The Thoughtful Naturist

Why wear silly hats and clothes because ancient scripture tell you to?

2012-01-28T17:11:00.001Z

How can you be in a 21st Century world and still wear silly hats and clothes because ancient scripture tell you to?

Or indeed any clothes when its warm! Evidence is a key point in arguments over atheism or other topics in the news. Show the evidence that there is a God then it would be important to take notice but as there is no such evidence we can remain confident about the lack of thunderbolts. But that reliance on evidence has some interesting consequences. For example, if a friend suggested spending the day at a nude beach, what would stop you?

What evidence would you cite regarding the risk of possible harms or are those harms simply imagined in that same way that some people rely on a gut feeling that there must be a problem? There is plenty of solid evidence that the nudist or naturist lifestyle brings significant benefits and is great fun. So if you consider yourself an evidence driven person, then click here for more...... or here.

Aliaa Mahdy, an Egyptian with astonishing courage

2011-11-26T19:30:00.001Z

Aliaa Mahdy, an Egyptian with astonishing courage, is using her blog to protest against her vicious government. To make the point as emphatic as possible, she has posted a nude photo for herself along with other nude images. In a Moslem state, this must count as very shocking indeed but it makes the point powerfully. She writes "Put on trial the artists' models who posed nude for art schools until the early 70s, hide the art books and destroy the nude statues of antiquity, then undress and stand before a mirror and burn your bodies that you despise to forever rid yourselves of your sexual hangups before you direct your humiliation and chauvinism and dare to try to deny me my freedom of expression". See her blog here.

Reaction from countries usually seen as less repressive than Egypt are interesting. Her blog is hosted by Google, a US company and they have put on content warning to click through before you may be horrified by what you see next. But there is nothing to fear, no blood and guts as freely available elsewhere, just a human. Another example is Emily Esfahani Smith who has (warning: X-rated) next to the link to Aliaa Mahdy's blog. There is nothing of course X-rated about what Mahdy says, a harmless body used to make a political point. From Smith's country we do not of course see X-ratings against images of US or UK bombing of Iraq, no, blowing the limbs off kids does not need a warning, nor do news reports of blood soaked protesters. No, the "free" countries see a simple unarmed human as a threat to be warned against. Shame isn't it?

I wish Aliaa Mahdy the very best of luck with her protest and admire her courage immensely.

Social norms

2011-09-08T12:06:00.000+01:00

According to Wikipedia, social norms are "the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. These rules may be explicit or implicit."

The key is who decides what is the social norm. From my experience in life, it seems that most people follow the lead of a few high visibility individuals, they do not sort out what is right or wrong for themselves. Having followed this lead, they become convinced their view is "right" and that it is their own opinion. The fact that they have not questioned it is of crucial importance and is something that the less scrupulous people in history have used to their great advantage.

At the extreme end of this idea, consider a tyrant, any of them will do. When they started out on their quest for power, what reaction did they get from those around them? Were they opposed by the masses? Most are opposed by a few but in so many instances, tyrants get to power because the masses do nothing. Once in power, why do the masses support them? Because they do not think for themselves, they are told what to think. Leaders of all sorts know this and take great pains in telling everyone they have The Truth and that Salvation will result should everyone follow them.

At the other end of the scale, who decided that nudity was shameful? A key figure in this idea is Augustine of Hippo. His theological ideas are still widely respected but he was a tortured person, his sense of personal guilt about his very humanity led him to some utterly daft ideas, such as when he wrote "I fail to see what use women can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children". We still see the result of this teaching centuries later, perpetuated by the few but unwittingly supported by the inactive masses. The extension of these ideas is catastrophic, women have been seen as sinful in themselves for inflaming men, they have been treated as second class and are still treated that way in the modern British society. Why? Because the masses have followed those who have taught that idea, they did not work it out for themselves. Augustine taught that the body was shameful so nudity must of itself be shameful.

So who still teaches that social nudity is shameful, that it is contrary to the social norm? Only a few take this view, surveys put it as less than 2%, most people will say something along the lines that "I don't mind but I am sure that others do mind", never questioning why they have come to that view or if other people really do think it is shameful.

Naturists of course do question it and can find no reasonable argument why social, non-sexual nudity is still a problem, indeed when they ask, find that most people are very accepting once they had thought about it. When the British Parliament is asked what the law should be, it has for a very long time decided that simple public nudity should not be illegal and that remains the case today. The problem comes when one of the 2% complain and the police fall for the mindset "I don't mind but I am sure that others do mind", i.e. they assume they hold the social norms. If they just thought for a moment and reflected on what Parliament enacted after long consideration, they would arrest the complainant for impeding the freedom of someone simply enjoying the fresh air in a manner to which they were born.

Dreams About Being Naked

2011-07-14T12:08:00.000+01:00

In a piece headed "Dreams About Being Naked: Dream Meanings Explained", Holly Quinn writes that "While dream analysis is highly subjective, this post might provide some insight into why this dream occurred or is recurring." Well it is far more likely to tell you something about her and her "expert" Richard Nicoletti, a Jungian psychotherapist.

Dream analysis stems entirely from the prejudice of the analyser and says nothing about the dreamer, how can it, they don't know the dreamer or of their circumstances. As nakedness causes fear in some people they will assume that dreaming about nakedness must come from some undesirable or frightening source. Nicoletti writes "You may need to be taken down a peg", giving an interesting view of his own self image, perhaps he fears his own self importance? Others are very insecure about their bodies so will interpret naked dreams as indicating vulnerability.

I learnt this years ago when I read an "expert analysis" of why people dream about spreading their arms and flying like a bird. The analysis centred on fear, falling, danger and vulnerability. To me, someone who flies light aircraft, flying is a pure joy and the few occasions I have been lucky enough to remember such a dream it has filled me with envy for the birds. No fear, just the purest fun.

What these so called "dream analysers" will not accept is that not everyone suffers from their hang-ups, they assume that everyone thinks like them, scared to be nude, scared to fly, scared to live. To some of us who celebrate the freedom of nakedness, naked dreams are more likely to show the desire to be free from society's restrictions.

Nude in Public, the WNBR

2011-06-12T14:16:00.003+01:00

If you listened to some people or read some media reports, especially US based ones, you might think that being nude in public would cause alarm and distress and make the children frightened. Well it does nothing of the sort, nothing even remotely like it.
In fact, judging by the huge number of people yesterday who watched the London World Naked Bike Ride, nudity in public should be actively encouraged. It generated smiles, encouragement, and wholehearted support.
As all riders on the London WNBR find, the reception by the public is wonderful, the shouts of encouragement, waves, smiles and photos etc. all show just how wrong are the tiny minority of complainers.
At the finish of the ride yesterday, I wondered off still nude to photograph the nearby Great War memorials. Passers-by including families with children took no notice, not something you would expect to find reported in the media.
Many many thanks to all the organisers, stewards and everyone else who helps to make the WNBR take place, it perhaps does more for acceptance of social nudity than anything else, long may it live.

Perverts and children

2011-06-01T09:54:00.002+01:00

The world is going mad! No it isn't, but we are in danger of spoiling it.
A recent report that schools will be banning tight shorts for boys and short skirts for girls shows just what I mean.
The move is by well meaning people seeking to protect children from perverts but they have spectacularly missed the point, their action will not protect the children at all.
Their worry is that perverts will photograph the children, but if banning normal clothes prevents some photos being taken, the perverts will still be perverts and they will still be free in society, the children will remain at full risk from them.
The key is to catch the perverts and lock them up not to spoil normal innocent people doing normal innocent things.
Bringing up children to become normal well adjusted adults will be made much harder if you tell or even imply that innocent activities are in some way harmful.

Ignorant journalism

2011-03-24T15:10:00.001Z

On this link, Derrick Knutson shows us the main problem that naturists face, ignorance.

Knutson does not take one moment to fathom why he needs to report that " One angry correspondent...". Who makes naturists angry? Well ignorant journalists do. He starts by saying "... I wrote a column about certain individuals in the locker room of the gym I frequent who take an awful lot of time to put their clothes on after working out -- as in the time it takes the rest of us to work out." then goes on about how these people are all old.

Well, so what if they are, perhaps they have the learning and wisdom that he lacks. The view of youth seems to be that image is everything, clothes, cars, houses and even partners are seen as fashion accessories, all contributing to the all essential image. Step outside of that image and the person's basic insecurity becomes apparent. Knutson's insecurity shines through his writing. Why on earth should people not be nude, we are all made in the same basic design, what is he hiding? I doubt he knows himself, he is simply following the always dressed meme and assumes that is correct without further thought. To me, that is very basis of ignorance, keeping an opinion without thinking why.

To his credit, he did write that "However, it's been an eye-opening look into another world." but then spoilt it by writing "The column's now posted on a sort of nudist underground Bulletin Board." Underground? That implies shame, being hidden. No Mr. Knutson, you have the wrong idea, it is not underground, the only reason we have to act with circumspection is because of a tiny minority of people who are willing to expose their ignorance by making fun of innocent harmless people going about their daily lives without any threat to anyone.

He wrote "Besides, thanks to the Internet, more lobbying comes in every day from what I think of as the Nude Party.". A fascinating insight from a journalist, what do they imagine a newspaper is, a vehicle for the straight unbiased reporting of the news? Of course not, as a journalist, he is a professional lobbyist, someone who touts a certain view. Just like us naturists.

It is nice that he rounds off his piece with "I think it's been good to get this all out in the open. Our readers have gotten a peek into the nudists' world, and the nudists have been exposed to my writing and opinions.". I hope it helped him to be less ashamed of his body, but I doubt it.

Enlightenment

2011-03-05T09:17:00.000Z

After years of caring for his Mum, the holiday brochures had at last come to life. The Mediterranean lapped at his rolled up trousers whilst he was surrounded by happy people, but it was hard to share their mood. Vera's death was no surprise. At 94 she had lived a long and fulfilled life and after all, hadn't the Doctor said that she died peacefully? No suffering, her body had simply given up. It was not her death that upset him so much as the number of people who came. Just a dozen in a church that size, a lifetime helping others, remembered by so few.

