Thursday, August 27, 2009


A letter to the editor of the Sacramento News and Review perpetuates many of the myths surrounding nudism, and is reflective of the pernicious attitude nudists and naturists need to address if more public lands are ever to be set aside for clothes-free usage.
There are places nudists can enjoy their nakedness (nudist colonies, camps, private clubs), as well as private beaches...What is the big deal then, with protecting public places against behavior that offends the majority of the public, who would rather not be exposed to the overexposed human form?
Obviously this person has never been to a public beach, where the populace is already "exposed to the overexposed human form." The question here is why people who only wish to sunbathe and swim without artificial clothing coming between them and nature should be denied equal access to public lands. This is clear discrimination against taxpaying citizens. Forcing nudists and naturists into "colonies" or other private venues is reminiscent of the old Jim Crow laws in the South.
And here’s a complication to throw in the mix: Ever heard of the indecent-exposure law? Just when does it apply, and when does it not apply?
Natural nudity is not indecent. To believe otherwise is to deny that the human body is the epitome of nature's creations. The indecent exposure laws should apply only when indecency and lewdness is exhibited.
And let’s face it: Prancing around in the nude can sexually excite other nude bathers.
Really? This is news to all nudists and naturists who have been engaging in social nudity for many, many years. The fact is that when everyone is nude, the level of sexual excitement decreases. The wearing of speedos and skimpy bikinis is far more erotic, and the same people who get their jollies from watching naturists are also out with their binoculars and cameras on textile beaches. Using that "excitement" argument, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, probably the most popular mainstream fodder for teenage masturbation, should be immediately banned.
I find it ironic the very behavior that can get you arrested in the lobby of a public building is somehow OK on a public beach.
Nudists and naturists do not advocate public displays of sexual activity. Period.
...common sense should instantly kick in and force us to be more aware of the other person, rather than be so self-absorbed that we feel it’s OK to just “let it all hang out” without first considering whether or not our actions will cause some offense or a feeling of threat to someone else.
The same argument can be used by nudists and naturists against "self-absorbed" textiles who feel that they somehow "own" the rights to all public beaches. True freedom of expression means that sometimes one person's actions might be offensive to another. There is no evidence whatsoever that nude sunbathing is in any way a "threat" to others. What naturists propose is for areas of public lands to be set aside for nude swimming and sunbathing, with the proper signage to warn anyone who might feel offended, so all those "self-absorbed" textiles who can read can either go to another section of the beach, or simply divert their gaze. It's amazing how simple it is to avoid being offended if one uses a little common sense, as the writer suggests.
And speaking of the 21st century, there’s this little thing: a hole in our ozone layer. I’m sure you’ve heard about the UV rays seeping in and zapping sunbathers. Melanoma is now ranked in the top 10 cancers that are killing people, especially among the young.
I'm sorry, but playing the "skin cancer" card doesn't wash, expecially considering that tons of flesh is exposed on textile beaches, too. Melanoma amounts to less that 8,000 deaths per year in the United States, and while it's wise to use sunscreen and avoid prolonged exposure to UV rays, skin cancer can be caused by many other factors, including moles, family history, and certain illnesses. The exact causes of melanoma are still unknown, so there is no hard evidence that exposure to the sun actually causes the disease, but it is recognized as a risk factor.

If anything, exposure to the sun has amazing benefits from vitamin D, and it is logical to conclude that many diseases from vitamin D deficiencies could be caused by the false hysteria over melanoma, which is keeping people indoors or covered to such a degree that they are not getting any sunshine. Bottom line is that any naturist should see a dermatologist on a regular basis, something which is true for people who sunbathe in a speedo or bikini, too.

Nudists and naturists need to continually push back on all this "myth-information" being generated by people who simply speak from prejudice and untruths. There is nothing logical in any arguments against having public lands set aside for nude recreation, only irrational fears and discriminatory attitudes.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Jim P said...

It seems very clear to me that the person making the statements against the rights of all of us to be nude is uneducated and uninformed. All of the taxpayers in this country have a right to decide how and where their money is spent and what the public lands can be used for. Guaranteed by the constitution.parri

thomas said...

Last night I was watching a movie which loudly claimed " Contains Nudity". As i watched I thought, there's no nudity just a few bare boobs. That's misleading. Had it been only men without shirts, nothing would have been said.

thomas said...

I have to add a comment. I am a life-long nudist, whether organized, nude beach or just skinny-dipping. I have been nude in many different situations. My problem is, I'm 64, and maybe it's a senior thing, but I just can't remember the last time I pranced, nude or otherwise