Clearing Up A Misconception

One of the most common criticisms levied against nudism by the uninitiated textile world is this idea that "nudists are never the people you want to see naked." What's obvious to us nudists is how much this criticism misses the point. Nudists aren't judgmental about people's bodies the way textile culture is, and the benefit of this approach is a much healthier attitude towards our own and each other's bodies. But listen, that doesn't mean I want to see saggy, wrinkly bodies in the nude - or that I enjoy hairy old men's assholes winking at me from the sand court during a game of volleyball - any more than anyone else in the textile world. I'm not that much different from you. I've just cultivated a more mature approach towards it - an ability to behave civilly and simply not focus my gaze on anything I don't need a vivid mental picture of, and not let my petty feelings get in the way of others' freedom to disrobe, knowing as I do the physical and psychological benefits of doing so. It's just that it's a balancing act. And not all bodies you encounter in nudism are going to be unappealing - the few gems you get to see in a way that textile culture would never allow more than makes it worth it, in my opinion.

There's this idea that, in contrast to nudism which allows all body types, textile culture - "pornified" as it is - already has a more "reasonable" approach towards exposure: attractive people are allowed to show off - indeed, their bodies are plastered all over the media and advertising and pornography we're bombarded with every day. But I don't think it's that simple. Sure, you're more likely to see attractive people (although not exclusively) in short shorts and miniskirts and skimpy bikinis at the beach. But they're not naked. And though they do tend to be naked in porn, as much as our culture is obsessed with sex, it's relegated to the corners of our society. These corners may be crowded, but they're still fenced off from everything else, with the letters N, S, F, and W plastered large on billboards blocking the view. And textile culture is so pornified, you can't appreciate nudity without making it into a sexual thing. (Call me weird, but I like to watch beautiful naked people doing things other than having sex). Hop the fence into pornland, and everybody is so myopically focused on sex, there's no time for subtleties like artistic composition, or softcore eroticism.

"You're a nudist? Isn't that, like, a sex thing?"

"Is sex the only thing you textiles do while naked?

(It's no wonder you bathe alone!)"

If you're attractive, you still don't get a free pass to walk your dog around the block without clothes on (well, your dog can be naked, it's just you that can't). You might get away with it, if the people who catch you don't mind, and like what they see, but that's not the same thing - and clearly it doesn't make this phenomenon exactly common. There's nowhere you can go to watch a sports match performed by naked athletes - because watching the amazing feats the human body is capable of is a wonderful thing - even though said athletes are presumably more physically fit than the majority of the population. (And I've been called a freak and a pervert for even suggesting that gymnastics should be performed...well, gymnastically - that is, nude, in the original Greek sense of the word). Even model-caliber beauties aren't issued licenses for public nudity, protecting them from indecent exposure charges (including when public exposure is part of their vocation - e.g., for a photoshoot). And silver screen-ready actresses, though always pressured to do steamier roles, rarely revel in those opportunities to expose themselves unselfconsciously to the world (without, say, a body double, or coy lighting - or, these days, having a team of fx artists to photoshop out their undergarments).

So, no, textile culture doesn't permit us to enjoy attractive naked bodies to a sufficient extent. Our sexual obsession, amazingly, doesn't obliterate but rather intensifies the nudity taboo. Only nudism provides an alternative and a solution to it. And if it takes a general attitude of "nudity isn't inherently sexual", and "all bodies are welcome" (meaning ugly bodies are as free to bare all as the beautiful ones) to get there, then so be it. I'm down with the program.

Good Naked vs. Bad Naked

As an aesthetic artist, my goal is to portray my model in a flattering light. I don't really take pictures of "matter-of-fact" nudity - which is why I am concerned about the ability of my art to accurately reflect the nudist ethos and lifestyle. Even picture-perfect models can look downright unappealing if photographed in certain poses, and from certain angles. (Jerry Seinfeld discovered the difference between "good naked" and so-called "bad naked" on that episode where he dated a nudist - although I'm inclined to agree with George, that Jerry was acting like a "spoiled, spoiled man"). There is an artifice to art of this sort - I make no illusions about this fact. I don't pretend that I have a perfect body, and that, to whatever extent I am attractive, it isn't still a challenge to consistently portray myself in pictures in the best possible light.

Matter-of-Fact Nudity

There are certainly uses for art that depicts people's bodies from a more realistic perspective - I fully acknowledge that. I'm just not that interested in that subject as an artist (at least at this time). I agree with the nudist philosophy - that appearance only goes so far. But I won't pretend that it has no value. (Maybe I'm being idealistic, but I don't think that rewarding physical attractiveness necessarily goes hand in hand with punishing its lack thereof, other than the inevitable envy of those that lack it. I want things other people have that I don't have, but I don't disparage them for having it. I certainly wouldn't argue that a world-class guitarist shouldn't be praised for his proficiency at guitar just because I don't possess the same level of skill).

I worship beauty, and art is one way that I can honor that. Perhaps that constitutes an obstruction to communication of the pure nudist ideal (which seeks to draw attention away from the perceived importance of physical beauty), but the truth is that nudism is another way I pursue beauty. Not because nudism is about beauty (it's not, really), but because nudism lifts a veil that textile culture clings to (i.e., that naked bodies are taboo), which prevents one from fully appreciating that beauty outside of nudism. It would seem that, through nudism, the ability to appreciate that beauty requires one to humble oneself about the limits of beauty's virtue - because you can't go very far in nudism while clinging to a superficial mindset.

But if, like me, you can simultaneously acknowledge the transcendental power of naked beauty (albeit of a privileged subset of the population) to ravish the soul, and the seemingly contradictory fact that beauty truly is only skin deep (a beautiful person isn't automatically also smart, or strong, or kind, or even happy), then there is much that can be gained from the practice of a nudist lifestyle, that may very well be impossible to acquire elsewhere. As such, I vehemently deny the statement that "beauty isn't everything, it's the only thing", and replace it instead with "beauty isn't everything, but it is something," as well as its corollary (which is important to keep in mind, lest one's priorities fall out of proportion), "beauty is something, but it isn't everything."