Nude Hiking in the Northwest: A Mini-Guide
A nice resource guide for those looking for places to hike nude in Washington. Just keep thinking of the spring and summer to come and start planning.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
An Interesting Read from the BBC h2g2 Community
Naturism: A way of living in greater fidelity to nature, with a norm of full nudity in social life, the genitals included, when possible and appropriate. We aim to enhance acceptance and respect for one's self, other persons and the biosphere.
- The Naturist Society, 1997
There's no bird-watching here - no philosophy of natural causes, or doctrines of religious truths derived from nature, or precise reproduction of life in art or literature. That would be naturalism.
If, instead, you're looking to drop your clothing and enjoy social nudity with others of like mind, for reasons of health, body acceptance, relaxation, and getting closer to nature, you're in the right place.
History of Naturism
Naturism1 is generally considered a synonym for nudism. Most naturists prefer not to be called nudists, because of many historical stereotypes (the term 'nudist colony' is so obsolete as to be almost quaint), as well as preferring the connection to nature implicit in the term 'naturism'.
There are many references to early examples of required nudity, such as biblical baptisms, Greek athletic competitions, and the Hindu Gymnosophists (literally 'naked philosophers') who used nudity as part of their spiritual practice. Modern naturism started in Germany with the Freikörperkultur (free body culture) movement in the beginning of the 20th Century, in part as a reaction to Victorian restraints, and in part as a movement towards a healthy, Utopian lifestyle, with compulsory exercise and vegetarianism as part of its philosophy.
Through the remainder of the century, the naturism movement spread throughout the world in many forms, with various naturist groups both reacting to, and attempting to coexist within, the cultural guidelines and restrictions of their particular nation or region.
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.
- International Naturist Federation, 1974
Clubs and Resorts
There are a wide variety of organizations and locations around the world where you can become a member and take part in naturist activities within a supportive group.
The most basic type of group is the non-landed club (organization without its own resort or property) that organizes activities at people's homes, or perhaps a nude night at the local bowling alley or municipal swimming pool. At the other end of the spectrum is Cap d'Agde, a nudist city of over 40,000 people in south eastern France, where you can do all your shopping and banking in the nude. In between are a host of resorts, usually with their own lake or swimming pool, camping areas, and even rental apartments or cabins.
Clubs will usually have a membership requirement, which may be restrictive (many clubs try to balance the number of male and female members), and a membership fee. Many clubs have special events, like art or music festivals, which may be open to non-members in order to bring in visitors and recruit new members. Resorts are usually open to anyone who pays the cost of the stay at the resort.
Recent years have seen a growing commercial industry in naturist vacations, including nude cruises and other speciality tourism activities. This trend is providing an economic incentive to support naturism, which could end up having more of an impact on the acceptance of naturism than any other factor.
The Free Beach Movement
The commonly accepted (though often clandestine) activity of 'skinny dipping' joined with naturism to produce the free beach movement which is, in part, an effort to make naturism more acceptable to a larger portion of the population who might not feel comfortable joining a naturist club, but fondly remember skinny dipping as kids. This effort has sought to identify, establish, and protect public beaches, swimming holes, and hot springs where people can swim or sunbathe in mixed company without clothing.
One of the strongest advocates of this movement has been The Naturist Society. The Naturist Society also publishes the World Guide to Nude Beaches and Resorts, which is the most comprehensive world-wide resource for finding places to go naked in public. A copy of this, next to your towel, is a valuable travel companion. In addition to listing major legal resorts and beaches, it also includes common-use remote locations in areas where not supporting the fashion industry may be illegal, with directions something like:
Drive 17 miles past the old general store, then turn left on the second dirt road and take it to the end. Park in the field, climb the fence, then turn right and go down the cliffs about 100 meters to the old stream bed. Follow it about two miles to the spot where there's a rock you can sit on. Make sure no one else is around to be offended before you strip.
Most so-called nude beaches are actually clothing optional, which means that you may be clothed or naked as you wish. However, if you ever happen to be the only one wearing clothes on a beach with 1,000 naked people, you will soon realise that you're the one who feels 'naked'.
Family Naturism
The kids Truth and Falsehood grew up as close friends. One day they went skinny dipping in the river. Falsehood climbed out of the water first and decided to dress in Truth's clothing. Falsehood then offered to swap hers for Truth's. But naked Truth chose to remain just as she was.
- Anonymous fable
Naturists include the full gamut of ages from babies to grandparents. Young children are particularly open to the idea, since they're born naturists and usually have to have it conditioned out of them (have you ever tried to keep clothes on a young child on a nice day?).
Many naturists believe that children raised in a naturist environment are likely to have a higher self-esteem, particularly about their own body, thereby being much less susceptible to eating disorders and other body esteem-related conditions, as well as having fewer hang-ups about the body during adolescence and having a more open view towards other people of all types. There is also the belief that many individuals who are prone to sexual violence have been raised to view the body as something shameful or perverse, and that this view contributes to their violent outlook.
Being natural and matter-of-fact about nudity prevents your children from developing an attitude of shame or disgust about the human body. If parents are very secretive about their bodies and go to great lengths to prevent their children from ever seeing a buttock or breast, children will wonder what is so unusual, and even alarming, about human nudity.
- Dr Lee Salk, Psychiatrist2
Naturism and Religion
Despite the fact that most religions do not have anything against nudity itself in their core beliefs, there are a lot of organized religious groups who see mere nudity as something sinful and are determined to shut down any nude beach or club they can, in any way they can, including attempting to pass anti-nudity legislation, picketing, making formal complaints, or publicly labelling all naturists as sexual deviants, perverts, and paedophiles. These people apparently wish everyone to be ashamed of God's creation, and instead, worship Him wearing polyester. These groups exist everywhere, but are particularly prevalent in the USA.
On the other hand, there are religious groups who use naturism as part of their form of worship, under the notion that being closer to nature is one way of being closer to God. They point out that The Bible has no prohibition against nudity per se. Not only was public nudity common in biblical times for practical reasons (or poverty); but, in some cases (baptisms, prophets, etc), it was required. They also note that the use of the word 'naked' in various translations of the Bible often means something else. For instance, references such as: 'And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin.'3 are actually using 'nakedness' as a euphemism for 'having sexual relations with' or 'lusting after'.
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. There are circumstances in which total nakedness is not immodest... nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is only present when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person... The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reasons are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of the individual.
- Pope John Paul II4
Naturism and Sex
Do Naturists have sex?
Well yes, of course they do. They're human like most of the rest of us. They just don't have sex as part of their naturist activities. In fact, most naturist groups will go out of their way to discourage sexual activity in public, in order to combat the perception that nudity equals sex.
Social nudity is not by itself sexual, and is certainly less titillating than skimpy costumes on textile (clothed) beaches. In some countries, where cultural beliefs are gained from the media and cinema, many people have the false perception that nudity only happens when beautiful people are having sex.
Getting Started
If you'd like to take the plunge, here are a few tips:
Practice going naked at home. If you think the dog is looking at you funny, it's just your imagination... he's naked, too.
Find a naturist beach or club to attend and find out what you can about the place. Contact the club for details, read about the beach in the guide to nude beaches, or check it out on the Internet (figuring out which half of the information to believe).
Know the local laws... social nudity in jail is probably not what you were looking for.
Leave your camera, radio, and pick-up lines at home.
Bring a book, a towel, and something to share.
Bring sunscreen and a hat. Some parts of your body haven't ever seen the sun, so apply the sunscreen thoroughly. If you're fair-skinned, consider bringing a beach umbrella or other shade.
Relax and enjoy the setting. You'll feel comfortable in no time.
How to Spot a Naturist
A co-worker asks you if you want to see his tan lines and he takes off his ring.
You see a green capital letter 'N' bumper sticker on their car. The capital green N is the symbol for the Naturist Society.
They've got freckles... everywhere.
Early in the summer a friend has returned from the beach, she can't sit down, and she has her bra in her pocket.
You invite someone to go swimming and they have to go out and buy a bathing suit.
12-foot fences around the back yard.
Even though you live on the coast, your friends drive four hours each weekend to go to the beach because 'it's a nice beach'.
At the entrance to their driveway there's a huge sign saying: 'Warning: Beyond this point you may encounter nude sunbathers.'
Frequently Asked Questions
I see a guy that looks pretty hot, and I'd like to flirt with him, but I'm already naked. What do I do?
This can be a bit of a problem, particularly if you depend on the tease of clothing for your flirting. Your best bet is to go up to him and say: 'Hey, would you like to watch me put on my underwear?'What happens if I get an erection?
This is the most common question from half of the population - we'll leave it to you to figure out which half - when considering naturism for the first time. In fact, it's not much of a problem. It's true that at first, that portion of your body may get a bit confused, but eventually it'll figure out that sex isn't included and go back to sleep. In the meantime, bury it in the sand, a towel, or the water until it calms down. Note: trying to reason with it out loud is generally not recommended.[cruel Internet bulletin-board hoax answer to the same question:]
No problem. Everyone around you starts to point and laugh at you, until some mesomorph/homophobe thinks he sees you looking at his girlfriend/self and beats you to a pulp. After this happens a number of times, you get conditioned to go limp at the sight of a naked body.My [insert body-part names here] are too fat. I can't go naked!
Just about everyone thinks they are too fat somewhere, but you'll soon discover that normal people come in all shapes and sizes and you'll fit right in, unless you go to the Supermodel Nude Beach (directions are here5), you'll get over it quickly. In fact, being naked can be an advantage over wearing a bathing costume which tends to force sections of your body out of the suit, drawing attention to the fat.I have a tattoo/piercing on my [insert private body-part name here]. Will people accept me naked?
Of course. Unless you tattooed your online banking password there, you probably would like people to see your body art. Here's your chance.If I go to a nude beach, will I be able to meet some overweight, middle-aged, single guys?
Yes.In the old nudist magazines and films, you always see them playing volleyball. Is that just a stereotype?
No. Naturists do play volleyball. Nobody knows why.
Final Thought:
What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and skin more beautiful that the garment with which it is clothed?
- Michelangelo
<
1 It is pronounced like 'nature', not 'natural', although both pronunciations are commonly used.
2 McCall's Magazine, June 1976.
3 Leviticus 20:19, King James Version.
4 Wojtyla, Karol (Pope John Paul II) (August 1994) Love and Responsibility Ignatius Press (ISBN 0-89870-4456).
5 So you had to look, even though 1) Obviously no such place exists; 2) if it did, you wouldn't be invited; and 3) if we knew where it was, we certainly wouldn't tell anyone or waste time writing about it.
Monday, December 20, 2004
3rd Annual Community Polar Bare Dip
Join me for this one. I will be one of the participants to strip off my clothes in protest and jump into the water.
Don't be clothes-minded! Dare to Go Bare! Take the fun plunge in your
one-button suit!
The Body Freedom Collaborative (BFC) / Seattle Free Beach Campaign (SFBC)
is pleased to announce its 3rd Annual Community Polar Bare Dip held this year at beautiful Richmond Beach in the City of Shoreline, King County, WA, USA
2021 NW 190th St., Shoreline, WA 98177-2831 ( you can easily generate a map with driving directions to the park at http://tinyurl.com/5cygs ) Saturday, January 15, 2005 at 9 AM (Dip starts at 9 AM sharp so get there early!)
Cheer us on or join in on the fun! All are welcome! From the shy to the bold. All ages,abilities, sizes, and colors welcome. Bring your family, friends, and co-workers!
What to wear? Do not fear! The Polar Bare Dip dress code is "Bare As You Dare"... How bare is that ? How dare is that ?...Its all up to you, you decide what you are
comfortable with. NO ONE IS EXCLUDED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST based on levels of clothing, bodypaint, or anything else, for that matter! PLEASE be creative and colorful in expressing yourself! Non-toxic bodypainting, decorating, banners, and other creative _expression is strongly encouraged!
Our dip is held on this day in honor of America's premier advocate of nude sunbathing, Benjamin Franklin, who was born in Boston on January 17, 1706. For those who are photo-shy or who are interested in honoring Ben Franklin, there are very inexpensive ( I seem to recall they were well under $5) Ben Franklin masks locally available in the patriotic-themed party section of Display & Costume. There is a location in Seattle (Northgate) and Everett. http://www.displaycostume.com
Richmond Beach features a breathing-taking view of Puget Sound and the Olympic
Mountains to the West. It is the next large park to the north of Carkeek Park (where last year's dip was held). There is plenty of parking for those who choose to carpool or drive. The dip will be on the main section of the beach after walking down from the footbridge over the railway. Please stay safe and legal; stay off the train tracks! Please do not take off your clothes until everybody is ready to go in together as a group.
A clothed beach clean-up follows the dip at 9:30 AM. Those participating in the clean-up should bring their own gloves and heavy duty garbage bags to carry out
litter. BFC will have a pickup truck to carry away any litter that cannot be disposed of in park garbage cans. Leave no trace!
Background:
This brief swim is one of many events BFC's Free Beach Campaign has launched to help fast-track development of clothing-optional beaches, especially in Washington State's Puget Sound region. While Oregon, California, and Vancouver B.C. boast many
clothing-optional beaches, the Puget Sound region has no such beaches with parking
and safe access for families and people with disabilities. Let's stop pushing
residents and tourists out of the state for body-positive recreation!
While some people don't mind going a little out of their way to enjoy recreation au naturel, most families and individuals prefer areas close to home, among communities that take their responsibility to maintain a safe and clean environment seriously. With the explosion of large-scale developments in formerly less-populated regions, and growing concern of the environmental impact and time involved in traveling for hours to reach too few remaining areas, grassroots momentum is growing fast to open existing local public beaches for clothing-optional use.
Americans traveling abroad, especially those from the Northwest, are increasingly aware of the disparity between what they can enjoy abroad and what little they have
back home. Many countries, especially in Europe, have been front runners for providing its citizens and their many tourists with a large and diverse selection of opportunities for clothing-optional recreation. Denmark, as an example, has had its entire coastline available for clothing-optional use, with the exception of two beaches, for 35 years! In Germany, many citizens can sunbathe in public parks and can be found skinnydipping along rivers all over the country. How can this cultural disparity be justified? If body acceptance can be a measurement of a civilized society, what does that say about us?
Isn't it time that Seattle, renowned worldwide for its natural beauty and friendly demeanor,caught up with the rest of the civilized world? Seattle citizens, say yes!
In a recent Seattle Post Intelligencer poll, citizens were asked "Should Seattle have a clothing-optional beach?" The results were very positive: Yes: 54.8%; No: 40.9%; Not sure: 4.3% (total votes: 2912, June 16, 2003).
The Bob Rivers Show posted a daily online poll on Sept 7, 2004 asking: "Activists in Seattle want the city to create a nude beach along an isolated stretch of Puget
Sound between Golden Gardens and Carkeek Park. Should we allow nude beaches?" Results (Total 229 votes cast):
Yes 85.15% "Preventing Americans from taking off their clothes in public is as bad as forcing women to wear burkhas. I don't care if flabby white people take off their clothes and frolic in the Sound, provided that I don't have to watch. Live and let live."
No 14.85% "Naked folks are popping up everywhere, from the Super Bowl to the streets of Fremont. The more local governments allow nudity, the more we'll have to
endure. Have you seen the people who want to run around nekkid? `Nuff said."
The addition of clothing optional beaches in Seattle will enhance and extend the multiple uses that Seattle Park & Recreation offers to an increasingly diverse
population, including the thousands of Northwest families and individuals looking for clothing optional beach in the State of Washington.
In a recent Naturist Education Foundation (NEF)/Roper Poll, Americans were asked: "Have you, personally, ever gone 'skinny dipping' or nude sunbathing in a mixed
group of men and women at a beach, at a pool, or somewhere else?" The results may
surprise you: Yes: 25%; No: 73% (Roper Poll of 1,010 adults, September, 2000, Error risk: 5%). The Poll shows that one of every four adults in the U.S. has been skinny-dipping or has sunbathed nude in a mixed-gender social setting. That is, by the way, a 10% increase from the same poll done in 1983. Using current population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, the latest poll suggests more than 70 million Americans have participated at one time or another in nude recreation.
