not sexualized, but I also believe that there is
unfortunately enough people who attend nudist venues who either can't
or don't want to keep nudism nonsexualized and in the end they will
ruin the wholesomeness of nudism because it just takes a very, very
few to destroy the nudist atmosphere for everyone.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anna....as dan zieler stated in his post about his experiences with
nudism......was that his friend was a friend of a nudist that went to
a nudist camp and viewed all the standard or simple nudity and had an
erection most of the day even wearing shorts.....now of course there
were several guys and girls there that may not have had erections but
were in his words and my words suppressing their natural sexuality to
be a part of keeping nudism on the wholesome level.....and he states
and i agree that this is unnatural as i agree on that one also and i
agree also with all the things you say above.....but the problem lies
when trying to assemble all these suppressors of sex all in one group
and keeping them in place and keeping out intruders of a different
kind as folks come and go through the gate....so aanr tns and all
groups that contend that family nudism is just not sexual at all...is
a running lie that goes on forever ....sadly...as the textiles have
stolen this lie from the nudist when they take grandma children to the
museums where statues of grown men with dick hanging out for here
grandchildren to see and now it has escalated into pissing on a naked
Christ and beyond....so grandma is not dumb....and all the
saying ....but mom it is just simple nudity of a statue and no live
nudity is at the museum so you see even the textile journalist do not
push the issue too far as they fear jonZeee might confront them on
their lie to grandma....he he i luv my job.....z
Anna
> Anna....as dan zieler stated in his post about his experiences with
> nudism......was that his friend was a friend of a nudist that went to
> a nudist camp and viewed all the standard or simple nudity and had an
> erection most of the day even wearing shorts.....
That guy had no place being in a nudist venue. He tried it. It didn't
work for him. Okay, then he shouldn't go again.
What's the alternative? Allow that guy to walk around with an
erection the whole day?
By the way, for him to have an erection that long seems like a medical
problem. What did the commercial say? If it continues beyond four
hours seek medical help immediately.
I believe Dan's friend was exaggerating the situation, but still, if
he was having problems then nudism just isn't for him and if he didn't
leave himself he should have politely be asked to leave, saying well
nudism isn't for you pal.
Anna
> And the majority of people (or large minority as you call it) will
> recognize that he says very much what I've been saying all along and,
> in promoting functionality, he's doing far more a service for those
> who contemplate being fully AT Ease With Nudity when socializing than
> you propagating the fallacies of your friend Stephane Deschenes and
> company. Maybe only you, "Anna" want to remain fully clothed when
> interacting intimately with someone but I strongly feel much better
> not being encumbered with clothes when indulging in mutually sharing
> ecstatic moments together.
Sure, I want to be naked when having sex with my husband.
But I don't what to get all sexually hot and bothered when among
people of all ages and genders when skinny dipping, nude hiking, or
just soaking up the sun.
But you claim that all nude situations, at least all social nude
situations, must be sexualized. Well perhaps that's the case for some
people, perhaps even many, but if that is always the case then nudism
just can't work.
I think nudism COULD work, if they could keep people like you out of
it. But that's the problem isn't it. It just takes a few to ruin it
for the rest.
Zee
yeah...Anna reread it....he was wearing shorts...that is legal for
textiles as well as nudist.....dont you agree....and it seems dan was
a lying to himself nudist for a few years and he finally realized he
and nudist are subconsiously suppressing their mental sexuality to
force non sexual nudity in public....this is profusely dysfunctional
perverted sickly behavior for humans to behave this way....as how does
children perceive it as they do not suppress ......z
stinso...@hotmail.com
<nudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Copy and pasted items deleted.>
Tell me, do you have any original thoughts of your own?
-T
stinso...@hotmail.com
<nudi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No need to 'beat it to death". I've provided several examples of how
>Barbie dolls influence sexuality. Your statement about Barbie not
>being about sex and sexuality is simply wrong. This goes beyond mere
>gender because Barbie is basically the image of a whore for children
>to play with.
In your not so humble opinion.
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
<Affi...@the-grand-barn.com> wrote:
> And I believe that
>Tom Stinson also confuses sexuality with gender which one has to do
>with expression and the other one with gender identification.
You believe all sotrts of ignorant shit. Doesn't change facts.
> I'm of
>the male sex and my sexuality is well expressed when I passionately
>interact with a willing participant of the opposite sex/gender.
More ignorant blather.
-T.
stinso...@hotmail.com
Buying a toy truck for a little boy has very little influence on his
eventual sexuality.
-T.
