"Naturists are nudists with principles."
To be fair, I don't think it's pretentious to have beliefs and principles that go along with living a nude lifestyle. What I think is pretentious is suggesting that everyone who calls themself a nudist lacks principles, and that everyone who calls themself a naturist is comparatively more principled.
I've made it pretty clear that I sympathize with the notion of a principled nudism. But isn't that just nudism? Do we really need a separate term for it? And even if we did, why do we have to fall back on a synonym with regional variance, essentially condemning everyone in the wrong culture who unknowingly happened to pick the wrong term? Why not use a far less widespread yet more academic-sounding term like "gymnosophy"?
Are there even really "nudists" who simply get naked without any thought whatsoever to what it means in their lives to reject such a strongly held societal taboo? Or are those the sorts of people I hear about who don't even go so far as to adopt the label of "nudist" for themselves? Are we bending backwards in order to find someone to degrade, so we can feel superior? Isn't it enough that we can all band together and criticize textiles? Why must we also fight amongst ourselves?
Everybody's got principles. And no two sets are ever going to be exactly the same. Which principles do you have to hold to be considered holier-than-thou? Clothing optional or nudist only? Trimmed or natural? Naked at home alone or outdoors with friends? Does your family have to be in on it, too? What about drinking and smoking? Are calisthenics required? Who exactly gets to decide? The idea that there is any functional difference between nudists and naturists (any more than there is between two individuals who call themselves nudists, or two individuals who call themselves naturists) is not only bogus, it's offensive. And divisive.
Naturists are nudists with principles? So are nudists. Textiles are the ones we should be judging and shaming. Not each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment