Hi, Take a look at this site, which I found on uk.rec.naturist recently: Nudists and Textiles There is a minority of people who get some kind of pleasure from wandering about in the nude and being seen. I am prepared to believe that for some of them this isn't even a form of sexual deviation. Of course for many of them it is quite clearly a fetish, a form of sexual deviance, and these people are sick but use the acceptable face of the nudist movement to hide their perversions from the public censure they so richly deserve. Many nudist beaches and the like are notorious for lewd conduct and promiscuous homosexual acts. Unfortunately the nudist and naturist movements are so small they seem to divide the whole world into us and them, nudists and “textiles” and assume everybody on their side of their line is good and all the rest are uptight prudes. This is a shame. There are some people who do feel relaxed and empowered by being naked among other naked people, they should be allowed to get on with their own thing protected from perverts spying on them or hiding within their group. Most people do not feel greatly troubled by clothes or repressed at the thought of wearing them in public. Most people are happy to wear clothes and happier still to see other people around them wear their clothes too. Such people are normal. The majority. The majority should never be given a derogatory label by any minority which is seeking tolerance and understanding. For the nudist minority to call the majority “textiles” is highly offensive and counterproductive. Perhaps the majority of normal people should also be called warm-fuckers because of their refusal to engage in necrophilia? What inventive derogatory names would those who engage in bestiality like to confer on the majority that don't? If a group of people go down to a lake and strip off they are turning that lake into a nudist area and deterring anybody who does not want to encounter nudity from using that resource in the way that they want to. Nudism is an aggressive act. It stakes a claim on a large piece of territory, the radius defined by the usable range of a pair of binoculars. It cannot be right that two or three people can lay claim to such a large area by their selfish actions without the rest of the community having any say in the matter at all. If you go down to a busy public beach and lay out a beach towel and lie on it in a swimming costume that is reasonable act. People will give you a reasonable amount of space to get on with what you want to do. But you cannot expect a large group of people on a public beach to give you the space you might like to fly a stunt kite, draw up a full sized cricket pitch or indeed to lie around naked or to have a shag. There's a time and a place for everything and the community does not owe any special favours to people who want to “act naturally”. If you want to fly your kite on the beach you have to go there early in the morning or when the sun isn't blazing down. If you want to sunbathe naked you have to find somewhere that does not inconvenience other people. And being naked is inconveniencing other people whatever you might like to think about it. You might think that other people should think like you do but the fact is they don't, and tolerance, the first step to civilization, requires that you accept that other people are not the same as you. Nudism is a reasonable activity and it should be accommodated. That means designated areas in which clothes are optional and people seen to be spending too long gawping at the nudists should be moved on or arrested for breach of the peace. There should be no places that clothes are banned unless such places are privately owned and administered. As the vast majority of people are not nudists clothes optional areas should be relatively small and located in such a way that they can be easily avoided, they should be at the end of the footpath not right next to the car park. The designation of areas for nudists and naturists (a term British nudists seem to prefer) should be down to the local communities, not the nudists themselves. Communities should be protected from invasion by incoming nudists imposing their culture on somewhere they think is pretty and a good place to spend a few hours and not a lot of money. Nudists don't have pockets. Areas designated for nudity is a good idea. There is a minority who find that walking about naked is “liberating” in some non-specific way, and of course another minority of perverts who just like to see and be seen naked. But nudism is not appropriate for everywhere and everybody. Or is that every body? Most people don't have bodies that are attractive enough for them to be comfortable parading around naked. For many people clothes are a bloody good idea. Therefore I am very much against any extension of nudity into new areas without the appropriate local democratic decision making, tourists who impose their standards on foreign communities deserve a good slapping. If the locals don't say it's alright to go topless on their beaches then it is incredibly bad mannered and arrogant to just do it. Nudity and Sexuality Thrusting your sexuality in the faces of the wider community is not a basic human right. Public nudity is not a basic human right. Nudity is fine in its place: in the nude spa, on the nude beach and in the home. It is not acceptable in shops, factories, schools, offices or on the street. Neither is semi-nudity, the boundary-pushing that women seem to think somehow expresses their personality. It's amazing how many women keep their personality on their chest and between their legs. I would also like to see more women charged with indecent exposure. It's not on for women to go about with no knickers and short skirts or long dresses with slashes to the waist. Some women are even wearing miniskirts to work with no knickers on and complaining that men are looking at them and getting the men into trouble: absurd! That is sexual harassment and indecent exposure. I wouldn't say that knickers should be compulsory or that miniskirts should be banned but the combination certainly should not be tolerated in public, it is exhibitionism and it is incredibly antisocial behaviour. The idea that a woman can choose to wear no knickers because she wants to, can choose to wear a short skirt because she wants to and can choose to do a pirouette on the dance-floor because she wants to and if any man she doesn't fancy makes a comment about seeing her pudenda she can call him a pervert for looking at her is ridiculous. The perverted response is not to notice. But don't worry, I'm not being sexist here, I'd make men in kilts wear pants too and if people of either sex want to go commando they can do so in skirts that reach below the knee. The Janet Jackson nipple baring incident was just bad manners. Women do not expose their breasts on TV except late at night. Everybody knows that rule. She was just trying to get herself extra notoriety in a tried and trusted way. Remember Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct? She became in some people's view the only woman in America with a vulva. Janet was trying, and succeeding, in becoming the only woman in America with nipples. And everybody fell over themselves to see that she got exactly the notoriety she sought. Now if you think Janet Jackson you think breasts and if you see a nipple exposed accidentally you think Janet. Any commercial company trying to get that kind of effect on the world's opinion would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising. $550,000 fine? And it was CBS that paid it! She'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Do you remember anything about *the plot* of Basic Instinct? Me neither. After this film was released the world reacted as if Sharon Stone was the only woman in America with a vulva. But what did we actually see? Women who dress to expose are a public menace. Short skirts are reasonable. Wearing no knickers is reasonable. But wearing a short skirt and no knickers is simply exhibitionism and a public menace. It is designed to distract men and make out that the “wearer” of this fashion statement is the only woman in the vicinity with a vulva and the will to use it. Women who wear short skirts or slashed skirts and no knickers should be prosecuted for indecent exposure. No, it isn't reasonable to expect men not to look or not to notice, they are supposed to notice. Somehow women think that they can wear revealing clothes and only the men they want to have sex with will notice! That is absurd. Repression, Modesty, Exhibitionism and Feminism In societies controlled by men and in which women have no power the women are not told to prance around naked or in conical bras for the enjoyment of the men. Repressed women have to hide their bodies, their shape and their beauty. Things might be different if the world was run by bachelors, then perhaps everywhere would look a bit like The Playboy Mansion™, but no such society exists or has ever existed in human history. In societies run by and for rich powerful men female sexuality and beauty is dangerous, something to be controlled and harnessed. Men do not want women to go around half naked and looking sexy. Why? Because it undermines men's control. Men are not in control of which women are beautiful and sexy. Beauty is a threat to a well-structured society because it is nearly randomly distributed. If men could really make all the rules then princesses would be beautiful because they were princesses, because they were the daughters of kings. Beauty would belong to rich and powerful men's wives and daughters, it would belong to the men who owned those women. Nature doesn't co-operate in this fantasy so when wealthy men make all the rules and women have no say women are expected to dress in bags, to hide their faces and forms, so all women become generic, commodities, chattels. In a world in which all women are dressed in sacks who is the attractive woman? The daughter of the wealthy and rich man, the way things should be, by their standards. Women in male dominated societies dress not to impress or to be individual but to hide their individuality and to stress their status as property of their lords and masters, if they wear jewellery it is to show how wealthy their men are, not to show how beautiful they are. Women can only be seen as attractive and sexy when securely housed and guarded in a harem. In public they must dress in sacks and make no noise. In societies in which young women have power sexuality is expressed openly. Sexuality and beauty belong to the women themselves and they use them to their own devices, to further their own ends. Of course older women want younger women to cover up because they see youth as an unfair advantage, so older women make alliances with older men to try to repress these expressions of sexuality, youth and beauty. Older lesbians can be particularly bitter and twisted about this, hence the feminist movement. What is a healthy way to run a society? There have to be standards and rules otherwise there will be an unceasing arms race of beauty and sex in which women spend more and more time and effort to express their sexuality and we will be constantly battling with ever-more sexualized images and clothes. Erotic Pollution What is the benefit to society as a whole from allowing young women to walk around looking as if they just fell off a Mardi Gras float or the set of a rubber fetishist porn movie? Oh, she's got breasts and a flat belly. Big bloody deal. Is that all she's got to express? Is that the sum total of her personality? Give us a break here. Do you think men would forget about sex if semi-nudity wasn't thrust in their faces every few minutes? How much further can things go? Women are wearing tops that cover one random fifth of their breasts, no knickers and skirts that are little more than belts. What else can they do to make themselves look any more sex-obsessed, desperate, shallow and lacking in self-worth other than to walk into the nightclub on their hands with beer smeared over their vulvas? This kind of behaviour degrades the women that take part, womankind and sex. I cannot see how this kind of behaviour can be anything other than extremely destructive of a woman's self-image. It transforms her into a throat into which expensive alcohol is to be poured plus a vulva on legs. In what possible way is this “having a good time”? I have nothing against nudity, sex or getting drunk as such but surely there are better ways of handling these things than doing them in large anonymous crowds in city centres to the accompaniment of mind-killing music and light shows designed to induce a state of mindless trance? I'm 43, I'm allowed to rant like this. Where was I? Oh yes. And if you think you're wearing that out in public you've got another thing coming young lady. Deep healing breaths. Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/
I like the idea that nudism is "an aggressive act" towards anyone within "the range of a pair of binoculars"... And this bit: Most people don't have bodies that are attractive enough for them to be comfortable parading around naked. Most people don't have particularly attractive clothes, does that mean they can't be comfortable parading around clothed?