Zee
>
> - Show quoted text -
toy trucks and boxing gloves would tend to influence his agressiveness
vs submissionism which would influence his sexual orientation..which
is obviously a part of sexuality.....z
Zee
> Doesn't the following sound exactly like what I, Peter Riden, have
> brought forth times and again
> for so many years. Maybe hearing the same from someone else might not
> bring as much animosity and
> attacks as it did against me. Take note that I didn't nor will I
> flinch because few dysfunctional
> hypocrites resent that I keep telling it the way it is. Now, one more
> voice to simply echo what
> I have said...except that rather than seeing it as mere sex, I present
> it as fruitful, meaningful,
> passionate interactions between consenting individuals.> NUDISM AND SEXUAL REPRESSION
> By Daniel D. Ziegler
>
> I realize now, some years after writing my book NAKED BEFORE GOD, that
> my claim that participating in organized nudism can increase body
> awareness and self-acceptance, may not as true as I once thought.
> While social nudity itself--that is being nude in the presence of
> others--can
> certainly increase body acceptance, organized nudism as we know it in
> this country has major flaws that I now think may actually have a
> negative effect
> on self-esteem. This article is an attempt to explain this idea.
> By not permitting any open display or expression of sexuality, the
> nudism movement merely reinforces our society's already negative
> attitude
> toward our sexuality, and therefore toward our overall self-image. In
> this respect, the organized movement is actually counter-productive to
> its claims. They need to quit making that claim or change the rules.
> A while back, I received a phone call from a man whom, with his wife,
> had visited a nudist park for the first time. There, he had met a
> friend of mine with whom he got into a discussion about nudism. Being
> new to it, he had a lot of questions and was making a lot of
> observations about the nudist lifestyle as he was seeing it, and about
> peoples' behavior under these, up-until-now, unusual conditions.
> Wanting to be as helpful as possible in explaining the lifestyle, my
> friend mentioned my name and that I had written a book about nudism.
> His call was to see how he could acquire the book and to ask me a few
> questions concerning him and his experience.
> Basically what he expressed to me was that he had been very
> uncomfortable at the park. He had gone through the normal orientation
> that they
> required for newcomers in which he was told a number of things,
> including how comfortable and relaxing nudism is, and that it is not
> sexual and
> that, in fact, no outward form of sexual expression would be
> tolerated. To further explain this, nudist park owners usually tell
> men that "if you should become 'aroused', cover yourself with your
> towel or put on a pair of shorts, or you will be asked to leave."
> He found the park and surroundings very beautiful and the naked people
> generally friendly, and, in fact, all this is what contributed to his
> being uncomfortable. He found the whole situation--the sights, the
> sounds, the smells--so stimulating that he had an erection most of the
> time he was there and, therefore, was forced to wear a pair of shorts
> the whole weekend. "It was awful," he said to me, "I could not be
> myself. I never want to go through another weekend like that again."
> I had very little to offer him at that point except my usual pitch
> that I had used when I was the one giving the orientations at that
> very same park. I told him not to give up on nudism, that he would get
> used to the nudity and that soon he would not find it overly
> stimulating and arousing.
> "You won't even get a hard-on," I said.
> That phone call prompted me to begin to examine my own personal
> experience with "organized" nudism and to ultimately change my views
> about
> it--hence this article. What I told him was, in fact, what I had done
> to myself. In my attempt to set an example for others and to not feel
> guilty for feeling sexual myself, I had repressed my own sexual urges
> at the park to the extent that I was lying to myself about what I was
> feeling. What I really wanted to do was to be myself and let everyone
> know that I was a healthy sexual person--and that is what he wanted
> and I believe what most everyone wants.
> To permit nudity yet not allow ANY form of sexual expression, not even
> an erection, seems like an impossibility at best and a cruel tease at
> worst.
> Either way, it is a form or sexual repression. The nudists' claim that
> nudism is not about sex, and that nudist parks are in no way sexual,
> is hypocritical. The very nature of nudity in an otherwise clothed
> society is certainly going to increase sexual awareness; and to not be
> able to express that in any way, not even in touching ourselves or
> getting aroused, is simply unrealistic AND cruel. And so, when we fail
> at this, even if just in our thoughts, we consciously or unconsciously
> feel increased guilt, shame and embarrassment over our sexuality,
> which merely adds to our already societally-induced poor self-image
> problem in general.
