Topic: Clothing is sexier than nudity.
My Take: It's a foregone conclusion among nudists that people are sexier when dressed than they are when nude. But I wonder if this is a symptom of the fact that nudists are statistically less attractive than the people you meet in clothed society.
People talk about "leaving something to the imagination." No doubt humans have powerful imaginations, but this doesn't explain the popularity of hardcore pornography. We didn't survive the process of natural selection and evolve from naked apes without having the ability to become aroused by the sight of exposed genitalia.
I have no doubt that clothing has been sexualized, as the human mind has the unique ability to sexualize literally anything. But my view on fashion has always been that clothing is flattered by the body that wears it, and not vice versa. That's why my favorite clothes are the ones that show the most skin.
One thing clothing does accomplish is that it hides flaws. There are certainly people who look better dressed than they do naked. If nothing else, nudists understand that most people's bodies do not resemble the perfect ideal that's marketed to us in advertisements and in our entertainment.
But then, the function of clothes, in conjunction with the human imagination, is to let people imagine that perfect body beneath the fabric, which would only be spoiled by seeing the real body unclothed. It's not the clothes, then, that are attractive. It's still the human body. Just an idealized image of the perfect body that exists in our heads, in contrast to what most people actually look like undressed.
But at the end of the day, the sexiest thing alive is that person with the perfect body, showing it all off. Putting clothes on doesn't improve the view.
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
Tuesday, November 9, 2021
Nudist Hot Takes: Simple Nudity
Topic: The sexualization of nudity
My Take: As a nudist and as a photographer, I like the poeticism of the phrase "simple nudity". But the reality is that nudity is complex. That's why we keep having these discussions about what nudity means and what it entails.
My belief, and my approach as an artist, is that we should just let nudes be nudes. If somebody interprets them in a nonsexual way, that's fine. If somebody else interprets them in a sexual way - well, that's fine, too.
Trying to interpret the artist's intent can be interesting as an academic exercise, but I think that trying to regulate images based on something so nebulous is a fool's errand. That's why I prefer the mechanical approach to content filtering that you more often encounter on photo sharing sites, to the more subjective approach that social media sites often use.
Forget whether there is a sexual "context", or what the intent of an instance of nudity might be. Either you can see certain body parts or not - implied nudity does not warrant censorship, in my view - and either there are sexual acts depicted or there are not.
I'm not saying it's always straightforward to answer these questions (e.g., should visible arousal be considered a sex act?, and should men and women have to follow different rules?), but it's a far more effective (and fairer) methodology than trying to govern people's thoughts.
My Take: As a nudist and as a photographer, I like the poeticism of the phrase "simple nudity". But the reality is that nudity is complex. That's why we keep having these discussions about what nudity means and what it entails.
My belief, and my approach as an artist, is that we should just let nudes be nudes. If somebody interprets them in a nonsexual way, that's fine. If somebody else interprets them in a sexual way - well, that's fine, too.
Trying to interpret the artist's intent can be interesting as an academic exercise, but I think that trying to regulate images based on something so nebulous is a fool's errand. That's why I prefer the mechanical approach to content filtering that you more often encounter on photo sharing sites, to the more subjective approach that social media sites often use.
Forget whether there is a sexual "context", or what the intent of an instance of nudity might be. Either you can see certain body parts or not - implied nudity does not warrant censorship, in my view - and either there are sexual acts depicted or there are not.
I'm not saying it's always straightforward to answer these questions (e.g., should visible arousal be considered a sex act?, and should men and women have to follow different rules?), but it's a far more effective (and fairer) methodology than trying to govern people's thoughts.
Monday, November 8, 2021
Nudist Hot Takes: Textiles
Topic: 'Textile' is a derogatory term for non-nudists.
My Take: I disagree. 'Textile' is a useful term that is not inherently derogatory.
'Textile' is a term that nudists sometimes use to indicate people who are not nudists. However, I have witnessed a backlash by some in and around the nudist community who interpret the term as an insult. I would argue that a certain amount of condescension towards non-initiates in any minority group is inevitable, but that this doesn't poison the term or rob it of its legitimacy.