Last year we had a blast! We had about 14-16 dip participants, plus many who came to cheer us on! We had some great press coverage as well. Check out our web
page for the 2004 Polar Bare Dip at http://www.bodyfreedom.org/seattlebeaches/polarbaredip.html
Momentum is building! Help make it happen! Please join us for our winter
wade-in & cleanup at Richmond Beach and be sure your also mark your calendar for our other upcoming events:
** World Naked Bike Ride - Seattle - June 11th, 2005 Join others in cities worldwide (Those in other cities should sign up for other local rides or help coordinate one in their city) For more information about World Naked Bike Ride visit http://worldnakedbikeride.org <---be sure to use the sign up form to receive event info
** Seattle Free Beach Campaign - Multiple events planned for 2005, especially focusing on the promotion of Discovery Park Beach
For more information about the Seattle Free Beach Campaign visit http://
seattlebeaches.org <--- be sure to use the sign up form to receive event info
For more information about the Body Freedom Collaborative visit
http://bodyfreedom.org
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Legislating your sex life
A search of sex laws turns up some surprises
Duane Hoffmann / MSNBC
By Brian Alexander
Contributor
MSNBC
Updated: 7:57 p.m. ET Dec. 2, 2004
News of the illness of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist has raised the issue of how President George Bush might change the Supreme Court. What does this have to do with sex?
Well, when it comes to sexual expression, a lot of people say, “There oughta be a law!” And politically powerful crusaders are already salivating over the possibilities. Concerned Women for America (CWA), for example, said last year that anal sex ought to be banned: “If we were really compassionate, we would be putting sodomy laws back on the books, not removing them.”
In fact, according to a search of state criminal code databases, there are already laws, lots of laws, regulating even private sexual expression. You might find some of them surprising.
Occasionally, the surprises stem from the legislative zeal to be thorough. In Texas, for example, “public lewdness” is against the law. No surprise there. But you can commit public lewdness even in private if you are “reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed” by, among other things, an “act involving contact between the person’s mouth or genitals and the anus or genitals of an animal or fowl.” Apparently, as long as nobody’s offended or alarmed, Rhode Island Red better watch out.
What's indecent?
States also have a wide variety of definitions for such things as public indecency. In Indiana, for example, you might be indecent if your male genitals are completely covered but “in a discernibly turgid state.”
As a former adolescent male, this worries me.
If you’re traveling with a lover, and you are not married to each other, but feeling in the mood, you’d better not rent a hotel room in North Carolina because "any man and woman found occupying the same bedroom in any hotel, public inn, or boardinghouse for any immoral purpose...shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
Sex under those circumstances would absolutely be “immoral” because, like many other states, North Carolina has laws against fornication whether you are in a hotel or just at home: “If any man and woman not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed, and cohabit together, they shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
In Idaho, fornication can get you a $300 fine and six months in jail. But that’s a piece of cake compared to the penalty for adultery -- up to a $1,000 fine and three years in the state pen.
If you’re a man in Oklahoma, and you tell a virgin female you want to marry her, then you two commit fornication, you had better not change your mind about the marriage, Bub, or else you’ve committed a felony. You could go to jail for five years. Luckily, if you change your mind back again, and make an honest woman of her, all is forgiven.
Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas are all conservative “red states.” Massachusetts, on the other hand, is the ultimate “blue state,” the state Bush accused of being full of “liberals” as if the state were a breeding ground for godless subversives. But it’s got some doozy sex laws. Adultery could get you three years in state prison. Sell a dildo, do five years. (I’ve previously mentioned anti-vibrator laws in Texas.) The state even has a catch-all statute for any “unnatural and lascivious act with another person.” The law doesn’t say just what is unnatural or lascivious.
Maryland appears to outlaw just about everything except the missionary position between married men and women. The law prescribes 10 years for “any unnatural or perverted sexual practice” like, say, oral sex. Not only that, but, says the law, the state can indict you without naming the particular act it’s accusing you of committing or even the manner in which you committed it.
Tough to enforce
For someone like me, who considers himself as law-abiding as any other good citizen, it feels strange to know I have committed felonies in several states, misdemeanors in many others, and that my accumulated jail time under laws I found in the databases is about 250 years.
For someone like me, who considers himself as law-abiding as any other good citizen, it feels strange to know I have committed felonies in several states, misdemeanors in many others, and that my accumulated jail time under laws I found in the databases is about 250 years.
Lucky for me, most of these laws are rarely, if ever, enforced. For one thing enforcement just isn’t practical. Not only do the acts usually happen in private, but enforcing the laws would make the United States one vast prison.
As of June 2003, there is also a very real legal reason why the laws are not enforced. A Texas statute says: “A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” (Some other states with such anti-sodomy laws can’t bear to name the act. Instead, they use phrases like “the detestable and abominable crime against nature.”) When police arrested two gay men having sex in their own home, the men fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court -- which is what got the CWA and other sex prohibitionists all riled up.
The resulting decision, Lawrence v. Texas, struck down the law. At the time, the ruling was considered a major victory for gay rights, but it also means states are, for now, very limited in how they can restrict private sexual behavior between consenting adults, gay or not.
The laws, though, are still on the books, lurking like land mines left over from a war. Why? Well, few legislators are willing to propose repealing them because nobody wants to be seen as “approving” of fornication or adultery or, my goodness, anal sex. Besides, there’s no powerful rubberist lobby, or a rich PAC called Married People for Sodomy. But as the new legislative director for CWA has said, “You just don’t mess with the conservative right!”
When Arizona decided to repeal some of its archaic sex laws in 2001, one crusading legislator struck back by proposing a law revoking the teaching credentials of any educator found to be a fornicator or to have committed “crimes against nature” like oral sex or anal sex. The governor received thousands of e-mails, most insisting the laws stay. She signed the repeal anyway.
Would-be regulators of sexual expression realize that the Lawrence decision could be reversed, giving those old, unenforced laws new teeth. Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted with the minority in Lawrence, wrote a scathing dissent which made it clear he favored the ability of states to forbid sexual expression they deemed immoral whether the proscribed behavior takes place in private or not. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas voted with Scalia.
Bush has said that Thomas and Scalia are his favorites on the court. It’s possible that the president will name up to three new justices during his second term. That new court may very well decide that your sex life is the government’s business after all.
Brian Alexander is a California-based writer who covers sex, relationships and health. He is a contributing editor at Glamour and the author of "Rapture: How Biotech Became the New Religion" (Basic Books, 2003).
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
The Offense of Public Nudity by Mark Storey
Originally printed in Nude and Natural from The Naturist Society
MOST AMERICAN LAWMAKERS have accepted some form of the Harm Principle as justification for laws prohibiting a given behavior. The principle states, loosely, that communities are justified in prohibiting actions when those actions cause harm to others. Robbery, murder, rape, and assault harm others, and are thus justifiably prohibited by criminal law.
As it stands today, criminal law prohibits most actions seriously harmful to others, and if not prohibited, the actions' harmful natures: like those of second-hand cigarette smoke, pornography, and the medical use of marijuana—are hotly debated.
There are many ways of arguing for the prohibition of an action. Legal Moralists will appeal to the immorality of the behavior in question, or to its negative effect on the "moral fabric" of our society.1 Legal Paternalists will appeal to the harm the act does to the actor, such as laws that mandate the wearing of seatbelts or helmets. The libertarian strain in this country tends to balk at paternalist approaches to law, and authors of legislation usually argue for the bill's merits under other terms.
There are variants to each of these lines of argument. A third distinct line is relevant to naturists today. More often than not, if a new law is proposed that limits the freedom to be nude, it is justified by an appeal to offense. Any of us may be offended by any number of things. Some people are more offended by certain behavior than others are.
Public nudity supposedly offends many people. But legislators are hard-pressed to show that public nudity per se harms anyone (although some are now making unsubstantiated claims about a negative effect on children). On the other hand, legislators have little footing in showing that public nudity is immoral other than to appeal fallaciously to cultural norms.2
Still, legislators often wish to ban all public nudity, or may feel pressured by constituents to do so. These days, a lawmaker who wishes to ban public nudity will often argue that public nudity offends people, and that because of the seriousness of the offense, such nudity may justifiably be prohibited by criminal law.
The issue of offense is thus of great importance to naturists in America today. A flippant naturist response is to say, "The offended parties be damned; we as naturists have the right to do what we wish as long as we are not harming anyone." Or, "People will be offended by anything; offense thus should not be relevant to law." These responses fail to acknowledge the complexities of offense, and do not take into account sensible principles thoughtful lawmakers, discerning judges, and liberty-loving naturists can fruitfully bring to the discussion.
Some naturists take the opposite tack. "We should not be naked in public because it will offend people and cause them to pass more stringent 'indecent exposure' laws," they might say. Or, to blend an appeal to offense with a form of Legal Moralism, they might argue, "It's wrong to offend people, so we should never be naked in public. We should limit our nudity to our homes and nudist clubs."
Given the limitations of this discussion, the last two naturist responses can be addressed only briefly. The first merits careful attention at another time due to the concern over a legislative backlash against naturists. Suffice it to say here that rarely is ground gained for social justice without a few courageous souls moving forward, pushing cultural and legal envelopes, to make way for the more timid—albeit equally oppressed—group.
We must also keep in mind that behavior that offends is not only morally permissible at times, but obligatory. Martin Luther King, Jr. offended many people as he marched the streets of Birmingham in 1963. Mary Wollstonecraft offended many Britons as she fought for women's rights. Jesus offended those around him in ways that left his undiscerning followers incredulous (see Matthew 15:12, for example). Offense per se is thus not morally wrong. The question is, what offending behavior is censurable and merits prohibition? When, and in what contexts?
The purpose of this discussion is twofold. First, it will outline many of the common-sense principles legislators should—and sometimes do—appeal to in considering a law banning an offending behavior. Second, it will show how naturists may effectively argue that non-lewd public nudity should not be prohibited outright by criminal law. There is not space here to develop each thread of the required argument, but its feasibility will be apparent.
This discussion does not seek to show that naturists are justified in walking down any street naked, although such a moral right may actually obtain. Nor does this discussion seek to make any comment on whether other potentially offending behaviors (e.g., public sex, "hate" speech, animal sacrifice rituals) should be free from the limitations of criminal law. The focus here is limited to the relevance of offense in crafting laws prohibiting public nudity.
It is unfortunate that many lawmakers, especially at the local level, either cannot or will not approach the complex issue of offense thoroughly and dispassionately. Moreover, when it comes to public nudity, they often feel that failure to support a ban would be political suicide and thus ignore a full discussion. This should not stop naturists from thinking through their positions in detail.
The Nature of Offense
Joel Feinberg, retired professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona, is a respected scholar in the field of social philosophy. His four-volume series, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, and especially Volume II, Offense to Others, outlines in clear detail many of the issues surrounding the legal prohibition of offending behavior.3
Much of what follows comes from Feinberg's work. Although not a naturist himself, Feinberg often uses naturism as an example of non-harming offending behavior. Defenders of naturist rights will not agree with Feinberg's conclusions at every turn, but should be grateful for his careful articulation of the principles useful in the discussion.
What is an offense? Feinberg distinguishes it from a harm. A harm, he says, is a wrongful setback of interests. That which we need to function fully and fruitfully as humans is an interest. We have an interest, then, in being alive, being healthy, retaining our possessions, being free to move about, having the opportunity to learn, having liberty to associate with friends, and so on. Any act of another that sets back such interests harms us.
For an act to be a "harm" worthy of legal prohibition, it must also be wrongful. In short, there are situations in which we may willingly allow ourselves to have our interests set back—such as when we freely enter a boxing match, play rugby, or climb dangerous mountain peaks. We may get hurt in such situations, but we have not been wrongfully harmed.
An offense does not set back our interests. To speak metaphorically, it is an itch on the elbow, while a harm is a broken arm. Still, offenses are unwanted states. Feinberg offers a list of offenses that will seem trivial or serious, depending—oftentimes—on one's point of view.
Offenses are usually unwanted emotional states and can vary greatly. Offenses include states of affront to the senses (e.g., an ugly sight, noxious smell, or grating sound); disgust; revulsion; shock to moral, religious or patriotic sensibilities; shame; embarrassment; anxiety; annoyance; boredom; frustration; fear; resentment; humiliation; and anger (10-13).
These are temporary states we prefer not to experience, but which normally do not keep us from living a full, flourishing human life. Legislators thus are unjustified in prohibiting them as harms. When the offense is serious, however, the question arises as to whether something might not be done to discourage the behavior.
The observation of public nudity offends many people. People offended at seeing others naked describe sensations of embarrassment, anxiety, shock, annoyance, shame, and other—perhaps irrational—emotional states. The mere "bare knowledge" of public nudity—knowledge that someone, somewhere, at some time might be naked in public—might be enough to offend some with the most tender sensitivity to nudity.4 The question is, what should be the limitation of the state's power to protect people from these kinds of offenses?
Feinberg argues that those who would grapple rationally with these questions should consider a set of factors that help determine both the seriousness of the offense and the reasonableness of the offending conduct. The more serious the offense, the more grounds there are for the state to take action in discouraging it; the less serious the offense, the less warrant the state has for interfering with personal liberties. Moreover, to the degree that the offending conduct is reasonable—all else being equal—to that degree the offending actor should have the legal right to that conduct (25-49).
Feinberg is in line with Aristotle, who said some types of questions allow for clear, precise answers, while others do not. Questions pertaining to mathematics, for instance, tend to have definitive answers. Questions on morality or politics, on the other hand, must be approached with more flexibility.
The factors Feinberg outlines provide a general, sometimes hazy, approach to determining when the state is justified in limiting public nudity. We should expect no more than this, for the line demarcating harm and offense is too often blurred. That's just the way things are. Fortunately, there is enough clarity available that thoughtful naturists and legislators may go a good distance toward fair and just social policies in addressing concerns over offense.
Seriousness of the Offense
The seriousness of an offense may be determined by (but is not limited to) the following considerations.
The intensity of the offense. The more intense the offense would be to a standard observer, the more serious it is.5 Thus the offense from hearing a neighbor practice drums indoors for one hour each afternoon is not as serious as that which comes from hearing him practice outdoors beneath your bedroom window for two hours in the middle of the night.
Obviously, some people will find public nudity more intensely offensive than others. Courts and legislators, ideally, would try to determine how intense the offense would be for a "standard" person or for a "reasonable person." Such estimations are often made by juries.
Public nudity will elicit a fairly strong reaction, but it may not be as intensely negative as many naturists and non-naturists imagine. Activists like Vincent Bethell, photographers like Harvey Drouillard and Spencer Tunnick, and filmmakers like Charles MacFarland have contested the standard claim that people will automatically collapse in offended apoplexy at the sight of a naked body in public. More study, however, needs to be made in this area to move beyond anecdote.
The offense taken at public nudity should not be compared only to such trivial offenses as seeing someone walk down the street in garish colors, but to those offenses that on a nearly universal level produce powerfully intense reactions, such as public defecation. In a broad context, witnessing the human body is just not that big of a deal. Negative reactions to the sight of nude humans are learned behaviors. We are not born with an innate sense that nudity is bad, but acquire it through cultural conditioning.
Still, public nudity will provide what many consider an intense offense, so that must be weighed honestly by naturists. No one should desire to offend people without good reason. Other factors need therefore be considered.
The duration of the offense. The longer the unwanted offending sensation lasts, the more serious the offense. For example, when someone walks by an egregiously smelly man on the street, the odor will offend the passerby, but only for as long as she smells the malodorous man. Once she is out of olfactory range, she may recall the offense, but is no longer suffering the offense. On the other hand, if she walks by and overhears two men using the foulest of language in discussing a particular ethnic group, her offense may last for days.
The duration of someone's offense at seeing a naked ocean swimmer or backyard sunbather is most likely to be of short duration. The offended party may experience discomfort in witnessing public nudity, but the offended state is not likely to last much beyond the experience in question. Considering, then, only the duration of the offense, public nudity appears to be at worst a rather trivial concern and not worthy of harsh criminal sanction.
The extent of the offense. The more people who are likely to be offended by a given behavior, the greater the state's justification for taking action to discourage that behavior. Most people would find a loud, piercing noise to be terribly irritating. But few would find, say, vintage Barry Manilow songs to be more than a mild annoyance. The state would therefore have more cause to respond to complaints about loud, piercing noises than it would to complaints about a neighbor's fondness for bad '70s pop music.
What would be the extent of the offense at non-sexual public nudity? According to the Naturist Education Foundation's 2000 Roper-Starch poll, 80 percent of American adults think people should be able to swim or sunbathe nude in locations set aside for that purpose, and 25 percent of American adults have practiced some form of mixed-sex skinny-dipping or nude sunbathing.6 The poll did not address people's tendencies to be offended at nudity in public, but did hint that the extent of offense may be smaller than many think. This is an issue that deserves far more empirical study.
The standard of reasonable avoidability. If it is relatively easy for people to avoid a particular offending behavior, then given the prima facie value to personal liberty, the state should allow that behavior. Since the behavior does not harm anyone, and since no one need be offended given the ease of avoiding it, people should have the right to act in that potentially offending manner.