> We are sexual beings and our sexual energy will manifest itself one
> way or another no matter how hard we try to discourage it. If we can't
> express it in an open and positive manner, it will cause us to act out
> in unhealthy ways, such as aggression or substance abuse. The nudists--
> the unsuspecting victims of this sexual repression--seem to have
> various ways displaying their behavior and of coping with the dilemma
> of being torn between the freedom that they know they could feel and
> the repression that they actually do feel. Many do what the rest of
> society does--they either numb themselves with substances such as
> nicotine and alcohol or they act on their sexual feelings and lie
> about it. Some, to the dismay of the owners of the so-called 'family
> nudist parks', no longer even lie about it.
> They are known as swingers and they are out there in numbers; but in
> spite of how we might characterize or judge their lifestyle, they are
> the honest ones.
> The nudist organizations themselves are not to be too heavily blamed
> for their contribution to sexual repression, however. They, after all,
> are simply extensions of our Western society that for centuries has
> repressed human sexuality, and they have had to conform to present
> standards in order to survive at all. We at least need to give them
> credit for attempting to defy some of the rules of society and break
> free from the pack.
> But if we are to ever become the enlightened society we are capable of
> being, we need to further free ourselves from the social restrictions
> and religious taboos that have forced our sexual energy to manifest
> itself in destructive ways. We need to learn to trust our sexuality
> and to fully express it; and learn that to be free with it does not
> mean we are going destroy ourselves. In fact, by repressing it we are
> destroying ourselves.
> Rather, being free with it means that we can channel it into creative
> expressions such as helping each other and saving the planet. Only
> when we fully accept and respect ourselves as sexual beings, will we
> truly see ourselves as more than that--as spiritual beings; and seeing
> ourselves as spiritual beings having a full human experience--
> including our sexually--is the highest form of self-acceptance there
> is.
> I now have nudist friends who are not only comfortable with their
> bodies but with their sexuality as well. We associated outside the
> park, in our homes, etc. We feel comfortable to be ourselves and do
> not hide our sexuality from each other. In fact, we honor and
> celebrate it. The tension and discomfort that the gentleman referred
> to in his phone call are not there. IT IS RELAXING because it is self-
> acceptance. * * *
> *********************
> Dan Ziegler can be found athttp://less-onsfortruth.com/
ok Peter.... a lot of nudist maybe be in serious state of personal
misery over this organized nudisms presentation of family social
nudism.....as Dan reflects he was trying at a time to be a cult nudist
by suppressing his true natural feelings about his own sexuality.....i
can see by stinsons post recently that he is genuinely established a
mindset over time that he does not believe that anyone is different to
him...rather a guy like Dan...You and i are simply lying about plain
simple nudity and that it turns on a certain amount of males and
females .......here is the serious part of getting into that
mindset.....if nudist go into nudism and read the directions of the
nudist orgainizations where they say nudism is sexual and therefore
your erection will not occur....at this point the person submits to
this ideaology and sure enough it works....his mindset is now ruling
his pituitary gland and like Dan says ...there does not seem to be a
problem and then the person feels all of society is wrong and they are
all lying......but we now know that Dan decided by his friends case
that the original sexuality can be retrieved and life can begin again
as it normally should......but for the ones like stinson he is
convinced that Dan is lying and aint buying it.....so from my vantage
point there has never been in my mind an acceptance of the nudist
philosphy and i went through all those years having an erection
statrting at the beach...to Elysium where it was acceptable....and i
would say Ed Lange would totally agree with Dan you and i about this
matter.....these nudist do not talk about their own sexuality here in
rec nude...but we have had over the year a few swinger couples here
that talk about their happy sex life and of couse these enslaved
nudist would try to fun em off ....because i think they have become
totally impotent and it is not their cup of tea to sit around and
listen to folks that are not like them.....you would think they would
not be so dense and they would be immensely angry at the leadership
of organized nudism for causing them to develop this mindset and over
a period of time of suppressing their sexuality ....winds up
impotent....and of course can not have sex with their partners or
anyone else....i gotta tell ya that a friend of mine recently stated
to me that i should view these folks in this manner as the textiles do
not even want to get close to these nudist because they are like
me....they would never consider accepting that type of belief to allow
brainwashing of their mindset to not have an erection when an erection
was wanting to happen....that is dengerous stuff but they apparently
take it in stride....so i think this explains their contempt for
me....i remind them of why they are in the state of misery that they
are in.....but i think Dario is beginning to think about where he may
be headed also and will make the correction in time for him to find a
female he cares for and can have a happy sex life with that
person.....in the meantime molestation at these camps will continue to
occur because some will be detected outside by different methods of
detection and the nudist will continue to suppress these offenders
because the offender also is like Dan you or i in that he never did
buy in to that idea of suppression of sexuality,.....keep the light
on......your friend....bill