Nudism is a lifestyle defined not only by nudity, but by its opposition to one of the fundamentally accepted tenets of modern society - that we wear clothes in front of other people unless we're having sex. It's perfectly natural that nudists would not only come up with a term to describe themselves, but also one to denote those who do not see the world the way they do. There's nothing wrong with that.
Tribalism is part of human nature, and when people find a group to which they feel a sense of belonging, it's natural to develop some prejudice towards outsiders - especially when those outsiders are perceived as a threat to the group (as mainstream society frequently misunderstands and actively restricts the practice of nudism). But the possibility, or even likelihood, for this prejudice is not an argument against using relevant terminology to distinguish the two groups.
It may be somewhat of a taboo to compare nudism to anything to do with the LGBT community, but I am reminded of the term "cisgender", which was coined to differentiate transgender individuals from those who constitute the majority. Just because some extremists may use the term in tones of derision towards cisnormative society doesn't change the meaning of the term, or reduce its practicability when talking about the difference between people who are transgender, and people who are not.
Sometimes people who constitute the majority resent being "re-branded" by alternative communities in this way. But this is really just an organic side effect of shifting perspective to include the existence of the minority group. Non-nudists are not expected to refer to themselves as textiles, just as non-transgender individuals are not required to identify as "cisgender" in ordinary circumstances. These terms merely exist to provide a useful distinction for minorities to differentiate between themselves and the rest of society.
My Take: I disagree. 'Textile' is a useful term that is not inherently derogatory.
'Textile' is a term that nudists sometimes use to indicate people who are not nudists. However, I have witnessed a backlash by some in and around the nudist community who interpret the term as an insult. I would argue that a certain amount of condescension towards non-initiates in any minority group is inevitable, but that this doesn't poison the term or rob it of its legitimacy.
Nudism is a lifestyle defined not only by nudity, but by its opposition to one of the fundamentally accepted tenets of modern society - that we wear clothes in front of other people unless we're having sex. It's perfectly natural that nudists would not only come up with a term to describe themselves, but also one to denote those who do not see the world the way they do. There's nothing wrong with that.
Tribalism is part of human nature, and when people find a group to which they feel a sense of belonging, it's natural to develop some prejudice towards outsiders - especially when those outsiders are perceived as a threat to the group (as mainstream society frequently misunderstands and actively restricts the practice of nudism). But the possibility, or even likelihood, for this prejudice is not an argument against using relevant terminology to distinguish the two groups.
It may be somewhat of a taboo to compare nudism to anything to do with the LGBT community, but I am reminded of the term "cisgender", which was coined to differentiate transgender individuals from those who constitute the majority. Just because some extremists may use the term in tones of derision towards cisnormative society doesn't change the meaning of the term, or reduce its practicability when talking about the difference between people who are transgender, and people who are not.
Sometimes people who constitute the majority resent being "re-branded" by alternative communities in this way. But this is really just an organic side effect of shifting perspective to include the existence of the minority group. Non-nudists are not expected to refer to themselves as textiles, just as non-transgender individuals are not required to identify as "cisgender" in ordinary circumstances. These terms merely exist to provide a useful distinction for minorities to differentiate between themselves and the rest of society.
Sunday, November 7, 2021
Nudist Hot Takes: LGBTN
Topic: An 'N' should be added to LGBT for nudists.
My Take: For the record, I do not agree with this proposal. My hot take is that we shouldn't laugh at the people who propose it.
Now, I've seen this suggestion made in nudist communities, and while there is a small garnering of support, more often than not it is met with scorn and derision.
I understand why the suggestion is offensive, and that the people proposing it are probably demonstrating a sheltered naivety that warrants shattering. But they don't deserve to be laughed at.
Bottom line: I feel discriminated against as a nudist. The fact that I can put on clothes and disguise myself as a member of the majority population doesn't change the way I feel or what I believe.
Consider that we are living in times where discriminated minorities are gaining rights and recognition at an unprecedented rate, and "intersectionality" between marginalized groups is a preeminent strategy for social justice. Nudists wanting to be a part of that isn't the punchline to a joke.
Perhaps the notion of grouping nudists in with gays and transpeople does sound like a joke, but the source of that desire is sincere, and I feel like that gets tossed aside when people laugh at the suggestion that nudists face discrimination.
