Nude Year Thoughts

When I think about ringing in the New Year nude, there's a difference between being in a room with a group of nudists and, say, streaking through a crowd of textiles. The latter is usually (and not inaccurately) labeled exhibitionism. But there's such a stigma associated with that term. I think the exhibitionist version seems more fun. When nudity is the norm, it loses a lot of its novelty. Which is great when you just want the comfort of being nude, but is there no value in the novelty of nudity as it contrasts with textilism?

The misconception I want to address is that this exhibitionist value is an essentially immoral and antisocial one. Just because I think the juxtaposition of a nude streaker in a clothed crowd seems appealing doesn't mean that I derive pleasure from bothering people, or that their "consent" (to be exposed to naked people) is beneath my concern, or less important than my happiness (on the contrary: I suppress these desires, thereby making myself suffer, on the mere chance that it might prevent the suffering of others).

I wrote about this recently, but when I imagine the scenario - e.g., of a streaker running through a crowd - I think about how happy that sight would make me. But I guess that's the difference of perspective. I assume that most people imagine the shock and horror they would experience, and therefore see the streaker's actions as selfish and reckless, where I see them as selfless and joyful.

Yet, there still remains the critical difference between somebody who thinks streaking sounds exciting, and somebody who actually does it. If you can find something intriguing, but refrain from doing it out of concern for the potentially varied perspectives of others, then I consider that evidence of an evolved maturity and humanity. It is not fair, then, to criticize people who, for example, consider themselves "exhibitionists", because of the feelings they acknowledge having, judging them for the behaviors they maybe fantasize about, instead of the behaviors they actually engage in.

Nude Dreams

I've noticed that although I sleep nude every night, I only ever have dreams in which I'm naked when the proper conditions arise (and they very rarely do) such that it's so overly warm in my room (usually due to a miscalculation with the thermostat, and the fact that my bed sits right on top of the heating vent in my room), that I end up throwing off my blankets and sleeping uncovered (though only temporarily). I lament that, under normal conditions, I am unable to sleep uncovered, because I always enjoy those naked dreams, and wish I could have them more frequently.

I had one just the other night, in which I was shopping at the mall - which is interesting inasmuch as I have not left the house in the last nine months. I was fully naked, and fully conscious of that fact; and it was not a nudist environment - where everyone is naked and nobody cares. As sometimes occurs in these dreams, the atmosphere of the scene was one which occupies a strange middle ground - a normal textile environment in which I am the only one naked, yet nobody remarks on my nudity (as they would if this had occurred in real life). Which leaves me wondering if it's actually okay for me to be naked after all, yet simultaneously preoccupied with anxiety that at any moment, somebody will notice my lack of attire and make a big deal about it. Not to the extent that it causes me to alter my behavior - e.g., tiptoeing about sheepishly, hiding my body behind racks of clothes - but more like just going about my business while waiting for the other shoe to inevitably drop (although in these dreams, it never does). It's like my brain has plopped me down naked into a regular dream, and I'm aware that I'm naked, but the rest of the dream isn't.

Regardless of the uncertainties, it was still a fascinating experience, and one that I would enjoy repeating any time the proper conditions should again arise. I actually had another naked dream recently, and this time it was one with a more erotic bent, that ended with a nocturnal emission. In this dream (which I started out clothed), I was a student in a college environment. It started in a classroom, with (strangely) a pizza oven in the hall. But then I was in a dormitory. There was a knock on my door. A group of guys was apparently in the midst of some kind of dare (or hazing ritual - not unlike one I witnessed from my window in real life while I was in college), in which they were streaking through the halls buck naked. Naturally, I took this as a serendipitous opportunity to engage in public nudity, protected by safety in numbers. I undressed on the spot - and here, allow me to make a brief digression.

I have heard of people having difficulty running in dreams, often moving in slow motion (as cleverly depicted in one sequence in the original A Nightmare on Elm Street). I haven't often had this experience, but I do much more frequently experience difficulty undressing in my dreams (often on the way to taking a shower). I will have great trouble peeling off my clothes, almost as if they are stuck to my skin, sometimes having to take off a particular garment (usually pants or underwear) multiple times.