This is one of the reasons why communities usually allow books and magazines to be sold in stores even if their content might offend people. It is quite easy to avoid being offended: people simply avoid picking up those books and magazines and looking at them.
On the other hand, some communities demand that magazine stands use blinder racks to shield people from nudity on magazine covers. It may be easy to avoid perusing the pages of salacious magazines, but it may be much harder to avoid seeing the covers if they are on open display in a store.
Naturists do well to draw attention to this mediating factor when arguing for a nude beach or private park. The Naturist Action Committee has argued for years that informative signs placed at the entrance of clothing-optional areas can do wonders to forestall offense. If people know that if they walk down a stretch of beach they may encounter nude sunbathers, then they can easily avoid getting offended.
The Volenti Maxim: "Volenti non fit injuria," or "To one who has consented, no wrong is done." This common-sense principle holds that if people freely and knowingly consent to experiencing a behavior that offends them, then they are not wrongfully offended and the offending actor is not culpable. For example, people shouldn't get to gripe about being offended by nudity if they knowingly went out of their way to see naked bodies at a secluded beach.
Once again, naturists will point to the efficacy of signs alerting people to clothing-optional areas in forestalling unwanted offense. If signs are posted informing people that an area may be used for nude sunbathing, then anyone who continues past the sign and is offended by the sight will be doing so voluntarily, and has no grounds for complaint.
Since naturists usually request that a mere portion of, say, a coastline be recognized as clothing-optional, those offended by nudity will have many reasonable alternatives for their beach recreation (keeping in mind the standard of reasonably avoidability). Moreover, the signs alerting people to the site's nude use serve double-duty in helping people easily choose to avoid entering an area where they may be offended. Thus only those who wish to be offended will be so.
The discounting of abnormal sensibilities. If only one person in a town is deeply distraught at the sight of purple T-shirts, this would surely be counted as an abnormal sensibility. His offense is nonetheless real. He may very well feel nauseated at the sight of such garments. Still, the state would not wish to prohibit purple T-shirts on this basis alone. If, however, the vast majority of a community experiences a seething, visceral need to retch when coming across purple T-shirts, Feinberg argues that the state is right to take this into account in prohibiting the offending cloth.
A question that cannot be addressed fully in this discussion is whether offense to public nudity is the result of an abnormal sensibility. Even if the majority of Americans would be offended at the sight of a naked person walking down the street, it does not follow that that this is a normal response. Naturists can argue that it is abnormal for any person to be offended by mere nudity, given that nudity is our natural state and merely reveals our bodily selves.
The point worth exploring is whether a society can be so twisted, mixed up, neurotic, or otherwise confused as to be guided by abnormal sensibilities. We might recall America's "normal" sensibility regarding interracial dating or the right of women to vote. It seems that "abnormal sensibility" must refer to more than just a head count of who would and who would not be offended by public nudity.
Reasonableness of the Offending Conduct
Feinberg argues that determining whether an offending behavior should be prohibited or not requires a balance of mediating factors. So far we have looked at those factors that would provide grounds for the state to discourage—perhaps through criminal law—offending conduct. But liberty is vital to any democracy, and though people wish to avoid offense, democratic societies require a high degree of freedom to flourish. If the offending behavior is reasonable enough, then for the greater good, the state ought to refrain from criminalizing the conduct.
The reasonableness of the offending conduct may be determined by (but is not limited to) the following considerations.
The personal importance of the conduct to the actor. If an activity offends others, but it provides needed economic support for the actor, or assists her in maintaining her health, or is critical to her relationships to loved ones, then that provides prima facie grounds for allowing it. For instance, a professional bagpipe player will need to practice in order to maintain his musical skill. To the uninitiated, the pipes may sound like the dying wail of mutated herons. He should do what he can to allow people to avoid hearing him practice, but should also be given some freedom to master his craft.
On the other hand, the piper's passion for, say, gangsta rap does not justify his playing obnoxious CDs at ear-piercing decibel levels. He has no important interest in hearing such music that loud, and communities may be justified in discouraging his doing so.
Naturists should be able to argue why public nudity is important to them. Skinny-dipping may be fun and feel good, but naturists will have to go deeper than that to establish real importance. (Such a case can be made, but this too is beyond the present discussion.) Feinberg, by the way, recognizes that naturists in particular may find a degree of public nudity important to them, and that sense of importance countsÑall else being equalÑin favor of allowing the practice.
The social value of the offending conduct. Some activities will offend many people, but are themselves so valuable to a democratic society that the liberty to engage in them must at nearly all costs be preserved. For instance, a thriving democracy depends on free speech. Without the opportunity to speak freely and caustically about our government, religious beliefs, the views of others, and so on, the citizenry cannot remain sufficiently informed to play its role in democracy. Thus the state needs to be leery of curtailing so-called "hate speech"—at least when it does not clearly pose a threat of harm—and must back away wholly from prohibiting open and often offending debate about, for instance, the role the president should play in foreign affairs or the Church's stance on birth control.
Is there social value in non-sexual public nudity? Thoughtful naturists should be addressing this question with vigor. Given the growing trend away from body acceptance among people of all ages (e.g., high school students are afraid to take showers in front of others and college-age males are now concerned about back hair), given the unhealthy tie the entertainment industry continues to make between nudity and sex, and given the related psychological disorders of bulimia and anorexia, there is ample call for the promulgation of naturist practice and values. Clothing-optional beaches and public parks, as well as the normalizing of nudity on one's own property, would be good steps toward alleviating a growing set of social ills.
Naturists might turn the question around and ask if blanket prohibitions on public nudity are not harmful and of counter-value to society. Given the cost in time and money of policing harmless skinny-dippers at out-of-the-way beaches, and the need to direct scarce resources to the prevention of serious crime, overly broad anti-nudity laws indicate a lack of fiduciary responsibility.
Free expression. This consideration is related to that of social value. In a democracy, free expression is of vital importance. If the offending conduct is one of expression of ideas—whether written, verbal, or artistic—then due to expression's value, the state should be reluctant to prohibit it.
Some naturists—like Florida's T. A. Wyner—have shown that courts will sometimes recognize a link between nudity and free expression. For the most part, however, the courts have ruled that mere nudity is not an expression, but an activity. Until naturists are successful in convincing the courts that sunbathing in one's backyard or skinny-dipping in a public lake is a form of expression, this consideration will be of little relevance to the issue of public nudity.
Alternative opportunities. If a person does something that offends others, and there are ample opportunities for the offender to satisfy his or her desires in alternative ways, then the offender should (all else being equal) make use of those alternative opportunities. There is no moral justification for offending others when one can just as easily achieve one's goal another way.
For instance, if a woman wishes to raise pigs and chickens in a dense urban setting, the ensuing smell may offend her neighbors. If she has the opportunity to raise such animals in a rural area, or if she has the opportunity to raise other animals with less odor, then the state is warranted in encouraging her to do so.
Naturists will have much to say about this consideration. Given that laws generally keep people from being nude even in their own front and back yards, naturists can argue that they have very few opportunities to be naked socially outdoors. Limiting social nudity to the inside of private homes would be counter to what many naturists enjoy about it. Fresh air, water, and the general communion with nature are integral to the naturist experience.
That the state should allow private nudist parks and clothing-optional public sites follows immediately from the lack of alternative opportunities most people have for nude recreation. The poor and middle class in particular are limited in their alternatives. Lack of clothing-optional beaches, then, may well be an issue of class.
Free beach activists can appeal to this fourth consideration to answer a legislator who asks, "With all the private nudist parks in the state, why should we allow a beach to be recognized as clothing-optional? Naked people have plenty of places to go to for sunbathing."
Naturists may respond in at least two ways here. First, many people live too far away to make a visit to a nudist park a reasonable option. Also, many cannot afford to join or travel to a nudist facility. Years back, nudist parks were priced so that even low-income families could enjoy them. Today, many clubs raise the price of admission to what the market will bear. Many younger families and retired people on fixed incomes do not have nudist parks as an alternative opportunity for nude recreation.
Second, for many people, private nudist clubs are unrewarding. For whatever reason, many who enjoy social nudity prefer natural, undeveloped areas such as beaches, hot springs, rivers, and lakes. For these people, nudist clubs cannot offer the full naturist experience they seek. Select public sites should thus be open for clothing-optional recreation throughout each of the country's regions.
The offender's motivation. Feinberg holds that a person's motivation should not be an issue for the state and should be respected whenever possible. He points to the motives of malice and spite, however, as deserving of no consideration. If a person engages in offensive behavior merely to get back at someone, as when a man takes off his sweaty, stinky running shoes at a restaurant dinner table to retaliate against a cigarette-smoking neighbor, his motive counts against his right to do so.
Naturists should consider sexual enticement and exhibitionism as motives that should count against the actors' plea for liberty. Most naturists, however, are free of malice, spite, exhibitionism, or other questionable motives when they argue for expanded clothes-free opportunities.
The nature of the locality. Where the offense occurs is important in determining whether it should be discouraged by the state. A secluded woodland area may be a more appropriate place for playing bagpipes than the lawn outside a school. A gymnasium is an appropriate place to sweat and smell like old gym clothes; a public library may not be. A college campus may be an acceptable place to hear the position of the Ku Klux Klan; outside the doors of a synagogue may not be.
Locality and context are therefore something to consider when debating whether an offending action should be prohibited. Those seeking broader naturist opportunities on public lands will wisely point out any site's tradition of nude use. The locality will thus be more conducive to continued nude use than, say, a beach that has a history of textile use only.
Naturist activists seeking new public land sites might also point out that a particular beach or hot spring is secluded, out of view of roads and homes, is easily patrolled by police, and can be signed effectively to alert people to its nude use. Such would be an ideal locale for a clothing-optional beach.
Alternatives to Criminal Prohibition
The factors discussed here do not provide a mathematical calculus with which anyone can crank out a black-and-white response for or against public nudity. They do, however, provide thoughtful people with some intelligent points of discussion. Naturists may be confident that they are on solid moral ground as they argue for the freedom to be fully human on select public lands, regardless that offense may be taken.7
One last point should be made here. Even though a good case can be made showing that the offense taken at public nudity is too trivial to warrant the harshest penalties, and that naturists are reasonable in their request for access to at least some public lands, it may be that authorities and public pressure will still demand that the state discourage all forms of public nudity. Prohibition by criminal law should be, in this case, a last resort.8 There are other more appropriate responses the state can make.
Feinberg suggests other approaches to curtail offending behavior unwanted by the majority of society, arguing that "law should not treat offenses as if they were serious, by and large, as harms." The state may, for instance, rely on nuisance law with penalties no greater than parking tickets, or on individual civil suits, or on individual court orders initiated by police and with threat of penalty.
Authorities may issue unofficial policies directing enforcement officers to ask naturists to get dressed only when there is a complaint made by someone other than the officers. California State Parks have functioned with just this approach for years under the so-called "Cahill Policy," to good effect.
The state may also choose to limit itself to encouraging citizens—through lectures, advertisements, and the like—to refrain from specific offending activities. Naturists will point out that simply allowing signed, clothing-optional use of a few appropriate public sites, and enforcing existing law there as it would be enforced elsewhere, is the ideal solution.
The point is that there are many options beyond criminal prohibition open to the state in response to the kind of public nudity practiced by naturists. No one has a blanket right to do whatever he or she wants. On the other hand, no one has a blanket right never to be offended. As a civilized society, we need to inquire calmly and thoughtfully about the moral limits of the criminal law as it pertains to nudity. Naturists must take a stand forcefully, cogently, and graciously in arguing for their freedoms.
Thanks to Allen Baylis for his comments on an early draft of this article. This article first appeared in Nude & Natural 22.2 (Winter 2002): 82-88.
NOTES
1. For instance, note the wording from a recent anti-nudity ordinance from Simi Valley, California. "WHEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has a valid governmental purpose of protecting public order, decency and morality; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the appearance of people in the nude in a public place or in a place open to or visible by the public, including children, is inimical to public safety and order, decency, and morality; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned regarding the indecency of citizen(s) of the community who have from time to time appeared in public in a state of nudity, with no applicable prohibitive state statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed its intention to limit or restrict such indecent immoral activities, to provide penalties for violations thereto; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has upheld regulation of nudity to protect the public order, decency arid morality in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2456, 115 L. Ed 2d 504 (1991), and in City of Erie v. PAP'S AM, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 3255."
2. For a critique of the argument based on Cultural Relativism against non-lewd social nudity see Mark Storey, "Cultural Relativism & the Morality of Naturism," Naturist LIFE International, No. 14 (Summer 1995): 28-29.
3. Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Volume II: Offense to Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). Feinberg developed his discussion on offense in earlier works. See, for instance, "'Harmless Immoralities' and Offensive Nuisances," in Joel Feinberg, ed., Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), pp. 69-109; and Joel Feinberg, Social Philosophy (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973), especially pp. 43-45.
4. Feinberg argues for strong limitations on the state's authority to prohibit offending behavior when the offense is due merely to bare knowledge. This, of course, has important implications for proposed bans on nudity at secluded beaches or private nudist parks. See pages 33-34, 60-71.
5. Each of these factors should be understood as within the context of all else being equal. Thus, the more intense the offense—all else being equal—the more serious it is; and so on with each factor.
6. Mark Storey and Lee Baxandall, "A Growing Nude Attitude in America," N 20.2 (Fall 2000): 4-5.
7. With more space, I would address the question of whether we are morally justified in doing an action when we can rationally expect that a bad, but undesired, effect may result. Philosophers and theologians have discussed this issue for centuries and have hammered out a useful doctrine called the Principle of Double-Effect. For a clear and insightful discussion of this doctrine from a naturist perspective, see Jim C. Cunningham, "A Dialog of Conscience," Naturist LIFE International, No. 8 (Summer 1993): 22-24.
8. The state of Montana may be the most draconian when it comes to criminalizing skinny-dippers. According to Montana Code 45-5-504, on a third conviction of indecent exposure, skinny-dippers "shall be punished by life imprisonment or by imprisonment in a state prison for a term of not less than 5 years or more than 100 years and may be fined not more than $10,000."
As it stands today, criminal law prohibits most actions seriously harmful to others, and if not prohibited, the actions' harmful natures: like those of second-hand cigarette smoke, pornography, and the medical use of marijuana—are hotly debated.
There are many ways of arguing for the prohibition of an action. Legal Moralists will appeal to the immorality of the behavior in question, or to its negative effect on the "moral fabric" of our society.1 Legal Paternalists will appeal to the harm the act does to the actor, such as laws that mandate the wearing of seatbelts or helmets. The libertarian strain in this country tends to balk at paternalist approaches to law, and authors of legislation usually argue for the bill's merits under other terms.
There are variants to each of these lines of argument. A third distinct line is relevant to naturists today. More often than not, if a new law is proposed that limits the freedom to be nude, it is justified by an appeal to offense. Any of us may be offended by any number of things. Some people are more offended by certain behavior than others are.
Public nudity supposedly offends many people. But legislators are hard-pressed to show that public nudity per se harms anyone (although some are now making unsubstantiated claims about a negative effect on children). On the other hand, legislators have little footing in showing that public nudity is immoral other than to appeal fallaciously to cultural norms.2
Still, legislators often wish to ban all public nudity, or may feel pressured by constituents to do so. These days, a lawmaker who wishes to ban public nudity will often argue that public nudity offends people, and that because of the seriousness of the offense, such nudity may justifiably be prohibited by criminal law.
The issue of offense is thus of great importance to naturists in America today. A flippant naturist response is to say, "The offended parties be damned; we as naturists have the right to do what we wish as long as we are not harming anyone." Or, "People will be offended by anything; offense thus should not be relevant to law." These responses fail to acknowledge the complexities of offense, and do not take into account sensible principles thoughtful lawmakers, discerning judges, and liberty-loving naturists can fruitfully bring to the discussion.
Some naturists take the opposite tack. "We should not be naked in public because it will offend people and cause them to pass more stringent 'indecent exposure' laws," they might say. Or, to blend an appeal to offense with a form of Legal Moralism, they might argue, "It's wrong to offend people, so we should never be naked in public. We should limit our nudity to our homes and nudist clubs."
Given the limitations of this discussion, the last two naturist responses can be addressed only briefly. The first merits careful attention at another time due to the concern over a legislative backlash against naturists. Suffice it to say here that rarely is ground gained for social justice without a few courageous souls moving forward, pushing cultural and legal envelopes, to make way for the more timid—albeit equally oppressed—group.
