Monday, August 31, 2009


A commentary in the Times states that a precondition for a naturist beach is a "suitably secluded coastline."
The human body unadorned is only rarely a thing of beauty, and in few cases does its loveliness increase. A wish to avoid the unexpected sight of it is not prejudice but aesthetic sense.
Pure, unadulterated hogwash, and completely offensive, too.

The editorial also claims that naturism is a personal choice, and therefore not subject to legal equality considerations. Well, the wearing of clothes is also a personal choice - deciding what costume to don, what color combinations, what style. Same with beachwear. Some wear suits which cover most of the epidermal landscape, some wear next to nothing. One does not discriminate against people on the beach based upon their degree of coverage, so why should society place barriers against complete nudity, which is only one small step from what already exists?

The aesthetic argument against total nudity does not hold up considering the disastrous fashion sense of many people, or the fleshy folds which pour over the sides of bikinis and speedos. How can complete nudity be any more or less offensive than the supposed eyesores which already dot the human landscape?

No, the real issue here is genitals and nipples. Mostly the genital thing. Somehow over the centuries, people and their governments have decided that these sexual organs simply must not be seen in public, that they somehow have this power which will transform the average viewer into some sort of monster, out of control and destroying society. So we cover these parts up neatly and discreetly, protecting the children and little old ladies who might be ruined for life or sent to an early dirt nap at the mere sight of a penis or vagina.

Truth be told, we've all seen these body parts, and we see them every day when we get dressed, or bathe, or make love. We also see them in magazines, movies, art museums, and anywhere visuals occur, and when it comes to the Internet, it's becoming increasingly hard not to see genitals close up and angry, pounding into each other in full high-definition wide screen glory.

But somehow in natural, non-sexual settings like beaches and hiking trails, these genitals and nipples are eyesores, subject to the "stigma of the snigger", as the editorial so subtly puts it. And to dare call naturism a mere "personal choice" as if this is something to be dismissed - well, where would we all be without personal choices, which give us all uniqueness and spirit of life? Denying naturists their small spot of sand, merely because someone looking might be offended, is stomping on personal choice, and treads upon the basic human freedom we all should have to be natural in nature, as is intended by design, divine or otherwise.

There are very simple solutions for all those who are offended by naturists. Look away. Avert your glance. Bury your nose in a book. Cover your eyes. Walk somewhere else. Go to another stretch of beach. Do any or all of these things and you cannot possibly be offended, unless you harbor some inner prejudice which precludes you from accepting the simple personal choices of others.


pammie said...

Re: the Times' opinion-- how silly. They are addicted to the PhotoShop version of humanity.

thomas said...

The 1st amendment gives everyone the right to make fools of themselves in print, but this guy is a Brit so that doesn't apply. If you consider the source, the whole column makes sense: A) He quotes George Orwell who hasn't written anything in decades. B) He dismisses fruit juice drinkers as radicals. C) Snigger? When was the last time you heard anyone use that term. This all taken together explains his conservative attitude. I would imagine the last time he was invited to the beach, he couldn't go because his swinsuit had a hole in the elbow. Then again we can always hope his tongue is firmly buried in his cheek.