Anyway, I knew time was of the essence in this instance, so I was thankfully able to get my clothes off, and proceeded to run down the hallway, only to find out that a group of girls had just begun coming up the hall from the other direction. So there I was, running through their midst, and the overwhelming thought on my mind was that they were getting a peek at my throbbing erection (from the thought of going streaking, naturally) - which, let's be honest, is an impressive sight - and that's when I felt the waves of orgasm begin to wash over me. At that moment I snapped awake (as I have trained myself to do), and grabbed the towel on the floor beside my bed just in time to avoid a mess.

Two Views of Exposure

There are two ways of looking at public nudity - or generally being naked in front of anyone who's not specifically a nudist or an intimate partner, even if it happens to occur in private. People who are concerned about this behavior probably imagine the sort of person (probably not unlike themselves) who would not appreciate seeing a stranger naked - either because the stranger is not considered attractive and/or nudity offends the viewer on principle of modesty and/or they feel threatened by the encounter.

But when I think about being exposed in public and/or to strangers or non-nudist/non-intimate acquaintances, I see it differently. I imagine how delighted I would be to be on the other end and see the same thing. So, you see, exhibitionism isn't selfish. The same way that I started modeling in order to give back to the world what I appreciate in others - that is, sharing the sight of their naked bodies with the world - is how I view dressing in skimpy clothes, and how I imagine public nudity, if I had the guts and the assurance of not being charged as a criminal to do it.

Think of it like this - a sexy woman undressing in front of a window. (Obviously, this only works if you're attracted to women, but feel free to imagine a man or other circumstances altogether - I'm not judging). Who hasn't peered out of their window and wished they could see a sexy woman (or equivalent) undressing in front of a window across the block? I would love to see that. And I want to see more of it in the world. And how better to promote that outcome than to undress in front of windows myself? I follow Ghandi's advice: "be the change you wish to see in the world."

So obviously, there's a difference of perspective here - contrasted with the point of view that considers undressing in front of windows to be either distasteful (they just don't personally like it) or also immoral (there's something wrong with it). The point I would emphasize is that exhibitionists aren't actively trying to bother people - because they get some kind of sick thrill out of doing so. They just see the world differently, and are trying to spread what they perceive as joy, although others may see it otherwise.

But they're not alone in seeing things the way they see it. And besides, who gets to decide which of these opposing views takes precedence? If a woman on my street likes to undress in front of her window, why does my neighbor's disgust trump my delight, when it comes to deciding whether or not the woman should be permitted to proceed? We have a habit, in this so-called "democracy" of ours, to cater to complainers. The pursuit of happiness isn't so important to us as the avoidance of discomfort - cultivating a watered down public commons in which nobody has to feel offended. The reason I DON'T engage in a whole lot of public exposure (except in specific circumstances where I think there is an acceptably low level of being caught) is out of respect for the feelings of others.* But how often do those others respect MY feelings? This isn't an equivalent exchange, here.

*An argument could be made that I refrain from public exposure NOT out of concern for the feelings of others, but out of sheer self-interest. The fact is, I do care about others' feelings, if only because making other people feel bad makes me feel bad. I don't think this is uncommon; it's how we function as a social species. We tend to vilify selfishness and exalt selflessness to an unnatural extent, that promotes shame in the less-than-perfect (that is, all of us) at least as much as it promotes some of us to better behavior. The truth is, most people are selfless mainly for selfish reasons. And that's just fine. It's only the sociopaths that don't have that empathic connection with others that prevents them from doing harm to others, because doing so doesn't affect them the way it does the rest of us. In any case, my self-interest puts me at no lower a level than the self-interest of those who want to compel others to cover up simply because it makes them feel uncomfortable. I sacrifice to make others comfortable. They want others to sacrifice to make themselves comfortable. See the difference?

In the interest of fairness, we can imagine an alternate scenario in which the person undressing in front of the window is NOT someone I am attracted to. I think most people default to, "people I think are hot, I want to see naked. But if I don't think they're hot, they should cover up."** Obviously, this doesn't work when we take into account more than one person's tastes. So, again, we default to telling everybody to cover up, because taking away the joy of the people who would enjoy it is viewed as better than forcing the people who don't enjoy it to suffer.