We must also keep in mind that behavior that offends is not only morally permissible at times, but obligatory. Martin Luther King, Jr. offended many people as he marched the streets of Birmingham in 1963. Mary Wollstonecraft offended many Britons as she fought for women's rights. Jesus offended those around him in ways that left his undiscerning followers incredulous (see Matthew 15:12, for example). Offense per se is thus not morally wrong. The question is, what offending behavior is censurable and merits prohibition? When, and in what contexts?
The purpose of this discussion is twofold. First, it will outline many of the common-sense principles legislators should—and sometimes do—appeal to in considering a law banning an offending behavior. Second, it will show how naturists may effectively argue that non-lewd public nudity should not be prohibited outright by criminal law. There is not space here to develop each thread of the required argument, but its feasibility will be apparent.
This discussion does not seek to show that naturists are justified in walking down any street naked, although such a moral right may actually obtain. Nor does this discussion seek to make any comment on whether other potentially offending behaviors (e.g., public sex, "hate" speech, animal sacrifice rituals) should be free from the limitations of criminal law. The focus here is limited to the relevance of offense in crafting laws prohibiting public nudity.
It is unfortunate that many lawmakers, especially at the local level, either cannot or will not approach the complex issue of offense thoroughly and dispassionately. Moreover, when it comes to public nudity, they often feel that failure to support a ban would be political suicide and thus ignore a full discussion. This should not stop naturists from thinking through their positions in detail.
The Nature of Offense
Joel Feinberg, retired professor of philosophy at the University of Arizona, is a respected scholar in the field of social philosophy. His four-volume series, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, and especially Volume II, Offense to Others, outlines in clear detail many of the issues surrounding the legal prohibition of offending behavior.3
Much of what follows comes from Feinberg's work. Although not a naturist himself, Feinberg often uses naturism as an example of non-harming offending behavior. Defenders of naturist rights will not agree with Feinberg's conclusions at every turn, but should be grateful for his careful articulation of the principles useful in the discussion.
What is an offense? Feinberg distinguishes it from a harm. A harm, he says, is a wrongful setback of interests. That which we need to function fully and fruitfully as humans is an interest. We have an interest, then, in being alive, being healthy, retaining our possessions, being free to move about, having the opportunity to learn, having liberty to associate with friends, and so on. Any act of another that sets back such interests harms us.
For an act to be a "harm" worthy of legal prohibition, it must also be wrongful. In short, there are situations in which we may willingly allow ourselves to have our interests set back—such as when we freely enter a boxing match, play rugby, or climb dangerous mountain peaks. We may get hurt in such situations, but we have not been wrongfully harmed.
An offense does not set back our interests. To speak metaphorically, it is an itch on the elbow, while a harm is a broken arm. Still, offenses are unwanted states. Feinberg offers a list of offenses that will seem trivial or serious, depending—oftentimes—on one's point of view.
Offenses are usually unwanted emotional states and can vary greatly. Offenses include states of affront to the senses (e.g., an ugly sight, noxious smell, or grating sound); disgust; revulsion; shock to moral, religious or patriotic sensibilities; shame; embarrassment; anxiety; annoyance; boredom; frustration; fear; resentment; humiliation; and anger (10-13).
These are temporary states we prefer not to experience, but which normally do not keep us from living a full, flourishing human life. Legislators thus are unjustified in prohibiting them as harms. When the offense is serious, however, the question arises as to whether something might not be done to discourage the behavior.
The observation of public nudity offends many people. People offended at seeing others naked describe sensations of embarrassment, anxiety, shock, annoyance, shame, and other—perhaps irrational—emotional states. The mere "bare knowledge" of public nudity—knowledge that someone, somewhere, at some time might be naked in public—might be enough to offend some with the most tender sensitivity to nudity.4 The question is, what should be the limitation of the state's power to protect people from these kinds of offenses?
Feinberg argues that those who would grapple rationally with these questions should consider a set of factors that help determine both the seriousness of the offense and the reasonableness of the offending conduct. The more serious the offense, the more grounds there are for the state to take action in discouraging it; the less serious the offense, the less warrant the state has for interfering with personal liberties. Moreover, to the degree that the offending conduct is reasonable—all else being equal—to that degree the offending actor should have the legal right to that conduct (25-49).
Feinberg is in line with Aristotle, who said some types of questions allow for clear, precise answers, while others do not. Questions pertaining to mathematics, for instance, tend to have definitive answers. Questions on morality or politics, on the other hand, must be approached with more flexibility.
The factors Feinberg outlines provide a general, sometimes hazy, approach to determining when the state is justified in limiting public nudity. We should expect no more than this, for the line demarcating harm and offense is too often blurred. That's just the way things are. Fortunately, there is enough clarity available that thoughtful naturists and legislators may go a good distance toward fair and just social policies in addressing concerns over offense.
Seriousness of the Offense
The seriousness of an offense may be determined by (but is not limited to) the following considerations.
The intensity of the offense. The more intense the offense would be to a standard observer, the more serious it is.5 Thus the offense from hearing a neighbor practice drums indoors for one hour each afternoon is not as serious as that which comes from hearing him practice outdoors beneath your bedroom window for two hours in the middle of the night.
Obviously, some people will find public nudity more intensely offensive than others. Courts and legislators, ideally, would try to determine how intense the offense would be for a "standard" person or for a "reasonable person." Such estimations are often made by juries.
Public nudity will elicit a fairly strong reaction, but it may not be as intensely negative as many naturists and non-naturists imagine. Activists like Vincent Bethell, photographers like Harvey Drouillard and Spencer Tunnick, and filmmakers like Charles MacFarland have contested the standard claim that people will automatically collapse in offended apoplexy at the sight of a naked body in public. More study, however, needs to be made in this area to move beyond anecdote.
The offense taken at public nudity should not be compared only to such trivial offenses as seeing someone walk down the street in garish colors, but to those offenses that on a nearly universal level produce powerfully intense reactions, such as public defecation. In a broad context, witnessing the human body is just not that big of a deal. Negative reactions to the sight of nude humans are learned behaviors. We are not born with an innate sense that nudity is bad, but acquire it through cultural conditioning.
Still, public nudity will provide what many consider an intense offense, so that must be weighed honestly by naturists. No one should desire to offend people without good reason. Other factors need therefore be considered.
The duration of the offense. The longer the unwanted offending sensation lasts, the more serious the offense. For example, when someone walks by an egregiously smelly man on the street, the odor will offend the passerby, but only for as long as she smells the malodorous man. Once she is out of olfactory range, she may recall the offense, but is no longer suffering the offense. On the other hand, if she walks by and overhears two men using the foulest of language in discussing a particular ethnic group, her offense may last for days.
The duration of someone's offense at seeing a naked ocean swimmer or backyard sunbather is most likely to be of short duration. The offended party may experience discomfort in witnessing public nudity, but the offended state is not likely to last much beyond the experience in question. Considering, then, only the duration of the offense, public nudity appears to be at worst a rather trivial concern and not worthy of harsh criminal sanction.
The extent of the offense. The more people who are likely to be offended by a given behavior, the greater the state's justification for taking action to discourage that behavior. Most people would find a loud, piercing noise to be terribly irritating. But few would find, say, vintage Barry Manilow songs to be more than a mild annoyance. The state would therefore have more cause to respond to complaints about loud, piercing noises than it would to complaints about a neighbor's fondness for bad '70s pop music.
What would be the extent of the offense at non-sexual public nudity? According to the Naturist Education Foundation's 2000 Roper-Starch poll, 80 percent of American adults think people should be able to swim or sunbathe nude in locations set aside for that purpose, and 25 percent of American adults have practiced some form of mixed-sex skinny-dipping or nude sunbathing.6 The poll did not address people's tendencies to be offended at nudity in public, but did hint that the extent of offense may be smaller than many think. This is an issue that deserves far more empirical study.
The standard of reasonable avoidability. If it is relatively easy for people to avoid a particular offending behavior, then given the prima facie value to personal liberty, the state should allow that behavior. Since the behavior does not harm anyone, and since no one need be offended given the ease of avoiding it, people should have the right to act in that potentially offending manner.
This is one of the reasons why communities usually allow books and magazines to be sold in stores even if their content might offend people. It is quite easy to avoid being offended: people simply avoid picking up those books and magazines and looking at them.
On the other hand, some communities demand that magazine stands use blinder racks to shield people from nudity on magazine covers. It may be easy to avoid perusing the pages of salacious magazines, but it may be much harder to avoid seeing the covers if they are on open display in a store.
Naturists do well to draw attention to this mediating factor when arguing for a nude beach or private park. The Naturist Action Committee has argued for years that informative signs placed at the entrance of clothing-optional areas can do wonders to forestall offense. If people know that if they walk down a stretch of beach they may encounter nude sunbathers, then they can easily avoid getting offended.
The Volenti Maxim: "Volenti non fit injuria," or "To one who has consented, no wrong is done." This common-sense principle holds that if people freely and knowingly consent to experiencing a behavior that offends them, then they are not wrongfully offended and the offending actor is not culpable. For example, people shouldn't get to gripe about being offended by nudity if they knowingly went out of their way to see naked bodies at a secluded beach.
Once again, naturists will point to the efficacy of signs alerting people to clothing-optional areas in forestalling unwanted offense. If signs are posted informing people that an area may be used for nude sunbathing, then anyone who continues past the sign and is offended by the sight will be doing so voluntarily, and has no grounds for complaint.
Since naturists usually request that a mere portion of, say, a coastline be recognized as clothing-optional, those offended by nudity will have many reasonable alternatives for their beach recreation (keeping in mind the standard of reasonably avoidability). Moreover, the signs alerting people to the site's nude use serve double-duty in helping people easily choose to avoid entering an area where they may be offended. Thus only those who wish to be offended will be so.
The discounting of abnormal sensibilities. If only one person in a town is deeply distraught at the sight of purple T-shirts, this would surely be counted as an abnormal sensibility. His offense is nonetheless real. He may very well feel nauseated at the sight of such garments. Still, the state would not wish to prohibit purple T-shirts on this basis alone. If, however, the vast majority of a community experiences a seething, visceral need to retch when coming across purple T-shirts, Feinberg argues that the state is right to take this into account in prohibiting the offending cloth.
A question that cannot be addressed fully in this discussion is whether offense to public nudity is the result of an abnormal sensibility. Even if the majority of Americans would be offended at the sight of a naked person walking down the street, it does not follow that that this is a normal response. Naturists can argue that it is abnormal for any person to be offended by mere nudity, given that nudity is our natural state and merely reveals our bodily selves.
The point worth exploring is whether a society can be so twisted, mixed up, neurotic, or otherwise confused as to be guided by abnormal sensibilities. We might recall America's "normal" sensibility regarding interracial dating or the right of women to vote. It seems that "abnormal sensibility" must refer to more than just a head count of who would and who would not be offended by public nudity.
Reasonableness of the Offending Conduct
Feinberg argues that determining whether an offending behavior should be prohibited or not requires a balance of mediating factors. So far we have looked at those factors that would provide grounds for the state to discourage—perhaps through criminal law—offending conduct. But liberty is vital to any democracy, and though people wish to avoid offense, democratic societies require a high degree of freedom to flourish. If the offending behavior is reasonable enough, then for the greater good, the state ought to refrain from criminalizing the conduct.
The reasonableness of the offending conduct may be determined by (but is not limited to) the following considerations.
The personal importance of the conduct to the actor. If an activity offends others, but it provides needed economic support for the actor, or assists her in maintaining her health, or is critical to her relationships to loved ones, then that provides prima facie grounds for allowing it. For instance, a professional bagpipe player will need to practice in order to maintain his musical skill. To the uninitiated, the pipes may sound like the dying wail of mutated herons. He should do what he can to allow people to avoid hearing him practice, but should also be given some freedom to master his craft.
On the other hand, the piper's passion for, say, gangsta rap does not justify his playing obnoxious CDs at ear-piercing decibel levels. He has no important interest in hearing such music that loud, and communities may be justified in discouraging his doing so.
Naturists should be able to argue why public nudity is important to them. Skinny-dipping may be fun and feel good, but naturists will have to go deeper than that to establish real importance. (Such a case can be made, but this too is beyond the present discussion.) Feinberg, by the way, recognizes that naturists in particular may find a degree of public nudity important to them, and that sense of importance countsÑall else being equalÑin favor of allowing the practice.
The social value of the offending conduct. Some activities will offend many people, but are themselves so valuable to a democratic society that the liberty to engage in them must at nearly all costs be preserved. For instance, a thriving democracy depends on free speech. Without the opportunity to speak freely and caustically about our government, religious beliefs, the views of others, and so on, the citizenry cannot remain sufficiently informed to play its role in democracy. Thus the state needs to be leery of curtailing so-called "hate speech"—at least when it does not clearly pose a threat of harm—and must back away wholly from prohibiting open and often offending debate about, for instance, the role the president should play in foreign affairs or the Church's stance on birth control.
Is there social value in non-sexual public nudity? Thoughtful naturists should be addressing this question with vigor. Given the growing trend away from body acceptance among people of all ages (e.g., high school students are afraid to take showers in front of others and college-age males are now concerned about back hair), given the unhealthy tie the entertainment industry continues to make between nudity and sex, and given the related psychological disorders of bulimia and anorexia, there is ample call for the promulgation of naturist practice and values. Clothing-optional beaches and public parks, as well as the normalizing of nudity on one's own property, would be good steps toward alleviating a growing set of social ills.
Naturists might turn the question around and ask if blanket prohibitions on public nudity are not harmful and of counter-value to society. Given the cost in time and money of policing harmless skinny-dippers at out-of-the-way beaches, and the need to direct scarce resources to the prevention of serious crime, overly broad anti-nudity laws indicate a lack of fiduciary responsibility.
Free expression. This consideration is related to that of social value. In a democracy, free expression is of vital importance. If the offending conduct is one of expression of ideas—whether written, verbal, or artistic—then due to expression's value, the state should be reluctant to prohibit it.
Some naturists—like Florida's T. A. Wyner—have shown that courts will sometimes recognize a link between nudity and free expression. For the most part, however, the courts have ruled that mere nudity is not an expression, but an activity. Until naturists are successful in convincing the courts that sunbathing in one's backyard or skinny-dipping in a public lake is a form of expression, this consideration will be of little relevance to the issue of public nudity.
Alternative opportunities. If a person does something that offends others, and there are ample opportunities for the offender to satisfy his or her desires in alternative ways, then the offender should (all else being equal) make use of those alternative opportunities. There is no moral justification for offending others when one can just as easily achieve one's goal another way.
For instance, if a woman wishes to raise pigs and chickens in a dense urban setting, the ensuing smell may offend her neighbors. If she has the opportunity to raise such animals in a rural area, or if she has the opportunity to raise other animals with less odor, then the state is warranted in encouraging her to do so.
Naturists will have much to say about this consideration. Given that laws generally keep people from being nude even in their own front and back yards, naturists can argue that they have very few opportunities to be naked socially outdoors. Limiting social nudity to the inside of private homes would be counter to what many naturists enjoy about it. Fresh air, water, and the general communion with nature are integral to the naturist experience.
That the state should allow private nudist parks and clothing-optional public sites follows immediately from the lack of alternative opportunities most people have for nude recreation. The poor and middle class in particular are limited in their alternatives. Lack of clothing-optional beaches, then, may well be an issue of class.
Free beach activists can appeal to this fourth consideration to answer a legislator who asks, "With all the private nudist parks in the state, why should we allow a beach to be recognized as clothing-optional? Naked people have plenty of places to go to for sunbathing."
Naturists may respond in at least two ways here. First, many people live too far away to make a visit to a nudist park a reasonable option. Also, many cannot afford to join or travel to a nudist facility. Years back, nudist parks were priced so that even low-income families could enjoy them. Today, many clubs raise the price of admission to what the market will bear. Many younger families and retired people on fixed incomes do not have nudist parks as an alternative opportunity for nude recreation.
Second, for many people, private nudist clubs are unrewarding. For whatever reason, many who enjoy social nudity prefer natural, undeveloped areas such as beaches, hot springs, rivers, and lakes. For these people, nudist clubs cannot offer the full naturist experience they seek. Select public sites should thus be open for clothing-optional recreation throughout each of the country's regions.
The offender's motivation. Feinberg holds that a person's motivation should not be an issue for the state and should be respected whenever possible. He points to the motives of malice and spite, however, as deserving of no consideration. If a person engages in offensive behavior merely to get back at someone, as when a man takes off his sweaty, stinky running shoes at a restaurant dinner table to retaliate against a cigarette-smoking neighbor, his motive counts against his right to do so.
Naturists should consider sexual enticement and exhibitionism as motives that should count against the actors' plea for liberty. Most naturists, however, are free of malice, spite, exhibitionism, or other questionable motives when they argue for expanded clothes-free opportunities.