So maybe adding an 'N' to LGBT is an offensive suggestion, but I wish there was a more sympathetic way of rejecting it than telling people who feel oppressed that their feelings are illegitimate, or that one person's suffering is meaningless just because other people have suffered more.
My Take: For the record, I do not agree with this proposal. My hot take is that we shouldn't laugh at the people who propose it.
Now, I've seen this suggestion made in nudist communities, and while there is a small garnering of support, more often than not it is met with scorn and derision.
I understand why the suggestion is offensive, and that the people proposing it are probably demonstrating a sheltered naivety that warrants shattering. But they don't deserve to be laughed at.
Bottom line: I feel discriminated against as a nudist. The fact that I can put on clothes and disguise myself as a member of the majority population doesn't change the way I feel or what I believe.
Consider that we are living in times where discriminated minorities are gaining rights and recognition at an unprecedented rate, and "intersectionality" between marginalized groups is a preeminent strategy for social justice. Nudists wanting to be a part of that isn't the punchline to a joke.
Perhaps the notion of grouping nudists in with gays and transpeople does sound like a joke, but the source of that desire is sincere, and I feel like that gets tossed aside when people laugh at the suggestion that nudists face discrimination.
So maybe adding an 'N' to LGBT is an offensive suggestion, but I wish there was a more sympathetic way of rejecting it than telling people who feel oppressed that their feelings are illegitimate, or that one person's suffering is meaningless just because other people have suffered more.
Monday, November 1, 2021
Naked Immunity
Public nudity is often treated in an all-or-nothing way. Maybe there are good reasons for this; after all, I imagine a society that tolerates nudity in some public instances would become desensitized to it and may then be less uptight about it in other instances (which is good).
That said, many who oppose the decriminalization of public nudity (and even some fervent supporters of the concept) tend to fixate on extreme examples of people being bothered by encountering nudity in some fairly illogical places, like shopping malls or fine restaurants or their kid's elementary school.
Whereas I maintain that, on the issue of public nudity, I do not demand carte blanche to be naked absolutely anywhere I feel like (there's a lot of wiggle room for nudity even without abolishing the standard of "no shirt, no shoes, no service"). I would be satisfied with a compromise - the freedom to simply be nude in certain instances where the impact of that nudity on others is minimized, and where, quite frankly, it makes a lot of sense for people to have that fundamental freedom.
In other words, responsible nudity in reasonable contexts. And by "responsible" I mean that any kind of inappropriate or indecent behavior would still be forbidden (I think many people fear that bad actors will exploit an acceptance of nudity to engage in this kind of illicit behavior, and I do not wish that to be the case). The law and public sentiment would merely be blind to a person's state of dress (or undress).
Also, on that note, it wouldn't be sufficient merely to have the legal right to be nude in these places (although that would be a step in the right direction), but I would wish for society to be on board with this state of affairs to the point of acknowledging and accepting that other people have the right to choose how to dress themselves, and not get uptight anytime they encounter nudity within these pre-determined bounds. So that not only would you not have criminal liability, but that neither would you be treated like a pariah and become isolated from your friends and family for choosing to go nude.
With that settled, we come to the question of where it would make sense to normalize nudity first. Let me list my top 5 suggestions.
1. Home
This location barely qualifies as "public", which is why I'm listing it first. And it's a shame to waste a spot on such a basic item, but in spite of the temptation to say that we already have the freedom to be nude at home, this is simply not the case. I do spend quite a lot of time at home nude, but that depends on company.
It's not that I am opposed to dressing up for special occasions and planned gatherings. But it would be nice to be able to answer the door without having to scramble for clothes every time a spontaneous visitor comes knocking, and to be able to lounge around in my own home the way I'm most comfortable, regardless of who shows up, without the implicit expectation of changing the way I would prefer to be dressed. Especially with guests staying overnight, during those times - late in the evening and early in the morning - when decorum is typically at its most informal.
That's not to say that I believe I should be able to come over to your house and take off my clothes; that's up to you as the host. I believe in the "king of the castle" doctrine on this matter. And though it's true that even some non-nudists respect this doctrine, it is far from universal, particularly on the subject of nudity. People are still occasionally charged for indecent exposure within their own homes, and, even more frequently, are isolated from their family and friends if they dare to insist upon not covering up.