That was 11 months ago. Today Fred was by the sea on his first holiday for 20 years. As a child, he had paddled in the sea in Norfolk but this was different. Here everyone seemed, well, undressed. The girls in bikinis, the children in short trunks, even the parents wore very little and not a cardie in sight. He knew the world had moved on from his childhood, but being confronted by it was unsettling.

Today is the day he told himself, life must move on ; his Mum would approve. Hadn't she always told him to have a good holiday in the sun as she had done before she had married George? She had told of a life of fun and relaxation as a child and teenager in her native Germany, she had even mentioned a place, he thought it was something like Efkaystrand but his half-hearted efforts to look up such a place in the atlas had come to nothing.

Safe with his rather large towel, Fred ventured out. It would be handy to cover up a bit if he felt shy. Being cautious, he had already given himself a generous coating of factor 60 sun cream, "one can never to too careful".

When his temporary neighbours Hermann and Anneli said "Guten Morgen" to him on the third day, Fred was a little taken aback, but they spoke excellent English and were very friendly. Over the next few days he ensured they bumped into each other, he preferred some company to being alone. He was delighted when Hermann invited him to join them at the beach for the day.

The further they walked along the path by the dunes, the bigger and emptier the beach seemed. An old Nature Reserve notice caught his eye; the sun had done its work, only "Natur.. " was visible along with some meaningless letters, "FKK S….", whatever they meant. He wondered quite what he would be able to see there, rare birds? Anneli had said they loved nature, so perhaps she could show him.

Setting their towels down, Fred looked forward to a swim, he had become a little hot from the walk. Anneli and Hermann said they would join him shortly and to go ahead, they wanted time to put on their suncream. Feeling rather bare without his shirt or his towel, off he went to the sea. The water was lovely and having no-one around made it better, he could splash around and feel less inhibited, he could be a child again.

What happened next astonished him. As he turned to look back up the beach for his new friends, there they were walking towards him, just 30 metres away, both completely naked. Both were deeply bronzed and without any sign of a tan line. He did not know where to look, what to say or do. He could not run, that would be rude. It was easier when they were both up to their necks in the water, then Fred felt able to steal a glance. Yes it was Hermann and Anneli and they both had the broadest of grins. How could they? They were naked and what is more, naked in a public place. They swam, laughed, dived, splashed and they seemed to be at one with the world and with each other. Anneli could sense Fred's embarrassment and told him they always came here to swim naked. She told him that in German, "Naturist Beach" was "FKK-Strand", didn't he see the notice? Now he knew what the missing letters were on the old sign!

Memories of his Mum came rushing back with a realisation of what she had said when he was a child. The reference to Efkaystrand and a life of pleasure and relaxation as a child in her native Germany. Of course, FKK-Strand! She had been a naturist, the very thought amazed him. His Mum nude in a place like this for all the see. His MUM! HIS Mum!

During the walk back to the hotel he felt saddened he had not made more effort but amid his embarrassment and confusion, a splendid idea came to him. He resolved that to honour his mum and for the sake of a new life, he would imagine her not as old and dying but beside him as she was as a youngster. Tomorrow he would go the FKK-Strand alone and he would walk nude down the beach and into the sea. And she would be there in his heart.

The spring came back into his step, the future looked bright and the memory of his mum took on an altogether new and easier complexion.

Victorian prudery 2

2011-01-01T14:59:00.000Z

Research into attitudes in the Victorian era does not show agreement on the general state of prudery, rather it shows there was no universal set of attitudes held by "the Victorians". There are cases of extreme prudery to contrast with cases of openly lewd and lascivious behaviour, were the moral crusaders and the campaigners for a more broad-minded society. In a world without effective contraception and with a deal of ignorance about pregnancy in general, abstinence from sex makes sense, especially with the often crippling economic burden of too many children. It would be easy to slip into the "sex is sin" frame of mind, sex brings problems so sex must be bad even if this attitude is not supportable by plain common sense. It is not the case that the Victorians were universally prudish, after all, public nude bathing was common on the beaches of the UK by the 1840's, it is that some of the more forceful people promoted prudish attitudes for a variety of motives.

A more likely explanation of Victorian prudery, one that has more power if you remember that it pre-dated the Queen, is that establishment prudery came about as a side effect of running the Empire. French colonialists made a habit of taking a local bride, indeed it was encouraged, English men in the same position often took a local mistress, especially in India. These mistresses were not accepted in English society in India but they were often celebrated in art. The English establishment saw this as a threat to their power. It was feared these foreign women would weaken the influence of the ruling white men, so fraternisation became frowned upon. As it was sex that drove these men to take a foreign mistress, sex itself was seen as be bad, it had to be stamped out. This continued past the end of Victoria's rule, as an example , in December 1908 one Mr Scoresby Routledge M.A. wrote a letter to the Times newspaper reporting that a British official in Kenya, an Acting District Commissioner, had two native mistresses. As a result of this letter, the press reacted strongly, a typical reaction being an editorial in the Spectator of 12th December where the editor wrote: "The empire will be ruined if officials use their powers to gratify their animal passions. The accepted standard in East Africa is lower than in the empire as a whole and has reached a point of peril". The uproar resulted in a Circular Directive to all overseas British officials, it was written by the Colonial Secretary of the time, Lord Crewe, warning officers "that such practices were damaging and unworthy and led to scandal and grave discredit". The Spectator editorial recorded that the "mistresses" were just 13 years old, one said to be "unwilling", the other being removed to be under the protection of a "native" policeman. In modern terms, the British official was a paedophile, but at the time the uproar was about damage to the Empire, not the poor little girl. If the empire had been safe, the fate of the girls would not have been recorded. The Government in the form of Lord Crewe, Routledge and the newspapers were not primarily driven by prudery, all worried more about the empire and the maintenance of British rule than the people involved.

Victorian prudery

2010-12-11T17:43:00.002Z

The story of how the Victorians modestly covered the legs of their pianos is a myth. Thomas Pyles' book Words and Ways of American English contains what is claimed to be the most likely explanation, that an English traveller by the name of Captain Frederick Marryat invented the story as a joke. He wrote it in his book, Diary in America. It is a wonderful story if you want to exaggerate the idea of Victorian prudery, especially US prudery. The problem with reports of prudery or any other single behaviour type, is that it is unlikely to be uniformly spread across the whole country and across a whole time span, human society is more complex than that. The prudery of the Victorian age pre-dates Queen Victoria herself, she reigned 1837 until her death in 1901. A visit to her home, Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, will be a surprise to anyone sure of her prudery, the house contains a wonderful collection of nude statues and works of art. You could be excused if you thought that far from being prudish, Queen Victoria had a very accepting attitude to nudity.

Wonderful news, England lost the World Cup

2010-12-02T17:27:00.000Z

It is absolutely wonderful news that England has not got the World Cup. Marvellous marvellous news although we must feel sorry for the Russians.
Had we been lumbered with this extravagance, even the costs they would admit to would be another huge burden on the country. As it is, we have to cover the obscene costs of the 2012 Olympics. This will cost at the very least £10, 000, 000,000, all for four weeks of competition. That colossal sum would build 20 large hospitals that could stay in service for at least 50 years and the extra costs hidden in other budgets would pay for even more.
If these completions are as wonderful as we are told, then why not built permanent stadia and run them every year? Even if only the environmental costs are considered ,then for a few weeks entertainment the cost is outrageous. Annual Olympics always in one place, the same for football, would achieve even more of the sports benefits without the obscenity of the costs.

How fashion misses the point

2010-11-18T11:40:00.001Z

Passionate supporters of fashion simply cannot see the point about naturism, even if it is explained to them again and again in very simple language. On "Naked celebrities: Why we'd all rather go nude", Mimi Spencer wrote "Going naked, in all its knobbly glory, still attracts attention. It unmasks. It equalises and surprises". From this you may expect an insightful article but later she writes "And here’s where I’ll admit to the narcissism that is a prerequisite for doing it in the first place: I rather like my naked pictures. I was 39 when they were taken, and I don’t think I look too bad."
What she misses is that going naked does not have anything at all about what you look like, narcissism or image. Nothing at all. Not a jot. Nil. Need we say it more? It is irrelevant, it has no meaning. None.
Spencer is a fashion journalist so makes the unwarranted assumption that everyone thinks that their own narcissism is the be-all and end-all of existence, nothing else matters unless you are fashionable, cool on the street. Her own narcissism leads her to like her own nude photos, "I don’t think I look too bad". She does not question that assumption, that fashion, attractiveness, belonging to her set, your look is the Purpose of Life, the Meaning of Existence. It isn't, as humans we are worth a lot more than that.
The only part of the analysis that she got right is that nudity equalises. Yes it does, people of all shapes and sizes, colour, race and surgical scars can meet nude in equality. In contrast, in the fashion world, the value of people is measured only by their attractiveness. If you are young, born thin and with features that fit the current fickle fashion, bully for you, you will be "in". But if you do not fit these measures of the Aryan race, hard luck, you will never be accepted as a valued person in the hallowed halls of Mimi Spencer's world.
When you get old, more hard luck, you will not feature any more, your value will have faded however you started out.
So I say to all fashion obsessed people and to Mimi Spencer, get a life, see people as people not as fashion statements. Narcissism not a prerequisite for a nude photo shoot. The only prerequisite for a nude photo shoot is a camera.

Chaucer and I wrote stories,

2010-10-27T16:57:00.002+01:00

Chaucer and I wrote stories,
Bawdy and lewd from the start,
Mine they said were pornographic,
But Chaucer's were classical art.

If a canonised saint of the art world shows a piece of work, we are supposed to say how wonderful it is, how original, how full of meaning. Had an unknown hung the same item on the railings of Hyde Park with a £30 price tag, it could well be ignored.
The point is, many people follow what they are told to believe. If they are told that mere nudity is bad, shameful, sinful or simply unacceptable, (and what about the children?), then that is what they will believe. Sad isn't it?

Nude calendar for Multiple Sclerosis

2010-10-21T16:43:00.001+01:00

In a world where nude calendars seem to be everywhere, it is very heartening to see a really good one. Many show photographs that are coy about being nude, some even stretch the meaning of the word, but the women supporting the Multiple Sclerosis Society and their photographer have done an excellent job with this one.
One of the women has approached British Naturism with a view to promoting the calendar and may even attend a BN event at Alton Towers in November. I hope she does and finds that in addition to the fun of making the calendar, naturism is a life affirming way of being. I know little about Multiple Sclerosis, but I do know that naturism is wonderful, maybe MS sufferers and their families will benefit from the feeling of freedom it brings. I hope so.
Good luck to them. Please buy one.

