|
It's interesting that there is so much popular misconception about nudism, or
naturism, in general, whether public or private. On the one hand you have a
bunch of people who engage in taking their clothes off and say that it is ok,
and on the other you have the people who never try it and profess to
know that it is wrong - in some way. When pressed, the majority of
textiles, if I may be permitted a bit of jargon, (to descibe people who
have never tried nudism), are mostly to be heard saying things like:
- Nudists are perverts.
- Well, of course it's wrong, it's not right, anyone can see that!
- Children should not be allowed to see nudity.
- Women must be protected from seeing naked men for their own sake.
- Seeing naked people together reduces respect and leads to moral decline.
- Naked men are dangerous.
- Public nudity is illegal.
- Naked males are exhibitionists.
- Clothes maketh the man.
I didn't particularly want to have a counter-argument page, it has a feeling of
brooding defensiveness about it. However, I do feel strongly that while these
misunderstood allegations are prevalent, they have negative effect and, instead
of being left to fester, should be countered by reasoned argument.
Nudists are perverts.
It is clear that nudists are human by definition, (whoever heard of a nudist
grasshopper?), so of course any group of humans, statistically speaking,
includes a number perverts. The question of whether any particular group of
nudists include a greater number of perverts than any other (otherwise
non-selective) group of people, is another question entirely. Personally I
would suggest the opposite is the case, and that exposure to nakedness actually
encourages a healthy, and expressly non-perverted, character. One could use a
group of typically naked south-sea islanders as a sort of control group,
perhaps, where nudity is a common enough state still to be useful. These could
be contrasted with a similar number of clothed New Yorkers, (clearly the height
of civilised society ;-), let's say 1,000 people for no particular reason.
Which group would have the most thieves, child molesters, drunks, drug addicts,
flashers, rapists and murderers? I know what I suspect, in this case, but
perhaps if someone has a particularly strong opinion on this point, they might
have some figures to back up their position...?
Well, of course it's wrong, it's not right, anyone can see that!
What exactly is not right about being naked? There is no such thing as a
decree from on high, or low or anywhere inbetween, as to whether nudity is good
or bad, there is only ever human interpretations of whether nakedness is ok or
not, in one situation or another.
Pacific Islanders innocently went topless until the arrival of European
civilization. Julius Caesar noted that the Germans bathed together
completely naked, 2,000 years ago. The modern Germans, at the beginning of the
20th century, were still at the forefront of nudism as a natural part of family
and social life. The scandinavians often share mixed saunas au naturelle - why
would they not? Are there more rape cases in Scandinavia per head of
population - where the people see each other naked on a regular basis, than in
the USA - where nudity is firmly maintained behind pornography and commercial
advertising barriers? For many years certain Indian tribes have been enjoying
an ancient tradition of the womenfolk bathing in their river before walking
naked to a local temple to complete their ritual, until the western media got a
hold of the story, of course, and made a festival of gawking out of it.
Children should not be allowed to see nudity.
Why not? Since when have children ever been bothered about nudity? This is
similar to the ridiculous belief that children are unable to learn a foreign
language. Children are only ever bothered by nudity when they have been taught
by their tutors/parents that they should be. Children of all ages are only
concerned by what they are taught to be concerned about, and if they are taught
to be scared of nakedness, then they will become scared purely from social
pressure just as they learn other social norms.
Women must be protected from seeing naked men for their own sake.
Oh, please! What a patronising and facile attitude. Women are perfectly
capable of seeing nudity without feeling the need to engage in spontaneous sex,
just as men are. The more you hide the body, however, the more exciting it
becomes, and this applies for males as well as for females. The porn industry
is a prime example of how people can be encouraged to pay for a glimpse of
something which they will otherwise not see, and which they then think is even
more exciting (just as in prohibition in the USA in the 1920s). I guess
nudists must be fairly unpopular with the porn industry, loan sharks, banks and
bankers et al, because we say it is not necessary to pay to see a naked body,
you can just take your clothes off, and be free - for free. No cost, no tax,
no profit - ah - do we detect an economic reason for hiding the naked body..?