The nature of the locality. Where the offense occurs is important in determining whether it should be discouraged by the state. A secluded woodland area may be a more appropriate place for playing bagpipes than the lawn outside a school. A gymnasium is an appropriate place to sweat and smell like old gym clothes; a public library may not be. A college campus may be an acceptable place to hear the position of the Ku Klux Klan; outside the doors of a synagogue may not be.
Locality and context are therefore something to consider when debating whether an offending action should be prohibited. Those seeking broader naturist opportunities on public lands will wisely point out any site's tradition of nude use. The locality will thus be more conducive to continued nude use than, say, a beach that has a history of textile use only.
Naturist activists seeking new public land sites might also point out that a particular beach or hot spring is secluded, out of view of roads and homes, is easily patrolled by police, and can be signed effectively to alert people to its nude use. Such would be an ideal locale for a clothing-optional beach.
Alternatives to Criminal Prohibition
The factors discussed here do not provide a mathematical calculus with which anyone can crank out a black-and-white response for or against public nudity. They do, however, provide thoughtful people with some intelligent points of discussion. Naturists may be confident that they are on solid moral ground as they argue for the freedom to be fully human on select public lands, regardless that offense may be taken.7
One last point should be made here. Even though a good case can be made showing that the offense taken at public nudity is too trivial to warrant the harshest penalties, and that naturists are reasonable in their request for access to at least some public lands, it may be that authorities and public pressure will still demand that the state discourage all forms of public nudity. Prohibition by criminal law should be, in this case, a last resort.8 There are other more appropriate responses the state can make.
Feinberg suggests other approaches to curtail offending behavior unwanted by the majority of society, arguing that "law should not treat offenses as if they were serious, by and large, as harms." The state may, for instance, rely on nuisance law with penalties no greater than parking tickets, or on individual civil suits, or on individual court orders initiated by police and with threat of penalty.
Authorities may issue unofficial policies directing enforcement officers to ask naturists to get dressed only when there is a complaint made by someone other than the officers. California State Parks have functioned with just this approach for years under the so-called "Cahill Policy," to good effect.
The state may also choose to limit itself to encouraging citizens—through lectures, advertisements, and the like—to refrain from specific offending activities. Naturists will point out that simply allowing signed, clothing-optional use of a few appropriate public sites, and enforcing existing law there as it would be enforced elsewhere, is the ideal solution.
The point is that there are many options beyond criminal prohibition open to the state in response to the kind of public nudity practiced by naturists. No one has a blanket right to do whatever he or she wants. On the other hand, no one has a blanket right never to be offended. As a civilized society, we need to inquire calmly and thoughtfully about the moral limits of the criminal law as it pertains to nudity. Naturists must take a stand forcefully, cogently, and graciously in arguing for their freedoms.
Thanks to Allen Baylis for his comments on an early draft of this article. This article first appeared in Nude & Natural 22.2 (Winter 2002): 82-88.
NOTES
1. For instance, note the wording from a recent anti-nudity ordinance from Simi Valley, California. "WHEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has a valid governmental purpose of protecting public order, decency and morality; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the appearance of people in the nude in a public place or in a place open to or visible by the public, including children, is inimical to public safety and order, decency, and morality; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned regarding the indecency of citizen(s) of the community who have from time to time appeared in public in a state of nudity, with no applicable prohibitive state statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has expressed its intention to limit or restrict such indecent immoral activities, to provide penalties for violations thereto; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has upheld regulation of nudity to protect the public order, decency arid morality in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2456, 115 L. Ed 2d 504 (1991), and in City of Erie v. PAP'S AM, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 3255."
2. For a critique of the argument based on Cultural Relativism against non-lewd social nudity see Mark Storey, "Cultural Relativism & the Morality of Naturism," Naturist LIFE International, No. 14 (Summer 1995): 28-29.
3. Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Volume II: Offense to Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). Feinberg developed his discussion on offense in earlier works. See, for instance, "'Harmless Immoralities' and Offensive Nuisances," in Joel Feinberg, ed., Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), pp. 69-109; and Joel Feinberg, Social Philosophy (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973), especially pp. 43-45.
4. Feinberg argues for strong limitations on the state's authority to prohibit offending behavior when the offense is due merely to bare knowledge. This, of course, has important implications for proposed bans on nudity at secluded beaches or private nudist parks. See pages 33-34, 60-71.
5. Each of these factors should be understood as within the context of all else being equal. Thus, the more intense the offense—all else being equal—the more serious it is; and so on with each factor.
6. Mark Storey and Lee Baxandall, "A Growing Nude Attitude in America," N 20.2 (Fall 2000): 4-5.
7. With more space, I would address the question of whether we are morally justified in doing an action when we can rationally expect that a bad, but undesired, effect may result. Philosophers and theologians have discussed this issue for centuries and have hammered out a useful doctrine called the Principle of Double-Effect. For a clear and insightful discussion of this doctrine from a naturist perspective, see Jim C. Cunningham, "A Dialog of Conscience," Naturist LIFE International, No. 8 (Summer 1993): 22-24.
8. The state of Montana may be the most draconian when it comes to criminalizing skinny-dippers. According to Montana Code 45-5-504, on a third conviction of indecent exposure, skinny-dippers "shall be punished by life imprisonment or by imprisonment in a state prison for a term of not less than 5 years or more than 100 years and may be fined not more than $10,000."
Thursday, November 18, 2004
205 Reasons to Become a Nudist (Naturist)
UPDATE (30 Sep 2005): this venerable article has become the most popular post on my blog so I decided to clean it up and add navigation links (including the oft left out endnotes) to move around the 60 pages of so of information. I hope you enjoy this piece as much as I do . . . and if you decide to take the wonderfully freeing plunge into naturism and nudism, drop me a line and let me know it was all worth it.
There is a Microsoft Word version available. If you desire a copy, use the sidebar to the right to contact me. Rick
Okay . . . so it's getting really too cold to go prancing about naked in the mountains right now so my nude activities are restricted to occasional visits to LARCs magnificent hot tub and an occasional trip up for a soak in Scenic Hot Springs. Of course, at home I'm rather enjoying firing up the portable firepit on the deck and lounging about naked out there but I really want to get into the mountains again. Meanwhile, I came across the article that you might enjoy. It's a very long read but it will give you some ammunition the next time you try to convince someone to try nudism or naturism.
There is a Microsoft Word version available. If you desire a copy, use the sidebar to the right to contact me. Rick
Okay . . . so it's getting really too cold to go prancing about naked in the mountains right now so my nude activities are restricted to occasional visits to LARCs magnificent hot tub and an occasional trip up for a soak in Scenic Hot Springs. Of course, at home I'm rather enjoying firing up the portable firepit on the deck and lounging about naked out there but I really want to get into the mountains again. Meanwhile, I came across the article that you might enjoy. It's a very long read but it will give you some ammunition the next time you try to convince someone to try nudism or naturism.
205 Arguments and Observations In Support of Naturism
Extensively documented with quotes, references, supporting research, and resources for further study Compiled by K. Bacher
Contents
- Preface
- Nudity is often more comfortable and practical than clothing (1 – 3)
- Naturism promotes mental health (4 – 14)
- Some observations on the nature of modesty (15 – 28)
- Naturism promotes sexual health (29 – 49)
- Naturism promotes physical health (50 – 61)
- Naturism is socially constructive (62 – 68)
- Naturism is healthy for the family (69 – 77)
- Naturism is especially consistent with feminism and the struggle for women's freedom (78 – 89)
- Naturism is more natural than clothes-compulsiveness 90 – 101)
- Accepted clothing requirements are arbitrary and inconsistent (102 – 106)
- Naturism is growing in acceptance (107 – 113)
- Constitutional support for Naturism (114 - 128)
- Additional legal support for Naturism (129 – 149)
- Historical support for Naturism (150 – 166)
- Historical origins of the repression of nudity (167 - 179)
- Christianity supports Naturism (180 – 204)
- Personal experience supports Naturism (205)
- Endnotes & Bibliography
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
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-to-date 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
- There are times when clothing is physically uncomfortable. Nudity, on the other hand, is often much more comfortable.
- 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]
- 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.
- A nudist is not a body lacking something (that is, clothing). Rather, a clothed person is a whole and complete naked body, plus clothes
- 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.
- 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] - Nudism promotes wholeness of body, rather than setting aside parts of the body as unwholesome and shameful. [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
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- The nudist, literally, has nothing to hide. He or she therefore has less stress, a fact supported by research. 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." [12] [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
- 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.
- Children are not born with any shame about nudity. They learn to be ashamed of their own nudity.
- 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
- 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 non-nudists 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]
- 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 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
- Even in
- 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]
- 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 - Most anthropologists consider modesty an unlikely reason for the development of clothes. J.C. Flngel 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]
- 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]
- It is interesting to note that it is only possible to be immodest once an accepted form of modesty has been established. [43]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Sexual satisfaction in married couples shows a correlation to their degree of comfort with nudity. [45]
- Studies show significantly less incidence of casual premarital and extramarital sex, group sex, incest, and rape among nudists than among non-nudists. [46]
- Studies have demonstrated that countries with fewer hangups about nudity have lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates. [47]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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 de-emphasized 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]
- 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]
- Differences of clothing between the sexes focus attention on sex differences.[58] Psychologist J.C. Flngel 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]
- Many psychologists believe that clothing may originally have developed, in part, as a means of focusing sexual attention.[60]
- 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]
- 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]
- Topfree[66] inequality (requiring women, but not men, to wear tops) produces an unhealthy obsession with breasts as sexual objects.
- The identification of breasts as sexual objects in our culture has led to the discouragement of breast-feeding, 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Clothing can harbor disease-causing bacteria and yeast (especially underclothing and athletic clothing).
- 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]
- 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.
- 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
- 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?"
- 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]
- Clothing harbors and encourages the growth of odor-causing bacteria.
Naturism is socially constructive.
- 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]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- True nudists emphasize a decent, family atmosphere and morality.
- Research shows that children who grow up in a nudist setting tend to be more self-confident, more self-accepting, and more sexually well-adjusted. They feel better about their bodies, and more comfortable with their sexuality.[90] Research conducted at the
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- 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
- 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
Naturism is especially consistent with feminism and the struggle for women's freedom.
- 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]
- 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 male-oriented 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- The fight for freedom should mean civil rights for women--not license for pornographers.
- 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 spring-like 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] mutilation 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]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- One feels much more a part of a natural setting in the nude than clothed.[123]
- The nudist is far more sensually aware, because nudity enhances responsiveness and sensory experience.
- 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
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- 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 pesticide sprayed 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Today in
- 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]
- 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
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
Naturism is growing in acceptance.
- Most world societies are much more open about nudity than the
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
- Participation in nudist organizations is high in other parts of the world. In
- 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]
- Nudity is much more common in foreign media. For example, one of
- Public nudity, including clothing-optional recreation, enjoys growing acceptance in
In 1991, visitation at
Given the opportunity and license to do so, women do take advantage of the option of going topfree. During the 1984 Olympics in
- 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]
- The tourism industry is discovering that it is in their economic best interests to accept clothing-optional recreation. When it became a favorite vacation spot for Europeans in the mid 1980s,
Constitutional support for Naturism.[177]
- In a free society such as the
- 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]
- 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]
- 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 concerns[182] 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- Recent court decisions in
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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 anti-nudity 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
Additional legal support for Naturism.[196]
- Case history demonstrates that laws requiring women to cover their breasts are not justified by cultural prejudices and preconceptions.[197]
- 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.
- 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.
- Mere nudity is not in itself lewd or "indecent exposure," a distinction upheld by extensive legal precedent nationwide.[199]
- 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.
- 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 example, 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]
- 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.
- By extensive legal precedent, it is unquestionably legal to be nude in private, on private property.
- 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
- 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
- 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]
- The mandate of public land agencies such as the
- 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
- Naturists certainly deserve at least as much consideration by land management agencies as resource-damaging 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]
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- If public nude recreation can be widely accepted in societies considered repressive by Americans (for example, formerly-socialist
- Anti-nudity laws are demeaning because they replace individual responsibility with state control.
- 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.
- It is a cruel reversal of justice when the law frowns on innocent skinny-dippers, while gawkers on the fringe of the nude beach, who pervert and fetishize the body, are accepted as "normal."
Historical support for Naturism.
- 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.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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 Christian initiation, along with the invocation of the Trinity. . . . In the fourth century instructions for baptism throughout the
- Nudity was common and accepted in pre-medieval (circa 6th century) society, especially in places like
E.T. Renbourn notes that nudity was widespread throughout Ancient Britain and northern
- 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 display 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]
- 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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]
- 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.
- The few officially sanctioned nude beaches in the
- 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
Billionaire insurance man John D. MacArthur frequently went skinnydipping, and left a beach to the state of
- 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.
- Nudity has often been used, historically, as a symbol of protest or rebellion against oppression.
For example, the early Quakers, in mid-17th century
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
Historical origins of the repression of nudity.
- 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
- 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]
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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]
- 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]
- Nudity has often been censored primarily to avoid the more difficult task of managing it.[271]
- 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.
- 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
- 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]
- Nudity has often been repressed for economic reasons, not because it was considered immoral. Bernard Rudofsky writes: "In the 1920s, in some parts of
- 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]
- 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.
- Genesis 1:31--God saw that everything, including naked Adam and Eve, was good.
- 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]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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]
- 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
- 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.
- 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]
- 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)
- 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]
- 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.
- II Samuel 6:14-23--King David danced nearly naked in the City of
- 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)
- Song of Solomon repeatedly expresses appreciation for the naked body.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Through Christ, the Christian is returned spiritually to the same sinless, shameless state Adam and Eve enjoyed in
- 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)
- 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]
- 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.
- 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]
- 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
Personal experience supports Naturism.
- 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 hand, it may change your life. Experience the freedom for yourself!¶
Special Thanks
Special thanks is due The Naturist Society and the American Association for Nude Recreation. Many of the ideas expressed in this document have their origins in the philosophies, histories, and publications of these two organizations. Thanks, especially, to Lee Baxandall, who contributed significant resources to this research.
Bibliography
· "35% of Americans Would 'Bare It All.'" Nude & Natural 10.1 (1990): 5
· Ableman, Paul. Anatomy of Nakedness.
· Agate, Carol. "All Chests Are Created Equal." Clothed with the Sun 1.3 (1981): 75-76
· "An ACLU Policy on Naturist Rights." Nude & Natural 11.3 (1992): 9
· "Alexander Graham Bell Was One of Us." Clothed with the Sun 8.3 (1988): 10
· Allen, Jane Addams. "The Sacred and the Profane: A Continuing Story in Western Art." New Art Examiner 17.11 (Summer, 1990): 18-22.
· "Amy Grant Is a Barefoot Christian Singer." Nude & Natural 9.2 (1989): 8.
· "Another Celebrity." Nude & Natural 14.1 (1994): 6.
· Bahr, Robert. "God of the Body." Nude & Natural 11.1 (1991): 43-45
· Barbour, Ian. Issues in Science and Religion.
· Baxandall, Lee. "The Communal Heat
· ---. "Jock Sturges as Naturist Photographer." Nude & Natural 11.4 (1992): 94-98.
· ---. "To Overturn
· ---. World Guide to
· ---. World Guide to
· "Big Achievements." Nude & Natural 11.4 (1992): 5.
· "Bill Clinton's Vacation: So Near a
· Blank, Leonard, A. Arthur Sugarman, and Lane Rossa. "Body Concern, Body Image, and Nudity." Psychological Reports 23.3 (1968): 963-68
· "Body Acceptance in
· Bonfante, Lisa. "The Naked Greek." Archaeology 43.5 (September 1990): 28-35
· ---. "Nudity as a Costume in Classical Art." American Journal of Archaeology 93.4 (October, 1989): 543-70.
· Booth, Marie-Louise. "Parental Influence on Adult Sexual Anxiety."
· Boyte, Rob. "National Geographic: Primitivism in Body Acceptance." Nude & Natural 11.4 (1992): 23-24
· ---. "Nude Attitude: Modesty Is a Continuum." Nude & Natural 12.2 (1993): 28-31.
· Braithwaite, William C. The Beginnings of Quakerism. 2nd ed. Rev. Henry J. Cadbury.
· "Breast-feeding Mothers Get Strong Law in NY."
· "Bridget Fonda." Nude & Natural 10.1 (1990): 8.
· Brody, Liz. "Are We Losing Our Girls?" Shape November 1995: 94-99, 132-138
· Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity.
· Carey, Ann. "Natural Cotton Clothing." Buzzworm July/August 1992: 78.