**There are obviously other nuances to complicate the situation, such as people who only want to see hot people naked in limited circumstances, perhaps because they are uncomfortable embracing sexual thoughts outside of a private context, or people who have religious or some other kind of beliefs that prevent them from enjoying their sexual feelings at all. I think this is unfortunate, and one of the things I love most about the nudist worldview is this idea that, even if nudists don't typically view it from a sexual perspective, the exposure of people's bodies is not this private, intimate thing, but something that can be shared casually with strangers without all the baggage we normally load onto intimate encounters (including any kind of expectation of sexual activity), and devoid of the view that doing so is somehow immoral or represents a negative character flaw. Grappling with the beliefs of those who object to the nudists' casual approach to nudity is one of its most challenging obstacles to mainstream acceptance, and I don't have a solution to that problem. But I will say that I would be much happier living in a nudist-positive world than the one we currently live in, where people's bodies are shamed (whether they're attractive or not) and the sharing of visual beauty (entirely separate from any kind of sexual contact) is stigmatized to a life-defeating (in some cases literally, as we've occasionally seen with the more tragic teen sexting cases) extent.

Maybe it's not so bad from that perspective - prioritizing the avoidance of suffering over the elimination of pleasure - like letting a criminal go free rather than risking false imprisonment. But here's my argument. If you're not attracted to the person undressing in front of the window, you can just look away. Enter the nudist mindset. Most nudists I meet are not people I want or particularly enjoy seeing naked. Simply because I have particular tastes, and the percentage of the population that I view as attractive is a minority (and particularly smaller in a nudist context, where the demographic skews older and maler). But, as a nudist, seeing somebody that I don't find attractive naked doesn't bother me. And I've always maintained that looking at 99 people I find unattractive naked in order to get the privilege of seeing 1 person I do find attractive naked, that I would normally not get the chance to see naked, is more than worth it to me.

So here's the thing. Nudists posit a culture where naked bodies are not shocking, or offensive. Which is an idea that I love. To people with a limited understanding of it (which is most people, especially nudists), this should eliminate exhibitionism, which allegedly relies on shock value. Except that it doesn't, really. Taking the shock away would only improve exhibitionism, by removing a considerable obstacle to its enjoyment. Making nudity inoffensive means exhibitionists could expose themselves regularly without fanfare - getting enjoyment from the exposure without bothering anyone. EXACTLY like how exhibitionists currently get enjoyment out of strutting at the pool in string bikinis (I use this example to emphasize the gender disparity - that women are expected to show off, and that this is considered as unthreatening as milquetoast, while men who do it are quickly viewed with criminal suspicion), without offending anyone, and without this behavior involving any kind of mustache-twirlingly stereotypical depictions of sexual perversion, like masturbating on the waterslide in full view of children, or what have you (any time you mention exhibitionism to nudists, I swear, they think you're talking about public intercourse, and not just, you know, experiencing endorphins from the simple act of being seen and admired). I maintain that exhibitionism isn't a fringe fetish, but a common part of the human condition. Some of us just embrace it more fully than others.

In any case, exhibitionists and public nudity supporters (whatever their motivations might be, sexual or otherwise) should be viewed in light of their perspective on exposure being unremarkable, and not taken solely in light of current attitudes that view naked bodies akin to a deadly weapon. When somebody fantasizes about answering the door naked, they are not, largely, stroking themselves (whether literally or just figuratively) to thoughts of traumatizing strangers and forcing them to look at something that disturbs or disgusts them. No, if they are anything like me, they are imagining themselves AS THE VOYEUR, opening the door on somebody attractive, and how world-shatteringly delightful that experience would be (and how badly they wish it would happen - and that though they can't force a random attractive stranger to flash them, they CAN be the flasher in somebody else's fantasy). If some people lack the social capacity to recognize that this possibility may be rare, and that the cost of losing this particular lottery and ending up exposing oneself to somebody who does NOT appreciate it could be significant (and therefore going through with it and not keeping it in the realm of fantasy), then that is very unfortunate - and it paints an unfair portrait of exhibitionism. But it should not be mistaken for one of the foundational mechanisms of what drives the phenomenon of exhibitionism - or in the case of the nudist who simply wants more opportunities to remain undressed, without being accused of necessarily being an exhibitionist.