Nullius in verba

2010-10-18T14:24:00.001+01:00

Today a good friend asked me how this blog was going. She is not a naturist but is someone who should have the same motto as the Royal Society, 'Nullius in verba'. This roughly translates as 'take nobody's word for it'.
We live in a society where it is easier than ever simply to follow the herd, do what the others do, to keep your head down and hope for the best. The trouble is, that will not work, such a society is easy to manipulate and is one that allows bad decisions as we have seen in the recent wars.
What we need are more people like Patricia, people who think for themselves instead of being led by the nose by press barons or politicians.
By their very lifestyle, naturists do not follow the herd, it takes a certain amount of courage to speak out and Nullius in verba. So what of this blog? Its very existence is not that of the usual blog, posting this that or the other. It is simply to allow an email signature that links to it and to allow a quiet, a very British, understated means of saying, I am a naturist.
If Nullius in verba is for you, try it. It may surprise you.
Thank you Patricia.

Feminism and naturism

2010-10-14T15:02:00.001+01:00

On Gym changing rooms: the last bastion of body realism? Joanna Whitehead says "... I was surprised to hear giggling over how one colleague had caught a glimpse of another senior colleague `in the buff` whilst changing at our company gym. ....When I heard this, I was shocked - and then I was sad. Shocked; because I couldn’t quite believe that seeing someone naked in a traditionally naked place (i.e. a changing room) was even worthy of comment, never mind revulsion; and, sad because I wondered how and why the sight of a naked body was enough to provoke such disgust and discontent."
It is indeed sad that the sight of mere nudity causes any problem at all, we are all made the same. People who giggle about nudity are those who have a significant problem with their own body image, i.e. not the kind of people who are well balanced enough to be any kind of role model.
Feminists have much in common with the naturist view of life, i.e. they work to end prejudice, prejudice that has resulted from a non thinking upbringing. It is beyond belief that any argument can be strongly held that women should be shown to be less than men, equally, it is beyond belief that anyone should snigger at simple nudity. Yet they do. If feminists and naturists do eventually win their cause, the words feminist and naturist will become of interest only to historians, they will have argued themselves out of existence, but the world will be all the better for it.
In "Mark Twain in Eruption", its famous and much quoted author wrote "We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. We have two opinions: one private, which we are afraid to express; and another one - the one we use - which we force ourselves to wear to please Mrs. Grundy, until habit makes us comfortable in it, and the custom of defending it presently makes us love it, adore it, and forget how pitifully we came by it. Look at it in politics.". This is the essence of prejudice, acting without thought simply because others do. It is the behaviour of sheep.

No harm will result from exposure to nudity

2010-10-01T11:27:00.001+01:00

On this website, it is reported that no harm will result from exposure to nudity. Well, what a surprise! It beggars belief that intelligent people can even consider the necessity of having an expert witness in court to declare what is blatantly obvious. If an incident involved someone claiming that the world was flat or that disease was caused by night airs, would an expert witness be called to show the truth of the matter? Of course not, it would be laughed out of court, yet these same people are prepared to claim that seeing a nude person may or even will, cause someone permanent damage.
I suggest that if any damage has been caused, it is to the brains of those ridiculously stupid people who think that mere nudity can be harmful to anyone.

Seeing and being seen

2010-09-12T13:55:00.000+01:00

In a comment on a previous post, Rick wrote "Nearly every piece about nudism in the mainstream media contains some reference or snide remark about people they'd rather not 'see' naked. It's not about 'seeing' people naked. It's about accepting people for who they are, without all the added crap that often comes with the clothing. It's about comfort, acceptance, and going beyond the superficial."

Rick has it right on the button. In the modern world, it seems we have gone mad over appearance. This was driven home to me when my mother suffered two major operations for oral cancer. It left her with large parts of her jaw and tongue missing, it is a hideous disease, but was she still my beautiful Mum? Of course she was.

Social naturism is indeed about accepting people for what they are not what they look like. We should all learn to ignore the superficial, the glossy magazines that proclaim the "importance" of this or that style, and to see the value of the inner person. The trouble is, that takes some effort, it requires the confidence to make a judgement not guided by some fashion but on how people behave. Fashion is for the sheepish who give away their independence of mind to shallow people obsessed with appearance and who are largely ignorant of the wider issues of humanity.

If you dare, look at this link.

Human experience

2010-08-27T17:59:00.002+01:00

Regarding human experience, without contrast effective communication is much harder. It is simple to explain this rather bold statement. Imagine telling someone the difference between red and green, knowing they were born completely blind. You will have no basis to start your description, you will not be able to say it is like anything that person has ever experienced, no comparison. Without the experience of seeing colours, you could not describe that red car or that green bus. In contrast, you would be able to explain the idea of the pain felt if pricked by a needle, all one has to do is relate that experience with other painful episodes. Those who have not experienced a socially nude environment have no basis for comparison, no experience with which to contrast their always dressed life.
If they do try it then find it is not to their liking, that is fine, but at least they then know and do not assume. Claiming you know something without evidence to support it results in some daft beliefs. "The earth must be flat or we would fall off". Experience and evidence are what is needed to arrive at a sensible world.

In Letters from the Earth, Mark Twain wrote "Adam and Eve entered the world naked and unashamed - naked and pure-minded. And no descendant of theirs has ever entered it otherwise. All have entered it naked, unashamed, and clean in mind. They entered it modest. They had to acquire immodesty in the soiled mind, there was no other way to get it. ... The convention mis-called "modesty" has no standard, and cannot have one, because it is opposed to nature and reason and is therefore an artificiality and subject to anyone's whim - anyone's diseased caprice."

Some fundamental questions

2010-07-23T12:06:00.000+01:00

1. If you believe in a God, can you in all humility say that His creation is so seriously flawed that it must be kept hidden? Did He get it so wrong that each and every one of us must hide at every point in case someone else, equally flawed, might just see us? Of course one cannot look to organised religion to answer this question as you will get widely differing answers, you must decide for yourself.

2. Have you knowingly or otherwise taught your children they should be ashamed of their bodies. If so, did you question these teachings or have you simply accepted them? If so, why?

3. If you do not believe in a God, does the power of religious belief in maintaining the always dressed meme have any relevance to your life? Are you happy to accept the result of other people's religion without question?

4. If you believe that always being dressed is "the norm", would you consider the norm to change over time? Most realise the "norm" does change but few think about the means by which it changes. If you are convinced by the intellectual case for nudity, what would your reaction be to seeing a nude person at your local swimming bath or working in their garden? These are the people who are the engine of change, are they wrong?

Naturism, the quest for tolerance

2010-06-29T09:51:00.002+01:00

Many people wish for something better than their daily experience. Feelings of uncertainty, fear and loneliness fuel the search for something better. Some find solace in religion, often in the form of belief in a superior being who can lend a guiding hand through the perils of life. Religions have teachers, priests, imams, rabbis etc., people whose learning and example offer further support and lend even more meaning to life itself.

But there are other ways to find inner peace. The path to a spiritual life does not necessarily lead to religion, one can be awed by nature, beauty, love or peace without the need to seek an external reason for their existence. As a naturist, I find that just being naked in nature is sufficiently uplifting to provide a rich spiritual life. Once having shed clothes, especially in a social setting, many of the learnt preconceptions about nakedness disappear, it is not embarrassing, sexually provocative nor is it threatening. On the contrary, it leads to peace, acceptance of one's own body and distance from the relentless appearance led battle for the perfect body. Gone are worries about fashion, the gap between one's self and the media led frenzy for size zero creations. In their place is a sense of calm and a realisation of the more important things in life.

Whatever its benefits, being a member of a minority it is not an easy path to follow. There is no voice loud enough to create a bulwark against the voice of unreason. This is odd, as part of the teaching of all religions concerns their persecution when the religion was in its infancy. This should lead to tolerance of other minorities but often it does not. The dominant religion in a country will seek and often achieve legislative power in the country, the resulting legislation will often be to the detriment of minorities, the voices of the minorities ignored.

It is clearly the case that no belief system has the answer to "Life, the Universe, and Everything", not that followed by Moslems, Christians, Jews nor any minority like the naturists. As a result, it is cleary a universal truth, that tolerance of other people's beliefs must be A Good Thing. I feel no compulsion to stop others in following their beliefs, provided they cause no harm. I am happy to have a land with churches, mosques, synagogues and temples etc. All I ask is tolerance of my way of life, my beliefs. It does not seem much to ask.

I also take it as a universal truth that my body cannot be in itself, bad. It cannot be sinful in any religious sense. Religious people believe that bodies are the result of creation by a God or Gods, so implying or stating that a body is sinful is saying that the God has made a mistake. A divine creator surely cannot make a body where one part is good and another sinful. Sin is in the intent of the sinner, someone going peacefully about their daily lives in a peaceful manner and harming no-one cannot be sinful.

So if you see me naked tending the garden, sweeping the path, walking or just reading a book, please think of this, I am seeking peace with the world, with myself and with you. I am not a threat to you, your children nor anyone else, I am not using precious resources, causing pollution or global warming. I am a human being like you, I share your frailties, hopes and fears, but have learnt that social nakedness is A Good Thing. Please be tolerant and I will be to you.

What are you willing to do?

2010-06-14T18:58:00.003+01:00

In a piece entitled Nervous Naturist" on her blog, Ladygod1va writes:- "What are you willing to do to follow your belief that; whilst respecting the rights of others you have the right to be nude." The piece is really about the use of the internet to help the cause of naturism, but this can also be a tricky question in every area of life, a real test of one's beliefs.

Well, here is what I did:- Several years ago I decided to end the secrecy surrounding my nude lifestyle, no more hiding BN magazines etc.. I went on country walks with the Single's Outdoor Club for the sheer fun but also to increase my self confidence, doing what for some naturists, is cutting edge stuff, nudity outside of the clubs. This is a key element in the "What are you willing to do" question, building the self confidence, it is easy to hide behind the thickets.