· Carrithers, Michael. "Naked Ascetics in Southern Digambar Jainism." Man (N.S.) 24.2 (June, 1989): 219-35
· "Celebrities Acknowledge Nudity--Now It's Lynn Redgrave." Nude & Natural 9.3 (1990): 16-17.
· "Christians Undressed in the Mixed-Gender Roman Baths." Nude & Natural 12.4 (1993): 10-11.
· Clift, Eleanor. "Congress: The Ultimate Men's Club." Newsweek 21 October 1991: 32
· Coleman, Lisa and Matt Rees. "Naked Appeal." Forbes 150.8 (12 October 1992): 138
· "College Nude Swims." Nude & Natural 11.3 (1992): 114-15
· Condra, Mollie B. "Bare Facts and Naked Truths: Gender, Power, and Freedom of Expression." Free Speech Yearbook 30 (1992): 129-48
· Conquest of
· Corbey, Raymond. "Alterity: The Colonial Nude." Critique of Anthropology 8.3 (1988): 75-92
· Counting Naked Noses & Toeses: The Statistics of Growth." Nude & Natural 9.4 (1990): 8-9
· Craft, Nikki. "
· , John, ed. The Voyage of Christopher Columbus:
· Cunningham, J.C. "De Nuditate Habituque." Nude & Natural 11.1 (1991): 47-51
· Cunnington, Cecil Willet. Why Women Wear Clothes.
· Danielou, Jean. The Bible and the Liturgy. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1956
· DeGoede, Daniel L. "Social Nudism and Body Concept." Diss. Saybrook Institute, 1984.
· "The Double Standard: The White House Skinnydippers." Clothed with the Sun 8.3 (1988): 10-11.
· Dr. Seuss. The Seven Lady Godivas.
· Dunn, Tom and Kevin Kearney. "Winning." Nude & Natural 11.2 (1992): 100-01.
·
·
· Edelsward, L.M. "We Are More Open When We Are Naked." Ethnos 56.3-4 (1991): 189-199.
· Ellis,
· Fahringer, Herald Price. "Equality in All Things: Drawing the Line on Nudity." Criminal Law Bulletin 29.2 (March-April 1993): 137-46.
· "Famed Nudist Richter's Personal Legacy Lost in Quake." Nude & Natural 13.4 (1994): 6.
· Fardell, G.R. "
· Feder, Henry M., Jr. "Tick Bite Prevention: Get Naked?" JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 269.4 (27 January 1993): 475.
· Finch, Casey. "'Hooked and Buttoned Together': Victorian Underwear and Representations of the Female Body." Victorian Studies 34.3 (Spring, 1991): 337-63.
· Fisher, Seymour. "Body Decoration and Camouflage." Dimensions of Dress and Adornment: A Book of
· "
· Flügel, John Carl. Man, Morals and Society: A Psycho-Analytical Study.
· ---. The Psychology of Clothes.
· Ford, Clellan S., and Frank A. Beach. Patterns of Sexual Behavior.
· Ford, Darlene Ora Stanridge. "Fashion Indicators of Women's Social Status." Diss.
· "
· "
· Franklin, Benjamin. The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. Ed. William B. Willcox.
· Franklin, Deborah. "Vanities: Femininity's Seamy Underside." Health [
· Freudenthal, Anita R. and Paul R. Joseph. "Seabather's Eruption."
· "From Dermatology Research for Sunbathers." Clothed with the Sun 7.4 (1988): 10-11.
· Fussell, Paul. "Taking It All Off in the Balkans." Thank God for the Atom Bomb and Other Essays.
· "
· "
· Gardener, Richard A. "Exposing Children to Parental Nudity." Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 9.6 (June, 1975): 99-100.
· "Gary Merrill." Nude & Natural 10.1 (1990): 8-9.
· Gaskin, Ina May. Babies, Breastfeeding & Bonding.
· Gay, Jan. On Going Naked.
· Genz, Michelle. "A Question of Public Policy Values: Breast Feeding." Nude & Natural 12.2 (1993): 51-53.
· "Germans Say Nudity No Longer 'Shocking.'" Clothed with the Sun 6.2 (1986): 6.
· Glazer, Reena N. "Women's Body Image and the Law." Duke Law Journal 43 (1993): 113-47.
· Glynn, Prudence. Skin to Skin: Eroticism in Dress.
· Goldberger, Carol. "ASA Breaks the 40,000 Member Mark." The Bulletin [American Sunbathing Association] March, 1992: 1, 6.
· Goodrich, Kristina. "Skinny Dipping: The Old Swimming Hole Breeds New Controversy." Parks & Recreation 15.5 (May 1980): 32-37, 81.
· Goodrich, Lloyd. Thomas Eakins.
· "
· Greeley, Andrew. Faithful Attraction: Discovering Intimacy, Love, and Fidelity in American Marriage.
· Griffith, Susan. Pornography and Silence: Culture's Revenge Against Nature.
· Grueneich, Raymond C. "An Argument for Topless Equality." Clothed with the Sun 1.4 (1982): 22-29.
· Gurel, Lois M. "The Function of Dress." Dimensions of Dress and Adornment: A Book of
· Hall, Edward T. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1976.
· Harding, Walter. A Thoreau Handbook. [
· Harker, George R. "Nude Bathing, No Controversy." Parks & Recreation 22.8 (August, 1987): 58-61.
· Hartman, William E., Marilyn Fithian, and Donald Johnson. Nudist Society: An Authoritative Complete Study of Nudism in
· Hennepin, Louis. A New Discovery of a Vast Country in
· Herold, Edward, Bruna Corbesi, and John Collins. "Psychosocial Aspects of Female Topless Behavior on Australian Beaches." Journal of Sex Research 31.2 (May, 1994): 133.
· Hill, Terry L. "Dressed to Kill: Do Bras Trigger Breast Cancer?" Review of Dressed to Kill: The Link between Breast Cancer and Bras, by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer. Nude & Natural 15.2 (1995): 41-42.
· Hochschild, Adam. "Reporting on the Naked Truth." Mother Jones August, 1981: 6.
· Hoffman, Nicky. "Surveying Body Acceptance." Nude & Natural 15.2 (1995): 33-38.
· Hogan, Richard M. and John M. LeVoir. Covenant of Love: Pope John Paul II on Sexuality, Marriage, and Family in the Modern World. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.
· Hollander, Anne. "Fashion in Nudity." Georgia Review 30.3 (1976): 642-702.
· Holliday, Robert Cortes. Unmentionables, from Figleaves to Scanties.
· The Holy Bible, King James Version.
· The Holy Bible, New International Version.
· Hooper, Anne. Massage and Loving.
· Horn, Marilyn J. The Second Skin: An Interdisciplinary Study of Clothing.
· Hurlock, Elizabeth R. The Psychology of Dress: An Analysis of Fashion and Its Motive.
· Ilfeld, Fred, Jr., and Roger Lauer. Social Nudism in
· John Paul II [Karol Wojtyla]. Love and Responsibility. Rev. ed. Trans. H.T. Willetts.
· Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity.
· Jones, Elise F., Jacqueline Dorroch Forrest, Noreen Goldman,
·
· Kearney, Kevin. "Tax Swimming Suits." Nude & Natural 10.4 (1991): 37-39.
· Kellam, Richard B., and Teri Scott Lovelace. "To Bare or Not to Bare: The Constitutionality of Local Ordinances Banning Nude Sunbathing."
· Kern, Ellyn. "The First Nudist President?" Clothed with the Sun 6.1 (1986): 22.
· Kilmer, Hugh. "Drawing People Whole." Clothed with the Sun 7.2 (1987): 104-109.
· ---. "Original Sin/Amazing Grace." Clothed with the Sun 1.3 (1981): 84.
· Kozlowski, James C. "Does the Constitution Protect Nude Bathing at a
· Lacey, Marc, and Ken Ellingwood. "Court Refuses to Let Sunbathers Bare It All."
· Langner, Lawrence. The Importance of Wearing Clothes.
· Laver, James. Modesty in Dress: An Inquiry into the Fundamentals of Fashion.
· ---. "What Will Fashion Uncover Next?" Dimensions of Dress and Adornment: A Book of
· LeValley, Paul. "American Indian (Lack of) Costume." Clothed with the Sun 7.4 (1988): 33-35.
· ---. "Some Background on Hindu Nude Worship." Nude & Natural 11.4 (1992): 37-39.
· Lewis, Meriwether. The Lewis and
· Lewis, Robin J. and Louis H. Janda. "The Relationship between Adult Sexual Adjustment and Childhood Experiences Regarding Exposure to Nudity, Sleeping in the Parental Bed, and Parental Attitudes toward Sexuality." Archives of Sexual Behavior 17.4 (August, 1988): 349-62.
· Liggett, Arline and John Liggett. The Tyranny of Beauty.
· Lindsay, Irina. Dressing and Undressing for the
· Logan, Patti Anne. "I Took Off My Clothes, and Then..." Nude & Natural 15.2 (1995): 39-40.
· "The Look & Function of 'Our Private Parts' Is a Public Concern." Clothed with the Sun 5.1 (1985): 4-5.
· "Losses on
· Lyall, Sarah. "Going Topless Is Not Necessarily Against the Law,
· Mackenzie, Don. "Eve Was Framed." Nude & Natural 11.1 (1991): 18-25.
· Mackey, J.A. "Nudity and the Bible: It's Approved." Nude & Natural 11.1 (1991): 39-43.
· "Mainstreaming Nudity in Magazines." Nude & Natural 11.4 (1992): 30-31.
· Martin, R. "Utopian Visions and Nudism." FIT Review 5.2 (Spring, 1989): 38-44.
· Martin, William. A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story.
· Mason, Richard. "South Florida:
· Mason, Shirley. "Nude Radio Talk." The Bulletin [American Sunbathing Association] August, 1992: 20.
· Matthews, Christopher. Hardball: How Politics Is Played.
· Maxwell-Hudson, Clare. The Complete Book of Massage.
· McDonnell, Myles. "The Introduction of Athletic Nudity: Thucydides, Plato, and the Vases." Journal of Hellenic Studies 111 (1991): 182-93.
· Mead, Nathaniel. "Bras Hooked to Breast Cancer." Review of Dressed to Kill: The Link between Breast Cancer and Bras, by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer. Natural Health December, 1995: 137.
· "Men's, Women's Breasts Legally the Same."
· Mikat, Kurt W. "Skin Cancer and Sunlight." Clothed with the Sun 4.4 (1984-85): 37-39.
· Miles, Margaret R. Carnal Knowing: Female Nakedness and Religious Meaning in the Christian West.
· Moore, Steven D. "Social Roles and Contact Norms for Encountering Nude Bathers in a Wilderness Area." Diss. U of
· Muschamp, Herbert. "Don't Look Now." Vogue 181.2 (February, 1991): 318-21, 357.
· Nansen, Russell F. "Bernarr MacFadden & Natural Health." Nude & Natural 14.1 (1994): 57-61.
· "The National Park Service on Its Responsibilities." Clothed with the Sun 6.1 (1986): 46.
· "Nature." Clothed with the Sun 3.3 (1983): 5.
· Naturist Action Committee. "Nude Beaches? 'No Problem'." Nude & Natural 10.4 (1991): 26-27.
· Nead, Lynda. "The Female Nude: Pornography, Art, and Sexuality." Signs 15.2 (Winter, 1990): 323-35.
· Noble, Joseph Veach. "Nude . . . Or Naked?" Sculpture Review 40.3 (1991): 20-27.
· North American Guide to Nude Recreation. 18th ed.
· "Nude Beaches Help to Prevent Teen-Age Pregnancies." Clothed with the Sun 5.3 (1985): 5.
· "Nudity Averts Lyme Disease, Sea Lice Stings." Nude & Natural 12.3 (1993): 12.
· O'Brien, Pat. "The
· ---. "The Naked Truth: Living and Defending the Naturist Lifestyle." Nude & Natural 14.1 (1994): 45-47.
· ---. "Naturist Interests Come Under Attack in State, Local Governments." Nude & Natural 12.3 (1993): 33-38.
· Okami, Paul. "Childhood Exposure to Parental Nudity, Parent-Child Co-sleeping and 'Primal Scenes': A Review of Clinical Opinion and Empirical Evidence." Journal of Sex Research 32.1 (February, 1995): 51-64.
· "One in Ten French." Nude & Natural 13.1 (1993): 12.
· "The Ostsee Beaches." Nude & Natural 12.4 (1993): 34.
· Palmer, Gabrielle. The Politics of Breastfeeding.
· Percey, Ruth, ed. "N Quick Updates." Nude & Natural 14.1 (1994): 13-18.
· Polhemus, Ted and Lynn Procter. Fashion and Anti-Fashion: An Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment.
· "Politicians, Corporate Executives Already Live in a Clothes-Optional World." Clothed with the Sun 2.2 (1982): 6.
· "Polls Show We're Gaining in Numbers and Attitudes." Clothed with the Sun 5.4 (1986): 3-4.
· Poretsky, Rita C. "Clothing and Self: Biblical and Rabbinic Perspectives." Journal of Psychology and Judaism 10.1 (Spring/Summer, 1986): 42-53.
· "
· "The Prudishness of American Travel Brochures." Clothed with the Sun 4.4 (1984-85): 41.
· Ray, Dixy Lee. Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?
· Renbourn, E. T. Materials and Clothing in Health and Disease: History, Physiology and Hygiene.
· Reynolds, Janet. "Get Naked."
· Ribeiro, Aileen. Dress and Morality.
· Ricciardi, Mirella. Vanishing Amazon.
· Robinson, Julian. Body Packaging: A Guide to Human Sexual Display.
· ---. Introduction. The Importance of Wearing Clothes. By Laurence Langner.
· "
· Roosevelt, Theodore. Theodore Roosevelt: An Autobiography.
· Rudofsky, Bernard. Are Clothes Modern? An Essay on Contemporary Apparel.
· ---. The Unfashionable Human Body. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971.
· Russell, Elbert. The History of Quakerism.
·
· Sajoel. "A Dutch Girl Grows Up." Nude & Natural 13.3 (1994): 13-14.
·
· Schloss, Mary Lou and Morley Schloss. "Top Free and Clothes-Free." Nude & Natural 10.2 (1990): 49-53.
· Schrader, Don. "Sunlight." Review of Sunlight Could Save Your Life, by Zane R. Kime. Nude & Natural 10.1 (1990): 98.
· Seabrook, Jeremy. "Keep Your Shirt On." New Statesman & Society 12 August 1994: 22-23.
· Seager, Joni and Ann Olsen. Women in the World: An International Atlas. Ed. Michael Kidron.
· Seal, Herb. "Family Group-Identification within Nudist Movement in
· Semple, Kirk. "The
· "The Second Movie Nudist: Brigitte Bardot of St. Tropez." Nude & Natural 9.2 (1989): 97.
· "Secret
· Shaw, G. Bernard. "Mr. G. Bernard Shaw On Excessive Clothing." Sun Bathing Review 1.2 (Summer, 1933): 6.
· Shields, Jody. "Going Public." Vogue 183.5 (May 1993): 288-91.
· Siegel, Lee. "Nude is Lewd? The Drama of Thomas Eakins." Commonweal 119.3 (14 February 1992): 20-22.
· Siegel, Mary-Ellen. Safe in the Sun.
· Sisk, J.P. "The Dialectics of Nudity." Georgia Review 40.4 (Winter, 1986): 897-906.
· Skinner, Lew Kaye. "Nudist? Or Naturist?" Clothed with the Sun 4.1 (1984): 30.
· Smith, Dennis Craig. The Naked Child: Growing Up Without Shame.
· Smith, H.W. "A Modest Test of Cross-Cultural Differences in Sexual Modesty, Embarrassment and Self-Disclosure." Qualitative Sociology 3.3 (Fall, 1980): 223-41.
· Smith, Jan. "Breasts." Clothed with the Sun 1.3 (1981): 77.
· Smith, Jonathan Z. "The Garments of Shame." History of Religions 5.2 (Winter, 1966): 217-38.
· Smith, Liz. "Why You Wear What You Do." Dimensions of Dress and Adornment: A Book of
· Smith, Robert Ellis. "The Little Things That Mean a
· Southall, David. "Nude Observers of Nature." Nude & Natural 9.4 (1990): 51-53.
· "Spirituality." Clothed with the Sun 1.3 (1981): 81-82.
· Steele, Valerie. Fashion and Eroticism: Ideals of Feminine Beauty from the Victorian Era to the Jazz Age.
· Stein, M.L. "S.F. Press Club Rebuffed on Male-Only Nude Swimming." Editor and Publisher 6 August 1988: 14.