I will need a little bit of time to digest all this. I actually find I agree with most of it, perhaps not quite all of it. A couple points trouble me. As I say, I need to re-read and digest. And, a definition is needed here, at least for me. What are knickers? I know what that used to mean. What does it mean now? I'll try to post later.
Knickers are panties. I think this whole thing just smacks of "I'm fat and ugly and can't be sexy around anyone, so no one should be naked because someone might think that's sexy!" I know that seems judgmental of me, but so is this whole rant against nudism. How is it hurting anybody if I choose to be naked? Why are our bodies something to be ashamed of? In the middle of winter, sure, wear clothes. But when it's summer, there's no purpose to clothing except to hide our bodies. Why do we need to hide our bodies? What's so inappropriate about body parts EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING HAS that they need to be hidden away like they're something to be ashamed of?
Maybe they dont feel or look troubled by clothes or repressed by wearing them on the outside but I think everyone on the inside dislikes wearing clothes to some degree and has this urge to be natural and go nude. Some just wont admit it because theyve bought into the whole 'textile' lifestyle. Fine, let them wear clothes but if they dont want to see others nude then they best look the other direction. Well they should if its true. It does seem kind of one sided how nudists are so accomidating but yet textiles dont seem to want to do their share and compromise for the most part. Appears to be a one way street with us nudists doing all the compromising. If it offends them to be called textiles then it should because maybe if they would be more tolerant and understanding nudists wouldnt have to call them that.
maan, you gotta work on your tolerance skills Dario. FREEDOM. i think you and mike have alot of good opinions between you even though they appose but i hope in aeons to come humans can realise they dont NEED clothing except for shelter. i hope for sooner than aeons but if Dario's post (and attitude) is supposedly the vast opinion that just wont be the case. i do feel comfortable strutting around semi-naked and i do seem to enjoy those days thank you mike, but i feel even better when im in my own home and i can strip it all! i think i should have the right to walk around anywhere i really want to naked.. i think it is an oprressed human right... it shouldnt matter what we look like beneath our clothes really. definetly not in a fashion sense.
I beleive he is in the minority. Most people deep down dont really care if people are naked or not, you just gotta get past all the social conditioning and BS. I think if you can walk around semi-naked then there really is no point in preventing you from being completely naked because if people can handle a topless woman, they sure can handle a naked one as well.
Absolutely agreed!! I just spent three days at Cypress Cove nudist resort. I am 47, and in OK shape. Most people there were in their 40s to 60s, and many were quite obese. No-one minds, Some were 10, a few were teens and in their 20s. And you know what? NO-ONE CARES what you look like - god/goddess or obese 80-year old. Who cares! We are all people. And this is what makes nudism such a free thing.. real freedom., You do not have to look perfect - at all. Exactly. Come on, people. Under our clothes we all have either a penis or a vagina. Big deal!
zonkd, Please double check before you criticise me. That article was NOT written by me, but by some British guy called Martin Willett. I disagree with a lot of what he has had to say in it.
Such negativity about the human body. I, for one, do remember the plot of Basic Instinct. If the writer cannot remember nothing of that movie except one titillating scene, then who has the real problem, I wonder?
I have read the article quoted by Dario Western for the first time, and like him, disagree with many of the opinions expressed. One point I think worth discussing further is that nudism is a reasonable activity and should be accommodated. I think at present there is only a minimal recognition of this and the accommodation there is can be summed up as very limited. If you count the number of beaches where nudity is allowed, the swimming pools with even a couple of hours a week for nude swimming, or even the saunas where nudity is allowed and all can use the facility, there are few. Some of these are under threat of withdrawal or further restriction. There are people who misuse or cause offence in nude situations and they should be confronted and if needed arrested or have the facility withdrawn from them, and this I support. This non-compliance with basic reasonable behaviour should not be used as a reason for never providing facilities in the first place. I would be very pleased if in each town the local swimming pool provided a couple of hours a week for nude swimming and nude use of a sauna and steam, without having to belong to a club, pay membership fees or travel long distances. A beach every 15-20 miles of coastline seem not too much to ask. I only wish that the naturist organisations here in the UK and elsewhere could campaign for this.
Well I've done exactly that without any problems in the past - stripped naked on a busy public beach, albeit with my "bits" decorously covered by a paperback book. Nobody complained, several people smiled and a few took surreptitious pics on their cameraphones. Of course "having a shag" in public isn't acceptable, clothed or not, but it's rather weird that the author seems to equate this with lying around naked. BTW the offence of "indecent exposure" no longer exists in English law, as the law has finally recognised that the human body in itself is not "indecent". You can only be charged if you intend to cause "alarm and distress" by displaying your genitalia.