I built a naturist website but then decided a blog would be better, partly to help me organise my thoughts and partly to provide a web address so that people can read fresh items at their own convenience. It also allows me to add an automatic email signature to every email I send, so anyone who does not know I live nude will find out. The world has not ended as a result of them finding out, further boosting my self confidence.

Having discussed things at length, I remain nude when some friends visit. One of these friends would clearly like to join in, but there is "that something" that stops her. It may be the much discussed body image problem or the fact that she works in education, but if we have a warm summer, you never know! I would be delighted if she joined me, she would be my first "convert".

On Saturday, I rode in the London World Naked Bike Ride for the first time and have been busy telling anyone who will listen. It was such a buzz riding nude down Whitehall, past Downing Street and the Police with their machine guns all smiling at us! No arrests, no harassment. The large crowds cheered, waved and shouted encouragement, further building confidence.

The very best bit happened just today. My next door neighbours know I live nude, ever since my "no more secrecy" decision and me telling them of the nude walks. I have always tried to avoid offending them by staying partly screened in the garden. Although they know I am nude, by staying in one small area they can see nothing to offend should they spot me outside. Well today S called over the fence with an offer of a cup of tea. He did not have to and knew that were I to accept, he would see me "full frontal". I did accept so there I was talking face to face. That is a huge step for both of us, it is one thing to be nude with strangers at a resort or even in Whitehall, quite another to be nude for the first time with someone who I count on as a very good but non-naturist friend. Things have moved a long way towards a totally nude lifestyle. I cannot wait.

Now, what to do next.............

Telling the Rellies

2010-06-11T18:15:00.002+01:00

For years I kept my naturist lifestyle secret from all but the immediate family. This was a mistake. Fear of ridicule, misunderstanding and plain puzzlement stopped me just as surely as did the possibility of upsetting those close to me. They may have feared that I had some ulterior motive, a secret agenda based on who knows what. Well I have not, I am simply saying that honest non-sexual nudity is A Good Thing.

I have now embarked on a campaign of openness, but this in itself is fraught with trouble. Does one suddenly announce, "Oh by the way, I live much of my life nude"? No, that may cause consternation or misunderstanding. I have to wait until the subject can be brought naturally into the conversation or email. My experience is that I have yet to receive an adverse reaction. Far from it, recently a rellie in Australia said "What a fascinating blog". Had I known that years ago when visiting them, I would not have needed to invent all sorts of stories about why we could not also take their children to the beach along with ours. What a missed opportunity, one that I deeply regret.

Having this blog helps, people can read at their own pace what it is about, follow the links and see that a whole community of likeminded people inhabit the world who prefer to live or at least holiday, free of clothing. Their lives are all the better for it as is mine, so if you think this way and are considering "coming out", just do it.

Why go naked-2

2010-06-10T14:17:00.002+01:00

Why go naked? That is the wrong question. To answer the wrong question may still be important as those yet to be convinced need to know. If you asked naturists why they do it, answers will include the words freedom, comfort, feeling good, feeling better about yourself, better health, better body acceptance, relaxation and a general sense of well-being. Many, including me, lead a nude life simply because it feels good, the resulting ideas of naturist philosophy come later.

A very common experience, especially for those new to naturism, is "what was all the fuss about?". What they feared did not come to pass. No ridicule, no looks "in the wrong places", just people going about their lives, nude. As Caroline Walker1 said in a report on her first experience of a nude beach, "As I was starting to feel more and more out of place with my clothes on than without, I just striped off and threw my clothes down. To be honest it was all a bit of an anti-climax at this point, and you start to wonder why you were making such a big fuss of it: it felt so natural and normal I just resumed the usual business of applying plenty of sun cream." Non naturists seem to focus on what they would call "private parts", questions such as "where do I look" seem to crop up. In fact, in a naturist environment, one behaves as one would anywhere else, nowhere do people like being stared at, especially in countries like Britain or the USA, so people don't do it in naturist places. Being nude, genitals are visible, but so what? There is nothing special about genitals, they are no better nor worse than any other part of the body. If you look for "a naughty part", you will find it inside the head.

Being naked, especially in the open air or in the water provides a wonderful feeling. It is certainly hard to understand the fear of nudity that is clearly felt by some of those who have not tried it. Simply being nude is harmless, what delineates good from bad is the intention in the mind of the doer. Apart from some of the silly attitudes sometimes perpetuated in the press, it seems the majority of people do not feel too bothered about naturism, even if they don't take part. This view is well supported by a series of surveys such as those carried out in Britain, Canada and in the USA . Surveys should always be treated with some circumspection as the questions asked and how they are asked are not always well controlled, but those carried out as professionally as possible always seem to show the same result. Most people when asked specifically what they thought of naturism give a positive or neutral answer. This does not mean they would join in, but they would be happy for others to follow the lifestyle without interference. The problem for naturists is that a few vociferous objectors react in ways that are out of all proportion to simple non sexual public nudity.

1. Caroline Walker, British Naturism BN161, Autumn 2004
2. 1999 National Survey on Canadian Attitudes Towards Nudity, http://www.fcn.ca/survey.html
3. Survey of opinion towards nudity in the USA, www.nef.oshkosh.net

Skin and Nudity at The Wellcome Trust

2010-06-04T10:02:00.000+01:00

In a manner fairly new in the world of naturism, British Naturism was approached by The Wellcome Trust to help with putting together a show about skin and nudity. The Wellcome Trust is a large charity dedicated to achieving improvements in human and animal health.
On the 14th July, British Naturism will be the tour guides for the exhibition. At the suggestion of The Trust not naturists, the tour will be clothes-optional for guests. This is an excellent turn of events, even though The Trust will no doubt be using nudity to increase their publicity, it is a step way beyond what is seen elsewhere.
On Friday 16 July, they are holding Exposed, a two day event described as "A rare chance to indulge our intrigue - or embarrassment - about nudity."
The list of events is here.

Women seem more reluctant to go nude.

2010-05-23T11:15:00.001+01:00

When I first started researching the subject I had the idea that the reason was because women would feel threatened or become the focus of unwanted attention, but direct experience shows that naturist venues feel safe and welcoming to women. It seems the real reason that women may not join is that many fear they are not "up to standard". This is an enormous shame, a symptom of the damage done by the relentless selling of the elusive image of the perfect body. The experience of millions of naturists has shown that it helps to free people from a poor body image. If nothing else, experiencing social nudity shows that most people have a body far from perfect and that it does not matter a jot. A great deal of advertising in the Western world is concerned with the quest for beauty and this is mostly aimed at women. The implication is that if you do not spend on beauty products, you will be a lesser person. This leads many women to undervalue themselves as people. Looks have nothing to do with naturism, people do not do it to be seen nor indeed to see others, they do it because it feels good. Fashion and the hunt for the perfect body only leads to dissatisfaction, this perfection is not achievable. Sadly, many women seem to feel that if they went nude, their long sought "look" will vanish.
Fear of sex related crime has been cited by a few as a reason they would not go naked in a social setting, but it comes as a surprise to them that there are much lower rates of sex related crime in naturist communities. Their prejudice tells them nudity "must" cause sexual stimulation and will therefore lead to all sorts of lewd behaviour. The experience of millions shows it doesn't. When the naturist centre at le Cap d'Agde first opened, the local police took a close interest but experience over the years has shown this to be unnecessary. They are better employed elsewhere.

Why always stay dressed-2

2010-05-16T09:56:00.000+01:00

There is no fundamental human reason to stay dressed at all times, there is nothing "in your biology" that makes people desire to be covered at all times. There is the clear need to be warm, to be protected from the environment and to decorate the body for various reasons but none of these provide a compelling reason to hide specific body parts in public. Societies both ancient and modern have treated nudity as normal without any detrimental effect. In the West, seeing a live nude body in public would at the very least cause comment and at the worst, cause legal action to be taken, but this attitude is learned, not innate.

There are several reasons cited for always staying dressed in a social setting, perhaps the most compelling is because everyone else does. When confronted with the possibility of going nude, perhaps on a holiday beach far from home, many people will find reasons to stay dressed even if they are attracted to the idea.

The most common would be embarrassment. This can be powerful reason to stay dressed, but embarrassment is learnt, it is not innate. Most people are not embarrassed about body parts such as hands, feet, arms etc., so this begs the question, why are people embarrassed about their penis or their breasts? What particular aspect of these parts should lead to this feeling? Study of human behaviour shows there is no fundamental, biological reason for this, many go naked in a social setting without detriment. Embarrassment is learned and can be unlearned. Having once encountered a social nude environment, most people are amazed to find that embarrassment disappears.

Western religions do not generally have direct prohibition of social nudity as a core belief. Protestations against nudity have been made by a few of the religious hierarchy and sadly followed by the many. There is often a huge difference in the core beliefs of a religion and what is taught by those who feel they should teach it. It is quite easy to find a given religious text and then to find a range of mutually opposing interpretations of that same text. A good example is the use of the word “shame” in the Christian story of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Some Christian teachers will take it to mean that nakedness is shameful, others will take it to mean that nakedness is good, at least that is the position taken by the Christian naturist movement. In their view, how could their God have made something shameful? Would you dare suggest that the handiwork of their God is so flawed it must be covered all the time? Did He make very a serious mistake? As I do not believe in a God, things are much easier, to me, the good or bad about nudity is what is in your heart, your intentions, the reasons you go naked, not the nudity itself.

The simple joy, of being nude

2010-05-05T17:19:00.000+01:00

Not for me the tight embrace,
unyielding suits, false marks of grace,
nor yet the stifling, grasping hold
of fashions when in one's youth were old.

Not for me the tailor's chalk,
The cloth, the weave, the mindless talk
of benefits the work may bring
or other worthless, weary thing.

No, for me the gentle caress of air,
the tender, tousled, tussled hair
of one who feels the Joys of Spring,
the sheer delight that bluebells bring.

The bliss, the thrill of air on skin,
the happiness and peace within,
and in this list, I must include
the simple joy, of being nude.