Seeing naked people together reduces respect and leads to moral decline.
This was the position taken by Adolf Hitler and the German National Socialists
(the Nazis) at the height of their power. Need more be said?
Naked men are dangerous.
Now, I don't know about you, but I have never once heard of anyone being
threatened, abused or raped by a naked person. On the other hand, in every
single rape case I have ever heard of - ever, every kidnapping, every hooligans
gang fight or aggressive confrontation, every burglary or bank break-in, and
every other criminal activity I can think of, the perpetrators have always been
clothed. Even flashers are clothed, usually only exposing their erect
genitals, not something you see in a nudist environment. Armies are expressly
clothed, usually more clothed than the average citizen, and clothed in such a
way that you know they are all part of the same gang - sorry, army. A nudist
army doesn't sound so frightening, unless you remember the Spartans.
Public nudity is illegal.
Most of the time, this tacit assumption is completely wrong. In the law courts
of many lands, nudity may be dealt with in as many different ways as their are
counties, or even judges, in each country. Take the modern example of Steve
Gough, striding naked the length of Britain, being arrested a number of times,
and in almost every case the charges were dropped because it was seen there was
no charge to answer. It is the knee-jerk response which makes people think or
assume that nudity is illegal. Most of the time, the law is abused and the
fact of nudity is not even tested, rather the more usual case of 'a breach of
the peace', whatever that might be, is used as a sweeping 'catch-all' in a
particular prosecution or arrest.
In Barcelona, a Spanish city on the mediteranean coast of Europe, with a
strongly Catholic population, it has (in 2004) been made explictly legal to
be naked in public in the middle of the city!. In Germany I have been
personally informed by the police (in 2005) that it is not illegal to be naked
out of doors, in forests and the mountains, (in public), and they have no
reason to intervene in any case unless there is some form of aggravation
involved. The Bavarian police explicitly told me they were not in the
slightest interested in whether I was wandering about naked in the woods,
across the mountains, wherever. Their job is to uphold the law, not to write
it, and they are quite correct to recognise this - all credit to them for not
being suckered in by the prurient majority.
On the subject of the law - I find it interesting that the majority of
objectors to nudity, (public or private), are often rather inconsistent on this
point. There are many people who think it ok to pirate music CDs, DVDs and
Videos, sneak a free trip on a train or bus by not paying the correct fare,
dangerously exceed speed limits through small towns and villages, walk out of a
shop without paying for something (perhaps accidentaly). There are large
numbers of people who think it ok to get drunk and beat people up at football
games, yet more people who think it is ok to kill others because they worship
at a different lump of wood or want to pay taxes to a different higher authority.
There are yet more millions of people who believe it is ok to con their fellow
citizens, clients and customers, of various sums of money, or goods, or to
manipulate friend- and relation-ships in any number of devious ways for the
purpose of improving their own station or for their own good.
Almost all of these people will believe simple nudity to be a bad thing. In
direct contrast - nudists are mostly peaceful, law-abiding and tolerant people,
who mind their own business and don't stick their nose into anyone else's.
Where now the moral decline?
Being naked is not illegal, in private or in public, and it never has been.
Even when the city of Rio in South America decides to pass a law against people
being naked in their own apartments(!), this clearly does not apply to
the Carnival in Rio - famous the world over for naked people, (allegedly
'dressed' with bits of string), cavorting along the high streets every year.
People are crazy!
Naked males are exhibitionists
There may be some exhibitionists among naked male people, I suspect the same
could be said about naked females, though you don't often hear the complaint...
Clothes maketh the man.
Men and women, the world over, hide behind their clothes.
I'm going to resist the temptation here of a tirade against 'men of the cloth',
whatever that might mean, I think that would be a deceptive digression. Simply
ponder: never mind what the first word was, let the last words be: if you think
about clothing for a small moment it becomes clear that if man only thinks
of himself as the sum of his clothes, then that is a very, very, poor man, or
woman, indeed.
|