If, on the other hand, your belief is that you should make your guests comfortable (i.e., "the guest is king"), then how come y'all don't get undressed when I drop by your house for a visit?
2. Garden
By "garden" here I am referring to the external property in the lot where you live (whether or not you grow flowers, or own your house for that matter). This is only the tiniest step beyond the privacy of one's home (literally, starting on the doorstep), but, significantly, introduces a greater potential for public view. Not just anyone will enter your home, but you never know who could be walking (or driving) down your street.
Some people, myself included, are lucky enough to have [more-or-less] private yards where they can be nude outside the house without being seen. Not everyone is so lucky. And I still feel boxed in by the fence in my back yard, unable to tend to the front without changing the way I'm dressed.
It would be nice to be able to mow the whole lawn, step out the front door and grab my mail, roll the trash can to the curb (and back), and wash my car in the driveway, without putting on shorts specifically for the task. If an allowance for being nude within view of the public should start anywhere, it should start on the property where a person lives.
As an extension, since I'm not sure this deserves a separate spot, people living in, e.g., dormitories and apartment complexes should have the same freedom - to enjoy shared spaces around their home (such as hallways, balconies, and the laundromat) in the same level of comfort they enjoy in the privacy of their own separate rooms. Ideally, this freedom would also extend to hotels, which function as temporary domiciles. After all, don't hotels like to offer their guests all the pleasures and conveniences (and then some) of being at home?
3. Car
We're more than halfway through the list, and I feel like I'm still wasting spots on the obvious. But I guess that's kind of the point of the list, isn't it? I've driven nude many times, but only in isolated situations where I feel relatively safe doing so (and more often at night). The reality is, how often do you even notice what somebody in another car is wearing?
Now, you might argue that there's not much point in being nude in the car when you're going to have to be dressed when you get to where you're going, but you might be surprised by the opportunities available - especially once we begin picking out locations where public nudity is tolerated. That way you wouldn't have to get dressed to get there and back.
Even now, though, there are times when I've just been swimming, and I have to drive home, and my skin is still damp, so I don't want to get dressed. Or, I've got a long interstate drive ahead of me, and I figure, I might as well be comfortable!
The fact that I can already get away with this as much as I do is just testament to the fact that it's a natural choice for this list, but it would be nice to take away the fear of being stopped at a stoplight and having someone on the sidewalk peek in, or the added anxiety of wondering how I'm going to explain myself if I happen to see flashing lights in my rearview mirror.
And if we're feeling generous, we could extend that freedom to a larger portion of the driving experience. Imagine stopping off to fuel up without having to get dressed. You barely have to leave your car as it is if you're paying at the pump. And rest stops are already like islands accessible only to highway traffic. What's the harm in designating them nude-friendly zones? You could stretch your legs, relieve yourself, and pick up a snack at the vending machines; no need to cover up!
4. Parks
"Parks" is admittedly a pretty vague designation. I would put the emphasis on wilderness parks, but an argument could be made for the freedom to relax or recreate nude in, e.g., city parks and the like.
I'm tempted to single out state parks, because they seem more likely to be "outdoorsy", but that may not necessarily be the case (and besides, some of them can draw pretty big crowds of tourists).
National parks may be an even better option, and in some cases, there are allowances for a little bit more leniency in dress code (depending on who you ask), but this is not a guarantee, and they are even fewer and farther between.
Ultimately, I think there should be a tolerance for people to get out into nature to enjoy the scenic vistas and recreate (hiking, biking, swimming, camping, etc.) without any more clothes than the animals are wearing.
You can already do this to an extent, as long as you are careful about avoiding other people, but I don't think it should be something that you have to go out of your way to hide (and even doing your due diligence in this respect won't assure your safety if you happen to get caught).
As far as I'm concerned, being naked is the proper way to appreciate nature - that's why it's sometimes referred to as "au naturel", and why "naturism" is a synonym for nudism. It makes more sense than expecting to encounter naked people in crowded stores and buses in the midst of civilization.
5. Pools
It's a well-worn cliché among nudists that swimsuits are the most pointless garment ever invented. And it's a cliché for a reason. But while nudists tend to harbor a disdain for swimsuits - complaining not only about how useless they are, but arguing that they "sexualize" the human body - I actually appreciate them, as it's the closest I can come to being nude while in the company of textiles, without inciting an uproar.