Copyright Howard Anderson, May 2010

Why always stay dressed-1

2010-05-04T15:17:00.000+01:00

Some may not go naked as a result of the opinions or reactions of others, they may be attracted to the idea but be persuaded against it. Those intent on preventing a nude lifestyle still insist that naturism is about sex although they will not have any evidence to support their view. No doubt a few people, intent on sexual gratification, will go to a naturist environment, but the sight of many less than perfect bodies does not provide their hoped for excitement. Some naturist beaches open to the public have occasional trouble from a voyeur lurking in the dunes behind the beach, but the great majority enjoy the beach in peace and for non-sexual reasons. There is plenty of evidence to support this view, the best way to collect it is to visit a large naturist resort and see for yourself. You will see people sunbathing, doing sport, walking, shopping, sailing etc, all the normal activities of holiday makers. You will not see a "sex romp" or any other imagined activity as would be reported in the gutter press or by religious extremists. Naturists have sex, they are no different in that respect from anyone else, but like at any holiday resort, sex is something done in private. Sadly companies in the porn industry have used the words nudist and naturist to sell their products. Those who feel the need for porn are nothing to do with naturism.

Another reason some may not consider a naturist lifestyle is worry over children. Observation shows that children are not concerned about nudity, adults are troubled in their name. Anyone who has brought up a child will know their complete freedom of "nudity awareness" when they are little. Teaching a child to be obsessive about covering will not help them to have a healthy attitude to their body and to become a sensible well balanced adult. Perhaps this is a good place to reiterate one aim of work such as this, it is not to promote universal nudity, it is simply to promote the idea that nudity is as acceptable is being dressed. Bringing up children is hard enough but teaching them an unnecessary layer of guilt will not be beneficial.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russell wrote this in his Marriage and Morals. He makes the point very well, just because always being dressed is widespread does not mean it is a Good Thing.

The most prosaic reason to stay dressed is because others do. But as Bertrand Russell wrote in his work The Conquest of Happiness, "Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves."

Albert Einstein followed the same idea, he wrote, "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfils the duty to express the results of his thoughts in clear form."

Beauty Contests

2010-04-26T15:29:00.000+01:00

When I was young, my mother would describe the Miss World contest as the "Fat Stock Show". Being young I did not understand, but I now realise she was teaching me about valuing people for what they are. To her, coming second in such a contest meant much more than if someone came second in a different form of contest, for example a race. Losing a running race could be due to lack of effort, but not winning a Fat Stock prize meant one was a substandard human being. What did this mean for the rest of us? Were we all so ugly that we must be worthless? If only the beautiful people were allowed to be seen naked in photographs or in life, it de-values the rest of us who are not so fortunate. It is also too close to the Nazi ideal. The Nazis believed in mythical, beautiful master race, the Aryans. These were the people to rule the world, others to be subjugated to their will.

Naturism improves your self confidence because it really really does not matter what shape, size, colour or race you are. It does not matter if you have scars or bits missing. What does matter is that you feel free and are accepted for what you are. To non-naturists this may seem a large claim, that removing clothes does have this benefit, but removing clothes also removes most of the social clues, some would say social props, that mark out people's position in life. Try it!

Confirmation bias

2010-04-23T14:27:00.000+01:00

When presenting a blog such as this, it is easy for detractors to make the allegation of confirmation bias, the willingness on the part of a proponent to accept supporting evidence as true or useful and counter evidence as unreliable. I am aware I may be accused of taking sides, that I have written it from a naturist’s point of view which cannot therefore be impartial. It is true I have written it from the naturist viewpoint but in mitigation, my researches have made me keenly aware of attitudes and feelings concerning nudity. I have taken the time and trouble to discuss them with family, friends and acquaintances and to research the attitudes to nudity found in many different spheres. I have also recognised the drawbacks of social nudity, those times and places where it is not appropriate and have reported some disturbing aspects in the history of naturism and will do so again. I have tried to present the subject of social nudity using evidence not simply belief. This is no project that once finished will be filed and forgotten only to move onto the next one. It is my life.

The power of ideas to do great good and great evil

2010-04-10T17:05:00.000+01:00

On badscience.net Ben Goldacre says "there is something awe-inspiring about the power of ideas alone to do great good, and great evil". Very true.
A good example is the ancient linking of sex with shame and guilt which goes back to at least to the 4th century. Augustine of Hippo, a famous philosopher and theologian, wrote some of the most influential material on the subject. Reading his work, one is struck at how mentally tortured he was. He wrestled with his emotions, sexual feelings, hunger etc. and arrived at conclusions that by modern standards would give the impression of severe mental illness. The sad part though, is that his ideas have formed part of the social norms we still see across the western world and further. As a result of the acceptance of his ideas, women were seen as temptresses, sex as the source of shame and even that enjoyment of life for itself as being wrong. This has translated to the current position whereby legislation is required to force people not to treat woman as second class, legislation yet to be effective. Sex is seen as shameful by many and has linked simple nudity with temptation and sin. Even non-religious people follow these ideas, ignorant they are following the teachings of a tortured man from the 4th century
Eating was a "dangerous pleasure", sex only for reproduction, enjoyment for itself equalled sin. In chapter 31 of his Confessions, Augustine wrote "This hast Thou taught me, that I should set myself to take food as physic. But while I am passing from the discomfort of emptiness to the content of replenishing, in the very passage the snare of concupiscence* besets me. For that passing, is pleasure, nor is there any other way to pass thither, whither we needs must pass. And health being the cause of eating and drinking, there joineth itself as an attendant a dangerous pleasure, which mostly endeavours to go before it, so that I may for her sake do what I say I do, or wish to do, for health's sake. Nor have each the same measure; for what is enough for health, is too little for pleasure. And oft it is uncertain, whether it be the necessary care of the body which is yet asking for sustenance, or whether a voluptuous deceivableness of greediness is proffering its services. In this uncertainty the unhappy soul rejoiceth, and therein prepares an excuse to shield itself, glad that it appeareth not what sufficeth for the moderation of health, that under the cloak of health, it may disguise the matter of gratification. These temptations I daily endeavour to resist, and I call on Thy right hand, and to Thee do I refer my perplexities; because I have as yet no settled counsel herein."
*Catholics use the term concupiscence to mean "a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason", whereas Protestants take it to mean "the innate tendency of human beings to do evil." So in using the word, Augustine takes hunger and sexual desire as conforming to either or both of these meanings.
The most chilling aspect of the sex ashamed legacy of Augustine is well described in Ben Goldacre's piece. Millions die as a result of the Augustinian beliefs.
Naturism reduces shame, it can only be a force for good.

When nudity is simply ignored

2010-04-02T12:04:00.000+01:00

We all like to socialise, to share life, but do we need to be and act all the same?

The aim of this blog is not to attract all and sundry into naturism, to convince one and all of its benefits and pleasures, however self evident they seem to me. That would be a foolish aspiration, doomed to failure and disappointment. If I were to start collecting stamps, I may enthuse about my new joy to my friends but would I need to get them to join in? Should I feel that I had failed in some respect if they did not join in? Is it even desirable to have a lifestyle adopted by a large majority? Very clearly, no.

Clubbing together makes sense in a number of areas, allowing shared facilities for sports, pooling of expertise and simple camaraderie, but that does not mean we have to "go" to a place or club to live as desired. Naturism is a way of life, a recognition that clothing is not always required. Ignoring the obvious need for warmth and protection, it is the appreciation that the joyous feeling of freedom that nudity often provides is sufficient in itself. It is not necessary to be in a club or association to feel this, simply living life without clothes where possible is a delight.

Socialising nude offers the same advantages as an other social groups, the affirmation of rightness when surrounded by like-minded people. That is good but it leaves the impression that when away from the group, life cannot be quite the same, that the rightness is in someway diminished. Being in the company of those who are not like-minded is more difficult, especially for a member of a minority such as a naturist.

The best situation would be when nudity is simply ignored, when it causes no more attention than the colour of a tee-shirt. That way I could lead my life causing no harm or inconvenience and others can lead theirs without judgement, harassment or opprobrium.

What naturism means to different people

2010-03-24T10:32:00.001Z

The words naturist or nudist conjure up different notions in different people. This private meaning of the word is part of what has become part of each person’s idiolect. An idiolect is similar in some respects to a dialect, it is the set of more personal meanings, images or ideas associated with words. To some, a naturist is someone who lives a normal life but goes away at weekends to a "nudist colony" and "prances around naked". The activity is secretive so breeds rumours of odd practices; the more secretive, the wilder the rumours. The mass media often fuel this nonsense, with ludicrous double-entendres. They will print things like "You can't hang out there" or "We'd love to see more of you" or even "Bottoms up". They do not really know what happens, and use school boy humour to describe pubescent ideas. The Carry-On films made this worse. One in particular, Carry On Camping, depicted two men who decide to spend a camping holiday at a nudist camping site with their less than enthusiastic girlfriends. The venture is a failure but not until all the old prejudices have been wheeled out. No doubt it was thought to be funny at the time but now it is simply tiresome. Newspapers in the UK have recently printed items more sympathetic to naturism, they have even sent reporters to take part, some of whom have been converted to the way of life, others have seen the sense even if they choose not to join in. The television companies have also improved, driven no doubt by the increasing size of the naturist movement and their realisation that there is good business to be had.
But there is a long way to go.

No need for secret lifestyle

2010-03-21T19:52:00.000Z

Naturists often feel they need to keep their lifestyle secret for fear of ridicule or censure. I have found this fear to be quite unfounded. Since "coming out" I have had reactions ranging between encouragement and simple acceptance, but nothing adverse, nothing to be afraid of.
Today we went to the celebration of the 50th wedding anniversary of an ex-colleague and her husband. They knew of my lifestyle and although not wishing to participate, are very accepting in their attitude. It was therefore with great pleasure when we saw some albums of their life together. There for all to see were some photographs of them at a naturist beach, early in their marriage. The husband was open in his explanations to anyone who was listening of what naturists know already, the one who is most likely to feel uncomfortable on a naturist beach is the one still dressed. That was his experience, and once having discarded his swimming costume, saw the same effect when others arrived at the beach on the South of France.
I imagine there are many such stories to be told, if only the opportunity arises.
So to anyone still wondering about "coming out", do it.

John Lennon

2010-03-20T23:22:00.000Z

John Lennon wrote:- "The main hangup in the world today is hypocrisy and insecurity. If people can't face up to the fact of other people being naked or smoking pot, or whatever they want to do, then we're never going to get anywhere. People have got to become aware that it's none of their business and that being nude is not obscene. Being ourselves is what's important. If everyone practised being themselves instead of pretending to be what they aren't, there would be peace."