· Stern, Jane, and Michael Stern. "Decent Exposure." The New Yorker 19 March 1990: 73-98.
· Story, Marilyn D. "A Comparison of Social Nudists and Non-Nudists on Experience with Various Sexual Outlets." Journal of Sex Research 23.2 (May, 1987): 197-211.
· ---. "Comparison Studies of Social Nudists and Non-Nudists: Body Self-Concepts and Sexual Behaviors." Clothed with the Sun 6.4 (1986-87): 77.
· ---. "Comparisons of Body Self-Concept between Social Nudists and Nonnudists." Journal of Psychology 118.1 (September, 1984): 99-112.
· ---. "Factors Associated with More Positive Body Self-Concepts in Preschool Children." Journal of Social Psychology 108.1 (June, 1979): 49-56.
· Taylor, Gordon Rattray. Sex in History.
· Thoreau, Henry David. Journal IV. Ed. Bradford Torrey. Vol. 10 of The Writings of Henry David Thoreau.
· Thwaites, Reuben G., ed. The Original Journals of the Lewis and
· "Topfree! At Last!" Nude & Natural 12.2 (1993) 37-47.
· "Topfree, Bottomfree." The Economist 15 August 1992: 19.
· "Tourism's Fastest Growth Sector, Says Fodor, Is Nudism." Clothed with the Sun 8.1 (1988): 5.
· Trexler, Richard C. Naked Before the Father: The Renunciation of Francis of
· Triggs, Douglas. "A Radical Right Primer & Appropriate Naturist Response." Nude & Natural 15.2 (1995): 48-56.
· "The Un-Olympics." Clothed with the Sun 4.3 (1984): 6.
·
· Wagenknecht, Edward. Henry David Thoreau: What Manner of Man?
· Walker, Barbara G. The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets.
· Wallace, David. "Sin." People Weekly 10 Feb. 1986: 106-113.
· Ward, Roy Bowen. "Women in Roman Baths." Harvard Theological Review 85.2 (1992): 125-47.
· ---. "Why Must Public Nudity Be Deemed Immoral by Judges?" Nude & Natural 11.1 (1991): 97.
· Warren, Howard C. "Social Nudism and the Body Taboo." Psychological Review 40 (1933):160-83.
· Webb, Herbert.
· Weinberg, Martin S. "Becoming a Nudist." Deviance: The Interactionist Perspective. Eds. Earl Rubington and Martin S. Weinberg.
· ---. "Embarrassment: Its Variable and Invariable Aspects." Social Forces 46 (1968): 382-88.
· ---. "Nudist Camp, Way of Life and Social Structure." Human Organization 26.3 (Fall, 1967): 91-99.
· ---. "The Nudist Management of Respectability: Strategy for, and Consequences of a Situated Morality." Deviance and Respectability: The Social Construction of Moral Meanings. Ed. Jack D. Douglas.
· ---. "Sexual Modesty, Social Meanings, and the Nudist Camp." Social Problems 12.3 (Winter, 1965): 311-18.
· "Well-Defined Buttocks." Harper's Magazine 284.1705 (June 1992): 32.
· Wells, Mary. "Mary's Story." Nude & Natural 10.4 (1991): 89-96.
· Wells, Walter. "Nature in the Raw Is Beautiful." Nude & Natural 10.3 (1991): 78-89.
· "
· Westheimer, Ruth and Louis Lieberman. Sex and Morality: Who Is Teaching Our Sex Standards?
· "Who Are the Naturists?" Nude & Natural 9.1 (1989): 22-23.
· Wildman, Robert W., Robert W. Wildman, II, Archie Brown, and Carol Trice. "Note on Males' and Females' Preferences for Opposite-Sex Body Parts, Bust Sizes, and Bust Revealing Clothing." Psychological Reports 38.2 (April, 1976): 485-86.
· Wilkinson, Lancelot Patrick. Classical Attitudes to Modern Issues.
· Williams, Judy. "Solidarity Wins Official Clothes Optional Status for
· Wilson, Diane Lee. "The Impact of Gender Role Socialization and Female Development on Adult Sexuality in Lesbians." Diss. The Wright Institute, 1987.
· "Women Looking At Women." Nude & Natural 11.1 (1991): 13.
· Woody, Robert Henley. The Use of Massage in Facilitating Holistic Health: Physical and Mental Effects.
· Wright, Lawrence. Clean and Decent: The Fascinating History of the Bathroom & the Water Closet.
· Wyner, T.A. "Prosecuting Nudity: The
· Yancey, Philip. "Not Naked Enough." Christianity Today 34.3 (19 February 1990): 48.
· Zalubowski, Sonya. "
[1] Rudofsky, Unfashionable Human Body 69.
[2]
[3] D. Smith 92.
[4] See, for example, Steele 45, and L. Smith.
[5] Story, "Comparisons of Body Self-Concept" 99-112; Story, "Comparison Studies" 77. Studies show that 53% of high school girls are unhappy with their bodies at age 13. By age 18, 78% are unhappy (Glazer 115). See also Brody 96, 135-37.
[6] See Blank et al.
[7] See DeGoede. See also related research in Herold et al. 138.
[8] For supporting research, see Story, "Comparisons of Body Self-Concept."
[9] North American Guide 12-14.
[10] See Hartman et al; Weinberg, "Becoming a Nudist" 245-46; Ilfeld and Lauer 167-70. For two typical personal accounts, and an excellent analysis, see Westheimer and Lieberman 59-60.
[11] Woody 15-16. Dr. Woody also proposes, in very general terms, a means of overcoming clothes-compulsiveness. See pp. 16-17.
[12] See Hartman et al.; Ableman 92.
[13] Ableman 92.
[14] Palmer 125; Seager and Olsen 80 [chart 35]; Schloss 49.
[15] "Women Looking at Women" 13.
[16] Fussell 211.
[17] Jan Smith 77, quoting from Male and Female by Margaret Mead.
[18] Ellis, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 19, 56; Laver, Modesty in Dress 9, and "What Will Fashion Uncover Next?" 160; Warren 163.
[19] John Paul II 186, 189, 190.
[20] See Hall, esp. 192-93; Laver, Modesty in Dress 9.
[21] For a detailed discussion of this concept, see Laver, Modesty in Dress 9-11, et al. See also Weinberg, “Embarrassment."
[22] D. Smith 107; Horn 61; Laver, Modesty in Dress 10.
[23] See also Flügel, Man, Morals and Society 138-39; Rudofsky, Unfashionable Human Body 26; Robinson, Body Packaging 94-95.
[24] See Weinberg, "Nudist Management;" Weinberg, "Sexual Modesty" 314-18; H. Smith 229. The same principle is true in other clothing-optional contexts as well, such as the Finnish sauna (Edelsward 195) or topfree beach (Herold et al. 134).
[25] Weinberg, "Nudist Management" 375-403; and Weinberg, "Sexual Modesty" 314-18. For a more colloquial description of this phenomenon, see Fussell 212. See also H. Smith 229; and Laver, Modesty in Dress 9.
[26] See "The Origin of Modesty" in Ellis, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 8-27, for a thorough survey of indigenous peoples and their clothing or lack thereof. See also D. Smith 105; Ableman 14-21; Robinson, Body Packaging, 17-19, 26, 95-99, 150; Polhemus and Procter 44-45; Laver, Modesty in Dress 4-5; et al.
[27] Ableman 20.
[28] See Ricciardi. See also Ellis vol. 1, part 1, pp. 12-13.
[29] Ellis vol. 1, part 1, pp. 9-10.
[30] Lewis 2: 528-29 (January 21, 1806). See also pp. 472-73 (November 7, 1806); Thwaites 4:185-87; LeValley, “American Indian" 35.
[31] The Indians of California were recorded living nude in 1816, by Ludovik Choris, a Russian painter. See
LeValley, "American Indian" 35.
[32] Hennepin 168. See also pp. 228, 483, 493, 653, 665; and LeValley, "American Indian" 33-37.
[33] The customs of native dress in
[34] Sale 96; Cummins 94; et al. See also Sale 98, 177, and "Conquest of Paradise" 19-21. From their nakedness,
[35] Baxandall, World Guide to
[36] Ableman 20-21.
[37] Rudofsky, Unfashionable Human Body 74. See also p. 24; and John Paul II 186, 189, 190.
[38] Robinson, Body Packaging 99-100.
[39] Nansen 58.
[40] Flügel, Psychology of Clothes 17.
[41] For details, see Ableman 25-31, and Hurlock 13-44.
[42] See, for example, Rudofsky, Unfashionable Human Body 27; Ableman 20.
[43] See Robinson, Body Packaging 31.
[44] The nude human form has extraordinary symbolic power, both in art and in communication. For an outstanding discussion of the significance of the artistic nude in American culture, see Ableman 48-61.
[45]
[46] Story, "Comparison of Social Nudists." See also Hartman et al.
[47] See Jones et al., esp. 11, 18, 223, 229; "Look & Function" 5; "Nude Beaches Help" 5.
[48] Baxandall, "Jock Sturges" 96.
[49] Cunnington 23.
[50] See, for example, Ableman 85-86; Laver, Modesty in Dress 12; Renbourn 512.
[51] Robinson, Body Packaging 32. See also Flügel, Psychology of Clothing 192-93.
[52] See, for example, Glynn; Ableman 32-33; Flügel, Psychology of Clothes 25-26.
[53] Finch 340-45.
[54] Laver, Modesty in Dress 12.
[55] Boyte, "Nude Attitude" 28.
[56] Ellis vol. 2, part 3, p. 97.
[57] Robinson, Body Packaging 67.
[58] See Robinson, Body Packaging; et al.
[59] Flügel, Psychology of Clothes 201.
[60] See for example Robinson, Body Packaging, esp. 19, 24-27, 50-51, 67; Flügel, Psychology of Clothes 25-27, 192; Ellis, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 58-62; Cunnington 50-51; and Laver, Modesty in Dress 36-37.
[61] Hollander 643, 644. See also Sisk 898.
[62] Robinson, Body Packaging 31.
[63] Baxandall, World Guide to
[64] See Robinson, Body Packaging 31; et al.
[65] Glazer 130, 135.
[66] The exposure of breasts is referred to as "topfree" rather than "topless" for two reasons. First, "topfree" is more accurate and puts the emphasis where it belongs, on the freedom of the breasts rather than the absence of clothing. Second, the term "topfree" emphasizes the distinction between the healthy nudity of comfort and convenience, and the fetishized nudity of "topless" bars.
[67] Hill 42.
[68] For an excellent exploration of the distinction between nudity and pornography, see Nead. Pope John Paul II has also made this distinction. He writes: "Pornography is a marked tendency to accentuate the sexual element when reproducing the human body or human love in a work of art, with the object of inducing the reader or viewer to believe that sexual values are the only real values of the person." (John Paul II 192) See also "Spirituality" 82; Hogan and LeVoir 52.
[69] See, for example,
[70] Condra 133.
[71] Ableman 102. See also pp. 102-04; research by Wilhelm Reich.
[72] Quoted in Flügel, Psychology of Clothes 235-36.
[73] M. Siegel 12; North American Guide 23. Numerous other benefits have also been attributed to sunlight,
including improved cardiovascular health, reduced blood pressure, strengthened muscular development, increased tolerance to stress, relieved depression and arthritis, and reduced infertility in men. See Schrader 98; Mikat 37.
[74] Ray 41-42. Basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are linked to excessive ultraviolet exposure, but malignant melanoma shows no such correlation. In fact, studies have found melanoma to be considerably more common in indoor workers than outdoor workers, and more common on parts of the body with relatively low cumulative sun exposure. See "From Dermatology Research" 10.
[75] See research by Dr. James Prescott and others, reported in Hooper 1-2; Maxwell-Hudson 6; et al.
[76] Mead 137.
[77] For details, see Feder 475; Reynolds 12; Freudenthal and Joseph 544.
[78] For an excellent summary, see Liggett.
[79] D.
[80] See McDonnell 184.
[81] Fussell 210.
[82] Quoted in Baxandall, World Guide to
[83] North American Guide 13.
[84] Edelsward 194-95, 198.
[85] See, for example, DeGoede; Story, "Comparisons of Body Self-Concept" 99-112; and Story, "Comparison Studies" 77.
[86] D. Smith 174; Hartman et. al.; Weinberg, "Nudist Camp;" H. Smith. One of the few defining demo graphic characteristics of nudists is that, as a group, they tend to be better educated than non-nudists. See Ilfeld and Lauer.
[87] For an excellent analysis of the differences between "white" and "native" nudity, see Seabrook 22-23. For a case study of the eroticization of indigenous nudity by British colonialists in
[88] Boyte, "National Geographic" 24. Photos of visitors to
[89] Seabrook 22-23.
[90] For a thorough treatment of this subject, see D. Smith; Westheimer and Lieberman 65-73; and Okami 55-56, 60.
[91] Story, "Factors" 49-56.
[92] Lewis and Janda 349-62.
[93] See doctoral research by Booth.
[94] See doctoral research by
[95] Westheimer and Lieberman 72.
[96] Unfortunately, a 1994 study by R.M. Dawes found that most clinicians keep themselves up to date not by academic research, but by workshops, conferences, and "clinical intuition." (Okami 54)
[97] Okami 55, 60.
[98] Gardener 99-100.
[99] For example, practically every extended family in
[100] Ableman 43.
[101] See Jones et al., esp. 11, 18, 223, 229.
[102] "Look & Function" 5; "Nude Beaches Help" 5.
[103] References to the extensive benefits of breast-feeding are numerous. See for example Gaskin (esp. pp. 8-16); Palmer; J. Easton 53; Genz 52-53; "Topfree At Last" 46; Hill 42; et al. In developing countries, use of breast milk substitutes or mixed feeding is associated with a four to sixteen-fold increased risk of dying from diarrheal disease compared to an infant who is exclusively breast-fed. Even in the developed world, incidence of diarrhea and respiratory infection are reduced to one-third in babies exclusively breast-fed. Breast milk, especially immediately after birth, contains important antibodies against disease, is highly nutritious and high in calories, and helps clear the baby's intestinal tract. It is ideally suited to the baby's metabolic and developmental needs, especially brain development, and is easy to digest. Breast-fed babies suffer less from gas, constipation, diarrhea, and intestinal infections, and are more resistant to colds, respiratory diseases, allergies, and many viruses. Formula milk, by contrast, is more difficult for the child to digest, causing increased stress on its digestive and excretory systems, and is a common source of allergic reaction. For the mother, breast-feeding encourages uterine contractions which help restore post-pregnancy muscle tone and prevent hemorrhaging, and has been associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer and other diseases. Breast-feeding also encourages psychological bonding between the parent and child. It is in many ways more convenient than bottle feeding: breast milk is always ready, at the right temperature, with no spoilage, no waste, no fuss with complicated equipment and procedures, no trouble with improper mixing, and no risk of contamination by external debris, a factor which is especially important in developing countries where water supplies are often unreliable. There is no contribution to another major industry with its accompanying environmental impacts. And breast-feeding is cheaper than bottle feeding. Health officials estimate that $25 million could be saved every year in welfare costs by more breast-feeding--which led the Miami Herald to comment: "Heck, that's enough to buy blinders for every Floridian offended by the sight of a mother nursing her baby in public." ("
[104] Genz 52.
[105] See Gaskin 170; Palmer 6; et al. In all, four billion dollars worth of baby formula is sold each year.
[106] Palmer 95.
[107] Glazer 138.
[108] "
[109] Baxandall, World Guide to
[110] Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality, quoted in Craft 70.
[111] See Condra 129-34 for a detailed discussion of this phenomenon. For two excellent summaries of the
arguments for topfree equality, see Craft, and Grueneich.
[112] Glazer 115.
[113] Fahringer 140-41.
[114] Grueneich 26.
[115] Glazer 116, 135; see also pp. 117, 136, 139.
[116] See Craft 71.
[117] Muschamp 321.
[118] For an especially thorough treatment of this subject, see Ribeiro.
[119]
[120] Palmer 124-25.
[121] See, for example, Fussell 214-16.
[122] "Nature" 5.
[123] See, for example, Southall.
[124] Ableman 21.
[125] Ilfeld and Lauer 181.
[126] Langner 90.
[127] Quoted in Kilmer, "Drawing People Whole" 108.
[128] Bahr 44. See also Baxandall, World Guide to
[129] Seabrook 22-23.
[130] Carey 78.
[131] It is interesting to note that while R-rated movies are prohibited from showing full-frontal male nudity, fullfrontal female nudity is perfectly acceptable--as long as there is no male in the frame with her.
[132] Hoffman 35.