And it seems to me that swimming pools are the closest textile culture ever comes to embodying a nudist mindset. Everyone is walking around with about 90% of their bodies exposed (well, moreso the girls than the guys), and it's not a big deal. You can walk up to the snack bar, order a taco, sit down and eat it, in clothing that would be downright scandalous anywhere else (sometimes covering even less than most people's underwear), and nobody bats an eye.
It's surreal. And I don't see why we can't just go the last ten yards and normalize swimming nude. With acceptance of nudity at home and in the car, you could have an entire day of summer fun without ever having to get dressed! And you wouldn't even have to isolate yourself from family, friends, and the community to do it. Isn't that the dream?
That said, many who oppose the decriminalization of public nudity (and even some fervent supporters of the concept) tend to fixate on extreme examples of people being bothered by encountering nudity in some fairly illogical places, like shopping malls or fine restaurants or their kid's elementary school.
Whereas I maintain that, on the issue of public nudity, I do not demand carte blanche to be naked absolutely anywhere I feel like (there's a lot of wiggle room for nudity even without abolishing the standard of "no shirt, no shoes, no service"). I would be satisfied with a compromise - the freedom to simply be nude in certain instances where the impact of that nudity on others is minimized, and where, quite frankly, it makes a lot of sense for people to have that fundamental freedom.
In other words, responsible nudity in reasonable contexts. And by "responsible" I mean that any kind of inappropriate or indecent behavior would still be forbidden (I think many people fear that bad actors will exploit an acceptance of nudity to engage in this kind of illicit behavior, and I do not wish that to be the case). The law and public sentiment would merely be blind to a person's state of dress (or undress).
Also, on that note, it wouldn't be sufficient merely to have the legal right to be nude in these places (although that would be a step in the right direction), but I would wish for society to be on board with this state of affairs to the point of acknowledging and accepting that other people have the right to choose how to dress themselves, and not get uptight anytime they encounter nudity within these pre-determined bounds. So that not only would you not have criminal liability, but that neither would you be treated like a pariah and become isolated from your friends and family for choosing to go nude.
With that settled, we come to the question of where it would make sense to normalize nudity first. Let me list my top 5 suggestions.
1. Home
This location barely qualifies as "public", which is why I'm listing it first. And it's a shame to waste a spot on such a basic item, but in spite of the temptation to say that we already have the freedom to be nude at home, this is simply not the case. I do spend quite a lot of time at home nude, but that depends on company.
It's not that I am opposed to dressing up for special occasions and planned gatherings. But it would be nice to be able to answer the door without having to scramble for clothes every time a spontaneous visitor comes knocking, and to be able to lounge around in my own home the way I'm most comfortable, regardless of who shows up, without the implicit expectation of changing the way I would prefer to be dressed. Especially with guests staying overnight, during those times - late in the evening and early in the morning - when decorum is typically at its most informal.
That's not to say that I believe I should be able to come over to your house and take off my clothes; that's up to you as the host. I believe in the "king of the castle" doctrine on this matter. And though it's true that even some non-nudists respect this doctrine, it is far from universal, particularly on the subject of nudity. People are still occasionally charged for indecent exposure within their own homes, and, even more frequently, are isolated from their family and friends if they dare to insist upon not covering up.
If, on the other hand, your belief is that you should make your guests comfortable (i.e., "the guest is king"), then how come y'all don't get undressed when I drop by your house for a visit?
2. Garden
By "garden" here I am referring to the external property in the lot where you live (whether or not you grow flowers, or own your house for that matter). This is only the tiniest step beyond the privacy of one's home (literally, starting on the doorstep), but, significantly, introduces a greater potential for public view. Not just anyone will enter your home, but you never know who could be walking (or driving) down your street.
Some people, myself included, are lucky enough to have [more-or-less] private yards where they can be nude outside the house without being seen. Not everyone is so lucky. And I still feel boxed in by the fence in my back yard, unable to tend to the front without changing the way I'm dressed.
It would be nice to be able to mow the whole lawn, step out the front door and grab my mail, roll the trash can to the curb (and back), and wash my car in the driveway, without putting on shorts specifically for the task. If an allowance for being nude within view of the public should start anywhere, it should start on the property where a person lives.
As an extension, since I'm not sure this deserves a separate spot, people living in, e.g., dormitories and apartment complexes should have the same freedom - to enjoy shared spaces around their home (such as hallways, balconies, and the laundromat) in the same level of comfort they enjoy in the privacy of their own separate rooms. Ideally, this freedom would also extend to hotels, which function as temporary domiciles. After all, don't hotels like to offer their guests all the pleasures and conveniences (and then some) of being at home?
3. Car
We're more than halfway through the list, and I feel like I'm still wasting spots on the obvious. But I guess that's kind of the point of the list, isn't it? I've driven nude many times, but only in isolated situations where I feel relatively safe doing so (and more often at night). The reality is, how often do you even notice what somebody in another car is wearing?
Now, you might argue that there's not much point in being nude in the car when you're going to have to be dressed when you get to where you're going, but you might be surprised by the opportunities available - especially once we begin picking out locations where public nudity is tolerated. That way you wouldn't have to get dressed to get there and back.
Even now, though, there are times when I've just been swimming, and I have to drive home, and my skin is still damp, so I don't want to get dressed. Or, I've got a long interstate drive ahead of me, and I figure, I might as well be comfortable!
The fact that I can already get away with this as much as I do is just testament to the fact that it's a natural choice for this list, but it would be nice to take away the fear of being stopped at a stoplight and having someone on the sidewalk peek in, or the added anxiety of wondering how I'm going to explain myself if I happen to see flashing lights in my rearview mirror.
And if we're feeling generous, we could extend that freedom to a larger portion of the driving experience. Imagine stopping off to fuel up without having to get dressed. You barely have to leave your car as it is if you're paying at the pump. And rest stops are already like islands accessible only to highway traffic. What's the harm in designating them nude-friendly zones? You could stretch your legs, relieve yourself, and pick up a snack at the vending machines; no need to cover up!
4. Parks
"Parks" is admittedly a pretty vague designation. I would put the emphasis on wilderness parks, but an argument could be made for the freedom to relax or recreate nude in, e.g., city parks and the like.
I'm tempted to single out state parks, because they seem more likely to be "outdoorsy", but that may not necessarily be the case (and besides, some of them can draw pretty big crowds of tourists).
National parks may be an even better option, and in some cases, there are allowances for a little bit more leniency in dress code (depending on who you ask), but this is not a guarantee, and they are even fewer and farther between.
Ultimately, I think there should be a tolerance for people to get out into nature to enjoy the scenic vistas and recreate (hiking, biking, swimming, camping, etc.) without any more clothes than the animals are wearing.
You can already do this to an extent, as long as you are careful about avoiding other people, but I don't think it should be something that you have to go out of your way to hide (and even doing your due diligence in this respect won't assure your safety if you happen to get caught).
As far as I'm concerned, being naked is the proper way to appreciate nature - that's why it's sometimes referred to as "au naturel", and why "naturism" is a synonym for nudism. It makes more sense than expecting to encounter naked people in crowded stores and buses in the midst of civilization.
5. Pools
It's a well-worn cliché among nudists that swimsuits are the most pointless garment ever invented. And it's a cliché for a reason. But while nudists tend to harbor a disdain for swimsuits - complaining not only about how useless they are, but arguing that they "sexualize" the human body - I actually appreciate them, as it's the closest I can come to being nude while in the company of textiles, without inciting an uproar.
And it seems to me that swimming pools are the closest textile culture ever comes to embodying a nudist mindset. Everyone is walking around with about 90% of their bodies exposed (well, moreso the girls than the guys), and it's not a big deal. You can walk up to the snack bar, order a taco, sit down and eat it, in clothing that would be downright scandalous anywhere else (sometimes covering even less than most people's underwear), and nobody bats an eye.
It's surreal. And I don't see why we can't just go the last ten yards and normalize swimming nude. With acceptance of nudity at home and in the car, you could have an entire day of summer fun without ever having to get dressed! And you wouldn't even have to isolate yourself from family, friends, and the community to do it. Isn't that the dream?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)