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake

2010-03-09T16:41:00.000Z

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection:
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is lead forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action--
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake

Rabindranath Tagore, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1913, wrote these words about the freedom of India from British rule but the ideas are universal and apply to naturism and to any other rational area where people are, or feel they are, prevented from living their harmless lives as they choose.

Queen Victoria's passion for nudity.

2010-03-06T23:42:00.000Z

It is odd that ideas persist for a long time without any evidence to support them.

A visit to Queen Victoria's home on the Isle of Wight some time ago was a real eye-opener. I had fallen for the common idea that "Victorian" was synonymous with prudish but nothing could be further from the truth with respect to Victoria. Room after room showed the most beautiful, sensuous nudes, especially the sculptures. It seems she was not of the prudish type at all.
An exhibition to be shown in London from 19th March to 31st October 2010 shows the same thing. Entitled Victoria & Albert: Art & Love, "...reveals her as a passionate and open-minded young woman."

The Daily Telegraph website has a page headed "Queen Victoria's passion for nudity goes on display in new art exhibition"

Osborne House on the Isle of Wight is open to visitors. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1082

Unfortunate legislation

2010-03-06T18:10:00.000Z

The Judeo-Christian belief system moved to a position of body shame and took an leading role in making the whole idea of nudity shameful. This led to unfortunate legislation which in turn reinforced regrettable attitudes and beliefs on the part of many, including the police.

Not everything is bad however, following on from new and more enlightened legislation in England and Wales, non sexual public nudity is not illegal, but the actions of the police and a few do-gooders would lead you to think otherwise. They cling to the idea of "indecent exposure" with as much tenacity as the daft belief that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from space. (What, you mean you cannot see roads that are bigger the wall? Or airports?).

There is nothing indecent about simple nudity, either in law or in fact. Indecency comes from how you act, not how you are dressed.

Climate change

2010-02-19T12:34:00.001Z

As a technologist, I do not "do" science, but I do use scientific results. This means adopting a high regard for the peer reviewed, tested, logical conclusions based on sound evidence that forms the basis of science. The world has improved immeasurably as a result of such an approach, we have been taken out of the rule of ignorance and superstition and into one of reason and progress.

Then along comes the IPCC.. I am not a climate scientist, the world may be heading for a terrible catastrophe much worse even than they predict, I do not know, but I do know they have insulted the ideals of science by their behaviour. In particular, by the personal attacks on any scientist who dares to question "the consensus" on global warming, the deliberate use of scare stories to gain attention and the blatantly political means they use to put over what looks like science.

It leaves people like me in a quandary, who to believe? I hear intelligent people claim the "science is settled", and that "1,500 top scientists agree". The trouble is, both of those statements can be shown to be lies. Firstly, science is rarely "settled", predictions of climate change are predicated on probabilities, the results are therefore probabilities in themselves, hardly "settled". Many, especially non-scientists, simply miss out the probabilities, which is nonsense. The claim that 1,500 scientists agree is also nonsense, some of these 1,500 people have tried hard but failed to remove their name from the list, many of the others are chosen from a list of people thought to be friendly to the IPCC line, those who do not agree with that line are not invited to take part. That is not science, it is politics and we all know what happens if we trust politicians. It is not widely realised, but the IPCC is a political not scientific organisation, it does not "do" science, it trawls the world for work that aligns with its political agenda.

The trouble with this rape of science is that people may start to think that the scientific method itself is flawed, hence plunging us back into the arms of ignorance and superstition. We have seen it before with the report The Limits to Growth. Published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, the IPCC of the 1970s, this report predicted all sorts of catastrophes. They were wrong, partly because they did not listen to counter arguments.

If we silence those who question the main line, we will head back into the dark ages. We need an open, responsive and questioning society, not one dominated by beliefs, however firmly held, but one predicated on reason, evidence and sound scepticism.

Robert Graves - The Naked And The Nude

2010-02-13T17:02:00.000Z

For me, the naked and the nude
(By lexicographers construed
As synonyms that should express
The same deficiency of dress
Or shelter) stand as wide apart
As love from lies, or truth from art.

Lovers without reproach will gaze
On bodies naked and ablaze;
The Hippocratic eye will see
In nakedness, anatomy;
And naked shines the Goddess when
She mounts her lion among men.

The nude are bold, the nude are sly
To hold each treasonable eye.
While draping by a showman's trick
Their dishabille in rhetoric,
They grin a mock-religious grin
Of scorn at those of naked skin.

The naked, therefore, who compete
Against the nude may know defeat;
Yet when they both together tread
The briary pastures of the dead,
By Gorgons with long whips pursued,
How naked go the sometime nude!

I love to read Robert Graves, it is all made more personal as he fought in the same unit as my Grandfather in the Great War. What is interesting in this poem is the distinction between The Nude and The Naked, one is higher, better than the other. What he does not account for is the meaning ascribed to each word by the reader in contrast to the lexicographers. In common use, these words have widely differing meanings. Some will say nude means without clothes and naked is almost synonymous with vulnerable.

Shame and Rationalism

2010-02-09T18:29:00.001Z

In times past, the female genital area was called the Pudendum. The word Pudendum is from the Latin root "pudo" the verb meaning to be ashamed or "that of which one ought to feel ashamed or be ashamed to mention". The reason this word came into use was probably as a result of the religious teaching of just one or two people, possibly in a pre-Christian Jewish sect or people like Paul and Augustine. This teaching caught on and was accepted as fact.

In a rational world, how this could happen would be a puzzle, but we do not live in a such a world. Those who prize belief over rationalism will deny a logical argument if it conflicts with belief. Let me give a example. It is often said that the Victorian age was one of prudery where people even covered their piano legs to avoid blushes. Many believe this story, to them it is fact. The trouble is, it was written as a joke in 1837 by Frederic Marryat in his book "Diary in America" but the idea spread, became fact and is believed my many. It is not only believed that some people covered their piano legs, everyone did it! With the spread of such daft and unsupported ideas, no wonder ideas such as shame spread, people accepted them without thinking, taught them to their children and lived in the belief they were doing the Right Thing.

People feel no shame until they learn it by the same means they learn the "facts" of Victorian prudery, others tell them, "be ashamed of your private parts, keep them hidden at all times". I know a woman who has had three children by her husband, yet he has never seen her naked. This astonishing feat was achieved in the belief that seeing a naked woman is in some way harmful. Naturists know that the sight of a naked woman is not in fact sexually arousing but even the most ardent proponent of religion cannot deny that the production of children requires some sexual activity. Even in this situation ,where a faithful, committed married couple desire to make a family, nudity is seen as bad. If they can be taught to believe this, surely they can be taught all manner of daft ideas, easy prey to those who pursue less savoury ideals.

It is clear that no rational argument can be made to establish that a child is born with shameful parts, but ideas will persist. One still finds people believing in "air pockets" when they fly, that low temperatures will give you a cold or that politicians are honest:- all myths that are passed on generation to generation. These are only one step away from being frightened of night airs.

The myth of dangerous night airs was dispelled by clear evidence and rational argument. It is time to be rational about social nudity. Experience suggests that it results in positive feelings and better health, yet it causes no harm. In contrast, the never ending pursuit of fashion and the perfect body has led to bulimia, anorexia and much misery besides.

The Government often tells us not to smoke, not to drive too fast or eat too much, all on the grounds of safety leading to a better and longer life. If we are rational, we should extend this idea. The Government should at once encourage social nudity at swimming pools, sports events, parks, gardens and open spaces of all kinds. But they won't will they? Rationalism has a long way to go.

A naturist in society

2010-01-29T14:24:00.000Z

Sometimes it as hard being a naturist in society, it would be easier to simply conform, dress at all times, shut up and merge into the background. But if you wish to be yourself, live a life you feel is honest and harmless to others but different from everyday life, it takes a bit of nerve.
In The Spiral Staircase, Karen Armstrong wrote:-
"The great myths show that when we follow somebody else's path, you go astray. The hero has to set off by himself, leaving the old world and the old ways behind. He must venture into the darkness of the unknown, where there is no map and no clear route. He must fight his own monsters, not somebody else's, explore his own labyrinth, and endure his own ordeal before he can find what is missing in his life. Thus transfigured, he or she can bring something of value to the world that has been left behind. But if the knight finds himself riding along an already established track, he is simply following in somebody else's footsteps, and will not have an adventure."
In this text, Karen Armstrong is talking about God or at least religious beliefs, but her ideas apply equally well to life in general.
In The Spiral Staircase, she describes in detail the pain and transformation she experienced moving from the religious life to one where her intellect was trusted to provide a better picture of life, the universe and everything. In her convent years, she was expected to conform to very strict rules and codes of conduct, if she did not, the consequences were unpleasant. The hoped for result was for a truer experience of God, but for her at least, this never materialised.
It is easy to follow others, it saves the effort of thinking. It also helps those who lack confidence. To stand by your own ideas takes courage and effort. In The Mind as Nature, Loren Eiseley wrote "Like the herd animals we are, we sniff warily at the strange one among us.".
Along the same lines, Rudyard Kipling wrote:-
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
This idea is supported by others who have struggled to be themselves, one such was E. E. Cummings, the US born poet, who said:-
"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. ".
It is a struggle, but should not be. I was born that way.

The Pope's view

2010-01-26T16:35:00.000Z

In March 5, 1935, the then head of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XI said “The paganized life of today affects all open and attentive eyes, a life so specifically, so paganly dedicated to pleasure and the search for pleasure. It is a life so specifically wanton, it’s wantonness surpasses on many occasions that of the ancient pagan life. It is called – with a horrible word and with horrible blasphemy – the cult of nudity.”
In 1981, Cardinal Karol Woytyla, later Pope John Paul II, said "The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendour and its beauty. Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person.The human body is not in itself shameful. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person." He also said "Because God created it the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve its splendour and its beauty."
With the two views being diametrically opposed, a minimum of one of them is wrong. Need I say more?
Thanks to Allnudist for flagging up the 1935 quote.