Naked Thoughts

(Or Skinny-Dipping in the Stream of Consciousness)

I support nonsexual nudism, but I was just thinking, do we absolutely need to designate nudism as non-sexual? Or can we just delineate a non-sexual nudism versus a sexual nudism? Could nudism not simply be the practice of nudity beyond the bounds of what textile society deems normal? Obviously, a sexual nudist isn't going to constantly be having sex. And if they only EVER get undressed for sex, then that really isn't nudism. But if they like to walk around naked, and also occasionally have sex in public, is the walking around part not still nudism?

Is it a matter of motivation? That if they're walking around naked because they view it as erotic - sort of a form of foreplay - then it's exhibitionism and not nudism? But does it have to be 100% because of that exhibitionism? Or because of exhibitionism 100% of the time? Is it not possible for an exhibitionist to spend a lot of time naked, and discover through that means that being naked is enjoyable for reasons beyond the sexual? And thus become a nudist through exhibitionism? This is what I've always maintained.

But many nudists seem to be of the opinion that if there is even a single percent of your nudity tied to an exhibitionist motivation, then that invalidates the nudist component. But I don't agree. This view is informed by a sex-negative culture which stigmatizes sexuality. If sex weren't stigmatized, and viewed as an exceptional circumstance when it comes to allowing people to gather and recreate, then it wouldn't really matter whether some nudists sometimes engaged in public sex and exhibitionism, any more than it matters now if a nudist engages in an activity that doesn't carry any particular stigma, like playing a certain sport.

That's not to say that nudists necessarily SHOULD embrace public sex, but the idea that nudism and exhibitionism are intrinsically incompatible* (or that there can't be an alternative exhibitionistic nudism) stems from that sex-negative bias. You can still separate nudism from public sex acts - and still have good reason to do so - without drawing the further conclusion that nudists and exhibitionists are mutually exclusive, or that the existence of one inherently threatens the other.

*Frankly, I would have thought that people who like to be naked and people who like to be exposed would have been natural allies, but I guess it's more complicated than that.

---

What is the most basic requirement for being a nudist?

I would argue that nudism encompasses a certain attitude toward nudity. A rejection of the exposure taboo - that our bodies should remain hidden except in specific special circumstances. Although, you can be a nudist in the privacy of your own home, and still be self-conscious in front of others.

Most people in textile culture are rarely naked. They might get naked for sex (and while this is not a requirement, they will at least need to expose their genitals, which is the most guarded part of the body in textile culture). Other than that, they typically only get naked when changing clothes, bathing, or using the bathroom (and there, again, they are usually only partially undressed - the undressed portion critically being the genitals). And these things are typically done in private, or only in the presence of relations with special privileges. Occasionally, a textile might sleep naked or go skinny dipping, but these are usually rare or infrequent practices, and not the norm - the exception that proves the rule.

I think that if you are (1) nonchalant about being seen naked by others, since body shyness is hard-coded into textile culture, then that makes you a nudist. But I also think that if (2) you are private with your nudity, but engage with it more commonly than a typical textile - such as lounging about the house in the nude, even if only when you are alone, or with special company - then that can also make you a nudist. In either case, I think it comes down to comfort. Whether it's comfort in front of others, or just comfort in your own skin, being comfortable instead of neurotic and uptight about nudity is enough for me to consider you a nudist.

Now, this can occur in a sexual context - some people are highly body-conscious even while having sex. Although, I hesitate to label a person a nudist if they are ONLY ever comfortable with nudity during sex (or always interpret nudity as it relates to sex). As long as that nudity extends beyond the sexual environment, even if you are lounging around the house with your significant other (at a point when most textiles would have covered up), that still constitutes nudism to me.

Now, if your comfort with nudity around others is purely the result of an exhibitionist motivation, then I would hesitate to call that nudism, as well. However, having that exhibitionist interest doesn't preclude you from being a nudist. If you only ever expose yourself to others in the course of your sexual practices (whether with consenting others - as I would hope the case would be - or not), then that's not really nudism. But if you still like to go nude when you're not doing it for sexual reasons, then you are a nudist, even if you do think getting naked in front of others can be erotic.