[133] See Fahringer 144; Glazer 130.
[134] Wildman et al. 485; Fahringer 144.
[135] Ford and Beach 47.
[136] Robinson, "Introduction" xiii.
[137] For an excellent discussion of the changing views about nudity in fashion (and art) over the course of history, see Hollander. Laver (Modesty in Dress 38-39) presents an excellent, brief summary of the different concepts of modesty in fashion throughout history.
[138] For details, see Agate 75, et al.
[139] Allen 18-19. For a brief history of the censorship of nudity in art, see Noble.
[140]
[141] See Robinson, Body Packaging 65-67; Ribeiro 117; Shields 291; et al.
[142] Gurel 4.
[143] Ribeiro 52, 80-82; Laver, "What Will Fashion Uncover Next?" 160, and Modesty in Dress 9. For a brief history of the exposure and censure of breasts in fashion, see Ribeiro, and Shields 289-91.
[144] For details on the tolerance of nudity in countries worldwide, see Baxandall, World Guide to
[145] "Body Acceptance in
[146] "
[147] Baxandall, World Guide to
[148] "
[149] "
[150] "
[151] Baxandall, World Guide to
[152] Baxandall, World Guide to
[153] Noted by the July 14, 1993 edition of the
[154] Edelsward 192, 196. For more details about Finnish sauna customs, see Baxandall, "The Communal Heat Bath."
[155] 1987 International Naturist Federation statistics, reported in "Counting Naked Noses & Toeses" 8.
[156] Survey conducted by the weekly La Point; reported in "One in Ten French."
[157] "
[158] North American Guide 22. For an excellent description of naturism in pre-war
[159] Zalubowski 61, 63.
[160] The American bias against nudity is so pervasive--and so different from the rest of the world--that Club Med even produces special, censored brochures for Americans! See "Prudishness" 41.
[161] Fardell 40.
[162] "
Americans would support legalization of topfree sunbathing on designated beaches (Saad and Hugick 37).
[163] "Polls Show" 3; D. Smith 139; O'Brien, "The Naked Truth" 46; Coleman and Rees 138. The Roper poll found that 28% of "liberals" and 15% of "conservatives" say they've gone skinny-dipping.
[164]
[165] "35% of Americans" 5.
[166] Wallace 108-09.
[167] Dunn and
[168] Williams 88-90. See also D. Smith 25, 150.
[169] "The Un-Olympics" 6.
[170] Goldberger 1, 6. (The "American Association for Nude Recreation" was formerly known as the "American Sunbathing Association.")
[171] Coleman and Rees 138.
[172] "Losses on
[173] S. Mason 20.
[174] R. Mason 19, quoting from the September 7, 1995 edition of the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.
[175] "Tourism's Fastest Growth Sector" 5, quoting from Fodor's "
[176] Coleman and Rees 138.
[177] For an excellent summary of constitutional law as it applies to naturism, see R. Smith.
[178] In Kolender v. Lawson, 461
[179] In Papachristou v. City of
[180] In Justice Douglas's concurring opinion on Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[181] See Lacey and Ellington.
[182] Williams v. Kleppe, 539 F.2d 803 (1976); Williams v. Hathaway, 400 F.Supp. 122 (
particular case, the nudists lost to conservation interests at Cape Cod National Seashore. See R. Smith 36-37.
[183] Barnes v. Glen Theatre, 111 S.Ct. 2456 (1991)--a decision which has been almost universally criticized. See Kozlowski, Condra 141-47, Kellam and Lovelace 599-620.
[184] See R. Smith 35-36.
[185] South Florida Free Beaches v. City of
[186] South Florida Free Beaches v. City of
[187] "There is little in [nude swimmers'] conduct that merits First Amendment protection. While there may be an element of nonverbal expression inherent in nude bathing, its communicative character is less perceptive than [display of a flag or an armband in political protests]." Williams v. Hathaway, 400 F.Supp. 122 (
[188] See Ableman 48-61, et al.
[189] Baxandall, "To Overturn" 55.
[190] See Kellam and Lovelace 606, 612-13.
[191] "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
[192] Mackenzie 21-24.
[193] For two excellent summaries of the arguments for topfree equality, see Craft, and Grueneich.
[194] People v. Santorelli, 80 N.Y.2d 875 (1992); Lyall B5; "Big Achievements" 5; et al. See also "Men's, Women's Breasts Legally the Same" 3; Glazer 128; People v. David, 585 N.Y.S.2d 149 (1991); People v. Price, 33 N.Y.2d 831 (1973); Fahringer 138-40.
[195] Theoretically, in 48 states--all but Indiana and, as of 1994, Michigan--"a woman can go to the beach and remove her blouse in the same way a man can, and not be criminally prosecuted." See Fahringer, 141-43. Twentytwo states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin) specifically confine their statutory public exposure prohibitions solely to uncovered genitalia. Statutes in
[196] Legal questions about nudity are hotly debated in current politics, especially as part of the conservative agendas of groups like the so-called "Christian Coalition." Most legal challenges mistakenly seek to restrict all nudity in an attempt to censure pornography, especially topless bars. Naturist advocacy organizations, such as the Naturist Action Committee, have been working hard with limited resources to combat these legal challenges. Current updates on legal issues may be found in The Naturist Society's Nude & Natural magazine, and in the "Naturist Action Committee Newsletter." In any case, the specific details regarding legal tolerance of nudity are constantly changing. The wise naturist should check current conditions before venturing out in the buff.
[197]
[198] Glazer 117. See also Agate 75-76.
[199] See Baxandall, World Guide to
[200] "Well-Defined Buttocks" 32; O'Brien, "The
[201] Baxandall, World Guide to
[202] "National Park Service" 46, quoting from the April 1986 issue of the National Park Service journal Courier.
[203] Note that while the vast majority of federal areas are legally open to judicious nude use, a few have special management guidelines prohibiting nudity; and in recent years a few others have fallen under new "concurrent jurisdiction" guidelines, which require them to enforce anti-nudity state or county ordinances.
[204] "
[205]
[206] O'Brien, "The Naked Truth" 46.
[207] Officially recognized nude beaches are common in
[208] Baxandall, World Guide to
[209] "Losses on
[210] "The Ostsee Beaches" 34.
[211] For a thorough review of the perceptions of nudity throughout history, see Ribeiro.
[212] There is some debate about when nudity became commonplace among men in ancient Greek society. Myles McDonnell points out that "Bronze Age archaeology [specifically, Minoan era artwork] and the Homeric poems make it fairly certain that athletic nudity was not practiced before the late 8th century [B.C.]." However, nudity seems to have been commonplace among male athletes by the mid 6th century B.C., a fact supported both by vase artistry and the writings of Thucydides and Plato. McDonnell concludes, "whatever its origin, it seems that nude exercising was generally practiced by the mid sixth century [B.C.] at
[213] Bonfante, "Nudity as a Costume" 546-47, 551-58; Wilkinson 85-96; McDonnell 193; Warren 161.
[214] Miles 34.
[215] The famous
[216] Ward, "Why Must Public Nudity" 97, and "Women in Roman Baths" 125-47; Brown 315-16. The historicity of coed nudity is supported by the writings of numerous Roman historians including Ovid, Nicarchus, Pliny the Elder, Quintilian, and Marial. See also Ableman 38; Wilkinson 99-101.
[217] "Christians Undressed" 11. Roy Bowen Ward notes that by the Fifth Century the anti-body philosophy adopted by church leaders had become so entrenched that St. Jerome considered it immoral for a Christian virgin to bathe in the nude--even if alone. The transformation away from a more natural acceptance of nudity came about as the result of the powerful influence of a few individuals. For details, see Ward, "Women in Roman Baths" 142-46; Brown 314-17; Mackenzie 24; and Renbourn 483-84.
[218] An extensive list of sources may be found in Jonathan Smith 220, footnote 12. See also pp. 222-24, 227, 235-37; Miles, chapter 1, esp. pp. 33-34; Cunningham 49-50; Danielou 38-39; Ward, "Why Must Public Nudity" 97; B.
[219] Miles 33.
[220] Cyril of Jerusalem, The Mystagogical Lectures, FOC 64, 161, quoted in Miles 33; Danielou 38, 39; and
Cunningham 49-50. John the Deacon, in about 500 A.D., wrote: "They are commanded to go in naked, even down to their feet, so that [they may show that] they have put off the earthly garments of mortality. The church has ordained these things for many years with watchful care, even though the old books may not reveal traces of them." (Jonathan Smith 235; Miles 34) St. Hippolytus, presbyter of
[221]Cunningham 49.
[222] See
[223] Renbourn 15, 507.
[224] See Ellis, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 27-32, for numerous historic accounts of casual public and family nudity in
[225] Ellis, vol. 2, part 3, p. 98.
[226] Wright 41; see also numerous engravings throughout the book.
[227] Robinson, Body Packaging 50-51; Ribeiro 45-49, 55. The sumptuary laws of 1463 and 1483 prohibited anyone "under the rank of a lord . . . from wearing any gowne, jaket or cloke unless it be of sufficient length on a man standing upright to cover his privy member and buttokkes." The phrase about "standing upright" was added in the 1483 law, because men of lower rank were getting away with wearing short tunics on the grounds that they were covered when they were sitting down.
[228] Robinson, Body Packaging 62; Ribeiro 52, 68, 80-82, 175; Shields 289-91.
[229] Ribeiro 52, 82, 175. The clergy of the period condemned women to hell for exposing too much breast. In 1637, for instance, Pierre Juvernay of
[230] Ableman 50, 68, 84. See also Lindsay 11. Aileen Ribeiro notes that by the mid 1860s, women had adopted bathing costumes, "but it was not a universal practice for men to wear bathing costumes until the Edwardian period. . . . Until that time, men could often bathe naked, although by the late 1890s a number of local authorities had begun to put up notes enjoining the wearing of drawers." (Ribeiro 134, 183)
[231] "College Nude Swims" 114-15; Stein 14.
[232]
[233] B. Franklin 15:180. In his own words, "I rise early almost every morning, and sit in my chamber, without any clothes whatever, half an hour or an hour, according to the season, either reading or writing."
[234] Harding 121; Wagenknecht 83-84. Musing at boys bathing in a river, he wrote in his journal: "What a singular fact for an angel visitant to this earth to carry back in his note-book, that men were forbidden to expose their bodies under the severest penalties." (Thoreau 92)
[235] "Alexander Graham Bell" 10.
[236] Baxandall, World Guide to
Whitman's poem "Leaves of Grass." In a letter to the London Sun Bathing Society, Shaw wrote, "I am strongly in favor of getting rid of every scrap of clothing that we can dispense with. . . . I object also to the excessive use of clothing to produce idolatry, and stimulate sexuality beyond their natural bounds. And of course I know the mischief done by making us ashamed of our bodies. . . . On all these points you have my best wishes for your success as a propagandist." (Shaw 6) Regarding the Englishman's obsession with "correct" clothing, he observed that "an Englishman thinks he is moral when he is only uncomfortable." (From Man and Superman, quoted in Ribeiro 157)
[237] Hochschild 6; Kern 22.
[238]
[239] Matthews 31; "The Double Standard" 11; W. Martin 299.
[240] "Politicians" 6.
[241] Clift 32; Baxandall, World Guide to
[242] Baxandall, World Guide to
[243] "An ACLU Policy" 9; "Bill Clinton's Vacation" 9.
[244] "Famed Nudist" 6.
[245] North American Guide, back cover; "Celebrities" 16-17.
[246] "Bridget Fonda" 8; "The Second Movie Nudist" 97.
[247] "Gary Merrill" 8-9.
[248] "Another Celebrity" 6.
[249] "Amy Grant" 8.
[250] Dr. Seuss, The Seven Lady Godivas, first published in 1939.
[251] R. Martin 38.
[252] Russell 63. See also Braithwaite 126, 148-51, 189, 192, 335; R. Martin 39; Ableman 40. A typical example: In 1657, "Elizabeth Fletcher, then a girl of sixteen, and 'a very modest, grave young woman, yet contrary to her own will or inclination, in obedience to the Lord, went naked through the streets of that city, as a sign against that hypocritical profession they then made there [at Oxford] . . . which profession she told them the Lord would strip them of.'" (Braithwaite 158)
[253] Ableman 40.
[254] Ableman 42.
[255] Baxandall, World Guide to
[256] Moral codes regarding dress and fashion have historically been used as a means of political control, especially by the Church. Dress codes have been especially instrumental in the repression of women. For a thorough history, see Ribeiro.
[257] Ableman 33, 105. See also Robinson, Body Packaging 146.
[258] Fisher 139.
[259] Miles 29.
[260] Yancey 48.
[261] Mackenzie 21, 24.
[262] "Mainstreaming Nudity" 31.
[263] O'Brien, "Naturist Interests" 36. For an in-depth analysis of the Radical Right political movement, its tactics, and its goals, see Triggs.
[264] O'Brien, "The Naked Truth" 47; et al.
[265] See R. Martin 39; Westheimer and Lieberman 62-63.
[266] See Ward, "Women in Roman Baths" 142-47; Mackenzie 21, 24; Renbourn 483-84; and Johnson.
[267] See
[268] Bonfante, "Nudity as a Costume" 546, 548.
[269] Ableman 33-34, 37; Hall 4.
[270] Baxandall, World Guide to
[271] The Naturist Society closely monitors issues related to the management of nude beaches and recreation areas. An ongoing account of the successes and failures of clothing-optional recreation areas may be found in its magazine, Nude & Natural.
[272] For a detailed account of the
[273] R. Mason 19.
[274] Rudofsky, Unfashionable Human Body 70. See also Rudofsky, Are Clothes Modern? 196.
[275] "Losses on
[276] Craft 60.
[277] For interpretations of references to nudity in the Midrash and Talmud, see Poretsky.
[278] Kilmer, "Original Sin" 84.
[279] Bahr 44.
[280] Seal 86.
[281] Kass 43; Poretsky 47; Seal 87.
[282] Poretsky 46-47.
[283] Poretsky 42, 53.
[284] Kass 43. When the King James Version was printed, it was taboo to talk about subjects such as incest more explicitly. See Seal 87.
[285] See Exodus 28:6-14, 39:2-7.
[286] See Isaiah 20:4, Ezekiel 16:37, 16:39, 23:29, Hosea 2:3, Micah 1:8, 1:11, Nahum 3:5, and Revelations 3:17. See also Hebrews 4:13.
[287] Barbour 362-63.
[288] "Spirituality" 82.
[289] John Paul II 190.
[290] Miles xiv. Havelock Ellis, however, notes that in later years "the Church was passionately eager to fight against what it called 'the flesh' and thus fell into the error of confusing the subjective question of sexual desire with the objective spectacle of the naked form. 'The flesh' is evil; therefore, 'the flesh' must be hidden. And they hid it, without understanding that in so doing they had not suppressed the craving for the human form but, on the contrary, had heightened it by imparting to it the additional fascination of a forbidden mystery." (Robinson, Body Packaging 29)
[291] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, noted in Cunningham 49.
[292] John Paul II 176, 190, 191.
[293] See especially Paul's letters to the Galatians and Colossians.
[294] Miles xii. The famous "renunciation of St. Francis" occurred around 1206, when he was about 25 years old. For a detailed analysis of this event, see Trexler, esp. 4, 42-43. See also Rudofsky, Unfashionable Human Body 27; Sisk 899; Ellis, vol. 2, part 3, p. 98; Ableman 40.
[295] Ableman 40; Ellis, vol. 2, part 3, p. 98.
[296] Carrithers 219, 222-23; LeValley, "Some Background" 37-38.
[297] For a sampling of encounters with naturism, new and old, see Baxandall, World Guide to Nude Beaches and Resorts 12-21 (1995); Patti Anne Logan (1995); Sajoel (1994); North American Guide 8-29 (1993); Mary Wells (1991); Walter Wells (1991); Jane and Michael Stern (1990); Westheimer and Lieberman 57-60 (1988); Paul Fussell 205-20 (1988); Ableman 87-100 (1982); Herbert Webb (1957); Howard Warren 165-82 (1933); Jan Gay (1932); and the ongoing "Nudist Profiles" column in the Bulletin, the journal of the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR). See also the publications and video productions of AANR and The Naturist Society, including AANR's brochure "The Nude Experience: From a Woman's Perspective" and videos "Let Yourself Be Free" and "Welcome to Our World," and the Naturist Society's videos "Experience the Freedom" and "The Beginner's Guide to Skinny Dipping." AANR also sells an excellent feature-length film called "Educating Julie," which presents a fictional but realistic account of one individual's introduction to the naturist lifestyle. Contact AANR at
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