Aesthetics

2010-01-23T17:29:00.001Z

Is the naked body beautiful, aesthetically pleasing or is the opposite true, is the naked body ugly? A very good friend of mine thinks so, she said "nude, people are just not pretty".

Exactly what is beautiful or aesthetic is directly linked to conditioning, each society and time has its own idea of what is or what is not beautiful. In the past, artists would paint their ideal nude figures with somewhat more body fat than we are used to now. In times or areas of poverty and food shortages, a fatter person would be considered more successful, they would not understand the current size zero craze.

It is hard to understand why anyone would think that with the exception of a few of "the beautiful people", we are all so ugly that covering at all times is required and to run the risk of prosecution if we do not. If we were to follow the line of eugenics, the deliberate breeding of "the beautiful people", perhaps the idea would change, but I doubt it. In any case, such a scheme is universally recognised as being evil, quite right to.

Should someone with a facial disfigurement be forced to cover up their face because they do not conform to the idea of the beautiful people? Of course not, the very idea is repugnant. My mum suffered from just that problem. Although most people were kind and did their best to understand her very difficult speech, she did come across a few really nasty people who stared, made fun of her or simply gave up trying. It was deeply hurtful, but the person inside was the same beautiful mum as she was before her operation. This rings true with naturism, it is always a few vociferous people who make trouble, most people do not object to nudity where people currently wear swimsuits. www.savingfaces.co.uk

In the view of many naturists it is not acceptable to be forced to dress in circumstances where dress is not needed. It should be just as unacceptable as if my mum was forced to cover up her face.

Steve Gough – The Naked Rambler

2010-01-20T18:06:00.000Z

Steve Gough is in prison for being naked in public and has been on and off for seven years. Although arrested in England and released, when he walked naked in Scotland he was arrested and re-arrested several times. Currently he is in solitary confinement as he refuses to wear clothes in prison.
Steve has stated quite clearly, he is not a naturist but he does insist that there is nothing wrong with being naked, so there are common ideas. In recent times he has been quite controversial, discussions on the net, TV and radio have become very polarised, even heated. There is no agreement on whether he helps the naturist cause or not.
It seems to me that there is a clear difference between what is against the law and what should be against the law and that many people confuse the two. I am as guilty of that as any other. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say if the courts were right or not from a legal point of view, the problem being compounded because the law in Scotland is different from that in England. (Outsiders, especially those in the USA, see us as "The UK" but fail to see we have started down the road to complete separation of the two countries and have different laws. A shame, but true.)
The key point is this, is it right to have him in solitary confinement, possibly for the rest of his life because he was naked and caused a breech of the peace? Quite clearly, the answer is no.
For any offence, the punishment should be proportionate and this is not. It is time the police and the courts paid attention to more important issues. Why are they so frightened by a peaceful nude man? When I met him a few years ago, he did not frighten me.

Propaganda

2010-01-20T14:44:00.001Z

Propaganda is powerful stuff. Lies, misdirection and distortions often last for centuries. Many still believe the Soviet version of the 1917 revolution, that Lenin and his supporters overthrew the wicked tsar when in fact they overthrew a provisional socialist government, the tsar had already gone. Never mind evidence to the contrary, take belief as fact. This is an idea seized upon by those with something to gain, all you need is to bang the drum with passion and the gullible will follow. After a while, the drum's awful beat becomes part of further illogical beliefs and it gets harder to make the voice of reason and moderation heard. Politicians love propaganda. Of course they prefer to call it spin but the result is the same.

For those who prefer to be rational, all that is required to demolish a belief is clear evidence to the contrary. So if someone claims the world is flat, a set of photographs from space should suffice to show the error of their argument. The trouble is, believers will find ways to blend their belief with the evidence, the photographs are a conspiracy, the camera makes distorted images etc. etc. Sadly, even if a flat earther can be dismissed as a crank, the same process goes on in all areas of life, some of these may even endanger life itself.

So am I banging the drum of belief, blind to evidence and reason? The naturist lifestyle is claimed by its proponents to lead to a better life, that naturism is good for people. Their evidence is that naturism of itself has no bad effects. That is not to say there are not bad naturists, there are, but if individuals commit crimes, that does not reflect on the lifestyle as a whole. Is there any evidence yet determined that shows the contrary case, that naturism is harmful? I have never found any, even after diligent searches.

So why is there a vociferous minority of do-gooders who will ring the police at the very sight of a nude person? The same reason as all the other illogical beliefs, they are a victim of propaganda. I think reason should prevail, not propaganda.

What about the children?

2010-01-15T15:39:00.000Z

As any parent will say, bringing up children to be healthy, happy and well adjusted members of society is one of the hardest and most important tasks any of us ever undertake. If we bring them up in an atmosphere where life is cheapened or seen as a commodity, they will suffer. If we bring them up in a society where violence is seen as a legitimate means to achieve one's ends, they will suffer. If we bring them up in a world of prudery, pornography and sex for sale, they will suffer. If however, we bring them up with a wholesome knowledge of the world including that of the human body, they will prosper. Prudery leads directly to pornography and its cheapening of life, indeed there is some evidence that the prudes themselves are the largest customers for pornography. An honest and healthy attitude towards sex can only lead to stable, sensible society, unembarrassed nudity is simply a part of that process.

Much is written about child abuse and the need to protect children, but some are confused about exactly what constitutes abuse. Clearly physical and emotional violence, sex with children and deprivation are all forms of abuse and the most vigorous action must be taken to eliminate them. But bringing up children to fear what is not frightening, to believe in myths, fairy tales and superstition is also abuse. To bring them up thinking the body itself is sinful, shameful, something to be hidden at all costs is clearly an abuse leading to prudery. Prudery leads directly to unwanted teenage pregnancy, emotionally damaging sexual relationships and misery. Prudery even plays into the hands of paedophiles, people feeling so shameful about what has happened, they dare not admit it, so the freaks go free for years to perpetrate their perversion on more and more. The naturist way of life fosters an open and honest attitude to bodies and when the right time comes along, i.e. when the child asks, sexual education can begin in a natural safe manner without embarrassment about bodies.

Naturism, what it is all about

2010-01-05T18:43:00.001Z

Naturism is simply about the enjoyment of being alive. Quite a few people find life more comfortable without being restricted by clothing. Some only go naked on holiday but an increasing number go about their daily lives without clothes. Whether or not the word naturist is used, the outcome is the same, people finding life can be better naked.

There is an argument that opposes the "ism" in naturism, i.e. the idea that naturists (or nudists) follow a set of norms that allows them to fit in with other naturists. Whilst some people like firm guidelines, many of those who live a life without clothes have an individualistic character, preferring to think for themselves. This is a strong idea but leads to clumsy descriptions in writing such as this. For the sake of clarity, I use the word naturist to mean anyone who enjoys living without clothes for at least part of their lives, but could equally well have used the word nudist.

Naturism is not like many activities, something you do for an hour or two a week then go home, it is a way of life, a lifestyle, practised because it is enjoyable. We do not frequent 'nudist colonies', a term used by the tabloids to be rude about a minority. Naturism is not about sex, a socially nude environment is simply not erotic. Naturism is not another word for exhibitionism, a quick look at the glossy magazines will show where they like to be. Children take to it as a duck to water, any shame about nudity is taught to them by the adults in their lives. Poll after poll has shown that naturists have lower rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion and sex crimes and higher rates of happy, stable relationships. These same polls also show that the number of people who are offended by nudity is very small, less than 2% in the UK. It is estimated that over 2 million people have enjoyed at least part of their life naked, perhaps on holiday, in the sauna or their back garden.

Leaving aside religious beliefs, some would point out the risk to public order if nudity became widespread. Such order would only be affected by those who made a fuss about nudity but modern experience shows there are very few such people. Should therefore the law and its enforcing agencies follow the clarion call of these few? The law in England is such that public nudity is not illegal, but the police often take the contrary view, with individual officers reacting to the fuss of the few and acting as though is was illegal. This is tantamount to bullying, the loudest voices being obeyed at the expense of the many. Democracy is supposed to be the will of the majority. Parliament has debated the issue and passed legislation that does allow public nudity, but some police have yet to find out. When they do, public order would then maintained by detaining the fussy few, not the peaceful majority.

Naked x-rays

2010-01-02T18:06:00.001Z

Isn't it sad, people worrying about an anonymous airport security staff member seeing a very fuzzy image of them almost naked in the interests of airport safety. People have said it is "horrible" to have such machines. Child protection legislation has been invoked to prevent children going through the scanners on the grounds the images may be "indecent". I wonder how decent it is to have those children in thousands of pieces after an aerial explosion. In a society that uses ever clearer and better images of violence as part of daily entertainment, such an idea to me is very odd indeed. What is worrying, no-one yet has asked how safe these machines are from the radiological point of view. We hear that no dose of ionising radiation is safe, so how about aircrew that may have to go through these things on a daily basis? The news is dominated by a few prudes concerned about nudity, what about safety from x-rays and nutters bent on destruction?

Is naturism natural?

2009-12-30T15:36:00.000Z

It is all very well espousing the naturist lifestyle as being natural, but there are some thorny issues.

It is natural to be eaten by a crocodile, die of a snake bite or to fall off a cliff, there is nothing necessarily nice about being natural. What is nice, good or acceptable comes from social conditioning and this conditioning changes over time. It has its roots in antiquity, and in particular, antique attitudes based on religious beliefs. The Judeo-Christian religions come from the same set of teachings, ones dominated by a patriarchal society and the belief that all are born sinful. Shame, especially body shame, is a core element in this system, it embodies the idea that nakedness causes lust and the associated loss of control, which in turn leads to untrammelled fornication and eternal damnation.

The bible reinforces this belief, but as it was believers who translated the bible, body shame dominated their efforts, belief in body shame was already in place well before such translations were made. Translation is a tricky business, it is often hard to describe an idea from one language in another with just a few words, so the core of the translator's own beliefs will dominate the work. References to being without covering became references to naked in the sense of being vulnerable, shameful or being in an undesirable state rather than simply without clothes. "I was naked and you clothed me" could just as easily be read as "I was poor and you gave me warm clothes", a completely different interpretation.

Before the reign of Henry VIII, the bible was not available in the English language of the time. In the early 16th Century, William Tyndale translated the bible directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, but he worked in a regime where expressing particular beliefs could cost you your life. Straying from the path of whatever set of beliefs was being prosecuted at the time was dangerous. He did indeed lose his life because if it. Notwithstanding this, the bible, and in particular the book of Genesis, is taken as proof that nakedness in the sight of others is sinful. Passages in the book of Genesis seem to speak of the condition of nakedness as being disagreeable or sinful, but if other translators work on the same original text, the outcome is completely different. Such ideas were not lost on Tyndale, he wrote "They have ordained that no man shall look on the Scripture, until he be noselled in heathen learning eight or nine years and armed with false principles, with which he is clean shut out of the understanding of the Scripture."

Centuries of religious dominance, guided by numerous interpretations of the bible and often enforced by violence, has resulted in the conditioning that nudity in a public place is in itself sinful. Some would take it as axiomatic that public nudity should be illegal, but would be at a loss to say exactly why. Even those who have made what they think of as a complete break from religious dogma, unwittingly continue an essentially religious practice. It is not practical for each of us to re-learn or re-invent every aspect of daily life, however, it is desirable to question systematically some of the ways in which we live in the light of campaigning or the example of others.

So, Is naturism natural? Is the nature in naturism the right word to use? Leaving out the social conditioning, of course it is, we were born nude without an automatic or even obvious source of clothing. The only reason that naturism is an issue at all is that social and religious conditioning has been widely taught. The issue then becomes, "is social conditioning natural?" In the animal world, it is natural for dominant individuals to force their will on others so in that sense it is natural that religious and social "leaders" have pursued their outlook on life and have made others follow. It is also "natural" for breakaway groups to challenge the status quo, so it is natural for naturists to challenge the Judeo-Christian inspired belief that nudity is sinful. In the sense that the word natural is used in modern society, naturism must be considered natural, it uses little or none of the earth's resources, it harms no one, it is not a threat to anyone, it enhances a sense of freedom and well being in those practice it and helps to reduce or eliminate some of the body image problems that so plague our very unnatural society.

Paedophiles are a hateful bunch

2009-12-23T12:19:00.000Z

Paedophiles are a hateful bunch of people. The damage they do to children is very severe, long lasting and completely at odds with practically all human feeling. Perhaps less obvious is the damage they do to families, but the damage that is forgotten altogether is the damage done to society at large, both by the actual crimes and the means adopted to the counteract the perversion.

The need to protect children is obvious, and the means to provide that protection must be freely available, but we must not "throw out the baby with the bath water". Children must be protected because abuse damages them, but society must also be protected, it is made up of individuals and these individuals are every bit as valuable as a child, each is a person in their own right. Over zealous application of rules and procedures can damage innocent individuals as severely as a pervert can damage a child. If a system can bar someone from a simple accusation alone, that system cannot be right. It took years to develop the Bill of Rights, the right to a fair trial, legal representation and the right of appeal. To lose that to a knee-jerk reaction to high profile cases we see in the media will be to shame all those who suffered and died to create a fair and equitable country. Lock up the perverts, but leave society at large to be free from the oppression of the pointed finger.

This is not a new problem, people have been damaged by simple accusation for years. Whilst the English Civil war was raging across the land in the 1600s, the famous self-appointed Witchfinder General, Matthew Hopkins was doing just that:- as John Gaule wrote in his 'Select Cases of Conscience', "Every old woman with a wrinkled face, a furrowed brow, a hairy lip, a gobber tooth, a squint eye, a squeaking voice or scolding tongue, having a rugged coat on her back, a skull-cap on her head, a spindle in her hand and a dog or cat by her side, is not only suspect but pronounced for a witch". In 1581, one Margaret Simons of Kent rebuked a young man for chasing a dog whilst he was armed with a knife. (There is nothing new in knife crime!). The next day, the boy fell ill and she was accused of witchcraft, it being thought she had made him ill. Luckily the jury at her trial failed to establish her guilt, but others were not so lucky. If this had happened in the modern era and in the context of an accusation of Paedophilia, even if acquitted, the accused will be barred for life from all sorts of jobs. Their standing in society will be damaged beyond repair, their families may well shun or reject them, in short, they will have been severely damaged by a simple accusation.

The disease is spreading. As an amateur photographer who delights in taking pictures of wildlife and hence uses a long lens, I feel threatened by the current craze of suspicion. Not just suspicion of Paedophilia, now we have to add terrorism. If seen in public, even places where the birds fly, carrying a posh looking camera, I can be stopped by a police officer under suspicion of carrying out a terrorist reconnaissance. If I am not doing that, I must be spying on children from afar, otherwise, why would I want a long lens? Now add my naturist lifestyle, the talking heads will go into overdrive. A naturist who has a long lens on his camera, he must be a pervert! Oh dear, when they find I also have a telescope and binoculars, proof positive, lock him up or at least take away his computer and examine every part of what is found there. Never mind about the missing evidence of real suspicion, plain old prejudice will do. Suspicion is ruining the peaceful business of taking simple photographs of the world I see before me.

We need a better system. We need a system whereby the decision to bar suspected perverts is open to inspection and challenge. If the suspicion has been caused by scurrilous, lazy or malicious intent or plain old fashioned prejudice, the person making the accusation should themselves be barred from any occupation requiring integrity, and that includes police officers. Perverts need to be locked up for the protection of children but we must not ruin the society in which they are growing up. Each protected child should grow up into a safe and fair society, not one in which they in turn have their lives ruined by unwarranted suspicion.

On being a member of a minority

2009-12-18T11:29:00.000Z

It seems to be common practice for members of large or majority beliefs to ridicule or disadvantage those who hold a minority belief. This is the reason Tolerance International was set up, to help put an end to it, but who are the real guilty parties?

There are the big issues such as the war in Afghanistan or the inter racial wars in Africa. With these, we can feel comfortable sitting back and blaming governments and extremists for the trouble, nothing to do with us. We can say we didn't ask for it, would have voted against it had we been given the chance, but it has been done out by "them". Remote, we can feel justified by our indignation. Whilst it is true that as an individual we can do very little, sometimes even a large number of people can do very little. For example, Blair ignored the huge anti-war march past Parliament and the perceived anti-war feeling in the country.

So what can we do? Are we to blame? Is intolerance only a practice of governments or large organisations? Is it only concerned with issues in the news such as intolerance of Muslims in a western society or anti-Semitism? Not at all. Intolerance exists at all levels, person to person.

As a member of a minority, I keenly feel the hand of intolerance even within a peaceful society. Every day I live the results of that intolerance, fear of ridicule, fear of misunderstanding or even prosecution. Those who belong to large belief systems feel quite safe, even justified in belittling my beliefs. After all, what will happen to them should they do so? They have only to turn to other members of their belief system for support, and with no surprise, get it.

Intolerance is an every day issue that affects individuals and their relationship with others. It is not just the brutal treatment handed out by the Interahamwe Militias or religious extremists, it encompasses every day living, how you treat other people.

This is not a comfortable thought. Imagine you are a Christian living in a Christian or at least western suburb. A family of devout Muslims move in next door. How do you feel? You know intellectually you should welcome them and respect their beliefs, perhaps you will. Now instead, suppose the family that moved in next door belong to a small minority, but one whose belief system hurts no-one? Will you feel the same way? Will you still feel you have to respect their beliefs, welcome them to the neighbourhood?

So what could this minority be? In practice is does not matter, all small minorities suffer the same treatment at the hands of individuals like you and me. Suppose I moved next door to you, would you welcome me, respect my beliefs? I wonder, I am a naturist.

The naturist's dilemma

2009-12-14T19:26:00.001Z

Naturists face a dilemma. Should naturists hide away and simply conform to the wishes of a minority and pretend that nothing has disturbed the status quo?

Although naturism harms no-one, uses none of the earth's resources and gives millions greater happiness in life, there are some who feel offended or threatened by non-sexual nudity. Naturists often find it hard to understand the depth of passion evident in the few who object.

There has been a strong movement in recent times to recognise human rights. Understandably this concentrates on the really important areas such the right to liberty and freedom from oppression etc. but it also extends right down to the every day right to have one's beliefs respected.

This is the very nub of the problem. What is the extent of my right to have my beliefs valued? What should I do when a visitor comes to my house? I am acutely aware of the sensitivity that others show on the subject of nudity but if I dress when someone visits my house in order to suit their sensibilities, should not they undress when I visit their house, in order to suit mine? On the face of it, it seems a fair question.

If others fail to recognise my strongly held naturist beliefs, should I call into question aspects of their beliefs? Clearly not. Should I have my beliefs cast out as being unworthy or is the right to hold an honest belief only reserved for members of large religious or political groups? Some act that way.

All I ask is that I am not persecuted nor ridiculed and that I be allowed to follow my beliefs even if that means a very small number of people are offended.

The path I have chosen is not easy, as Rudyard Kipling wrote, 'The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.'

Why go naked?

2009-12-14T19:22:00.000Z

It is about feeling relaxed, comfortable and free. Imagine walking on a glorious sunny day, wild flowers in full bloom, the alluring green of the South Downs, and the pleasure of the company of like minded people. Reason enough for many to walk in the countryside, but walking without the encumbrance of clothes enhances the experience many times over. "Why be a naturist, why go naked?" is really the wrong question. The real question is, "Why not?". What really stops you?

After a long day, you arrive home hot and tired. After a quick drink, you enjoy the feeling of a nice shower, many people do You enjoy it not just because it gets you clean. It feels good, refreshing, there is a sensual element. If you recognise what I mean, you are just a short step from naturism, this is what it is all about, feeling good. Being naked around the house or garden simply prolongs the pleasant feeling.

To me naturism greatly improves my life, my happiness. My belief in the rightness of this lifestyle is as genuine as any belief in religious ideals. I recognise that nudity causes some people problems so I am very careful not to offend them, but I also recognise that I have rights to my beliefs, the same way as they have theirs.

Experiencing a socially nude environment, people find that any embarrassment disappears very quickly. The barrier to social nudity is far harder to overcome from the clothed side. Once the initial unfamiliar feeling has gone, most are left with a strong impression that no real problem ever existed. I would recommend that in the privacy of your own home, take your clothes off and go about your normal routine. It may feel strange for a while, but enjoy the experience, naturists do!