Family Nudism Controversy in Arizona

Prosecutors have declined to press any charges against an Arizona mother and stepfather for practicing nudism in front of their two adolescent boys. When the 13 year-old complained to his father that the nudity made him "uncomfortable", police were called in and recommended that the couple be charged with a crime.

"You do not know how familiar this story is," said Bob Morton, executive director of the Naturist Action Committee, a non-profit that advocates for nudist legal issues.

He said battling ex-spouses and family members often try to use one parent's decision to practice nudism as an issue in custody cases.

Parents have a right to decide what goes on inside their homes unless there's criminal conduct, Morton said.

Former sex crimes prosecutor Robert J. Campos said that he was "skeptical" of the entire investigation and that the criminal case was a "real stretch."

But more government regulations for parents would be considered controversial in a nation that prides itself on myriad freedoms, said Campos, the former prosecutor.

"Part of being free means accepting the possible harm that comes with it," he said. "You just can't legislate the harm out of the world."

AANR takes a much more conservative stand on the issue.

"We do believe that respecting boundaries and communicating is critical to a successful nude-recreation experience," said Erich Schuttauf, executive director of the American Association for Nude Recreation.

He said parents who decide to try out naturist activities or to visit a resort should talk to their children first. If a child seems uncomfortable, parents should let the child's views dictate their plans.

That could mean enjoying a nudist vacation without the child or stripping down only when the child isn't around, Schuttauf said.

"Parents should let the child's view dictate their plans." As any parent knows, letting the child make the call on family decisions is just plain stupid, otherwise all meals would consist of cake and ice cream, and all vacations would be at Disney World. Children are "uncomfortable" in church, at the dentist, at summer camp, in school, in gym class, etc. It's up to the parent to make the best possible decision for the welfare of the child. With all the benefits of nudism, from improved body image to healthier minds and bodies, nude recreation is good for people of all ages.

This does not mean that parents should drag their kids kicking and screaming to nudist resorts. Common sense needs to prevail, but it should be up to the parents to make the common sense decisions, not the children.

By suggesting that family nudism should be the sole decision of the child, Schuttauf infers that parental nudism in the home, and at nudist resorts, without the full support of the child, is tantamount to abuse, and that police and child protection agencies have the right to step in.

I'm not surprised that AANR would take the "appeasement" route, especially since it abandoned San Onofre Beach, and virtually convicted the "naked coffee guy" in Virginia before the full facts of the case were known. And don't forget that Schuttauf also raised questions about the other Arizona couple who had their children temporarily removed over some nude family photos, and astoundingly endorsed full body scanners at airports.

Nudists and naturists need to advocate clearly for the nude lifestyle and not take these "politically correct" stances which only serve to further stigmatize nudity. Kudos to Bob Morton of the NAC for properly analyzing this particular situation, and boos to AANR for once again failing to recognize the right of nudity in the home.

The Shape of Girls

Cover via Amazon

A mother in Brattleboro recounts her family's ongoing struggle with body issues brought about by popular culture.

By eighth grade, I was obsessed with my shape -- my body, not geometry. I went on extreme diets, once eating nothing but rice-cakes for a week. Dull with depression, I leafed through the J. Crew catalog pretending I looked like the whippet-thin models in their tissue tees...How will I handle my girls lusting for Barbies or the notoriously slutty Bratz dolls? Ava recently discovered an old Barbie (not mine, clearly) when visiting my mother. She stroked the doll’s nude torso and remarked, "Look, she has bubbies! She’s a Mommy!"

"Well, actually, she’s not a Mommy," I corrected her. "Do you see that her bubbies don’t have nipples? And she doesn’t have a real booty, either. Her body isn’t real. Do you see?"

It's sad that we have to explain to our children that doll bodies are not real. The reason is that children are never exposed to real bodies - parents feel the need to cover up in front of their kids, there's no more nude swimming at the Y or at ponds, no more gang showers in schools.

Diana Whitney, the author of the piece, mentions that her 4 year-old daughter is "perched naked" before her meal, but that's the only mention of nudity throughout. She mentions that her mom was a "counter-culture feminist who went to Woodstock", and was anti-materialistic, but she had friends who wore "gobs of make-up" and had plastic surgery, ultimately passing on the message to the young girls that you'll "never be good enough."

Perhaps insecurity is an inevitable part of growing up, male or female. But does the process have to be excruciating? Mary Pipher’s 1994 bestseller, "Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls," examines the "girl-poisoning culture" that leads to increased media pressures, depression, self-mutilation, eating disorders and sexual abuse in the lives of teenage girls.

OK, so talk to your children about their bodies. Let them see you nude in normal home situations. And consider some sort of nude recreation, either at a sanctioned TNS or AANR associated club, or at a public bath, locker room, or sauna. Let them see real bodies of all ages. This sickness in the minds of children is man-made and can be undone with more exposure to the sight of real human beings.

It's virtually impossible to shield young girls from magazines, television, Barbie dolls and other visions of unrealistic body images, but it is possible to create some balance in their minds.

"Unless you intend to raise them as nudists"

"Curious in Maryland" writes to "Dear Annie":

I am the father of two sons, 7 and 11. At what point do you stop dressing or being naked in front of your children? I come from a minister's family, and my wife comes from a somewhat dysfunctional family. Let's just say they are at the other end of the spectrum and leave it at that. My wife still gets dressed and undressed in front of the boys, and thinks nothing of coming out of the shower naked while the boys are in our bedroom watching TV. I sometimes get dressed in front of them at home or at the changing room at the pool. What do you think?

Annie's answer:

Parents of the opposite sex should not be undressing in front of their children after the age of 4. Unless you intend to raise them as nudists, both of your boys are too old for this. The 11-year-old will be going through puberty soon and will become plenty confused if he is inadvertently aroused by his mother. Insist that every member of the family have some privacy.

There's a lot wrong with this little exchange, but let's focus on the phrase "unless you intend to raise them as nudists". I tend to think that Annie meant to use the words in the sense that nudism was completely out of the question, such as when you would advise someone who was loading a gun with the safety off with "unless you want to blow your head off".

But the true result of Annie's advice is that she basically told the man that family nudity was perfectly OK only in the context of nudism.

This is very strange. If the boys are too old for nudity at home, what is it about nudism that would suddenly make it appropriate? If the 11 year-old is susceptible to arousal by the sight of his nude mother, what would make him less inclined to get excited by the sight of a crowd of nudists? Annie's answer is far too ambiguous.

The correct answer to "Curious" is this: There is nothing wrong with the human body. Many studies show that children who are exposed to normal, natural nudity at home grow up with healthier attitudes about sex, and their own bodies. Chances are your boys are not even paying attention to your casual nudity, and that of your wife, and are much more interested in watching television. Since you are all comfortable with nudity, you might consider family nude recreation, which will further normalize your bodies to each other, remove the societal stigma or taboo, and wash away any shame you are feeling. More information on family nudism can be found at the websites of the American Association for Nude Recreation and The Naturist Society.

Laura Leyrer Recommends Hedonism

In a disappointing move, Detroit Nudist Adventures Examiner Laura Leyrer has recommended the adult lifestyle resorts Hedonism II and III as viable travel options. These are not nudist venues, they are clothing-optional couples clubs which attract swingers. I have nothing against these adult resorts, just don't call then "nudist."

AANR has just recently lost two Florida resorts, Caliente and Paradise Lakes, because those venues crossed the line into overt sexual activities, exploiting the human body instead of celebrating it.

AANR President John Kinman writes:

This past summer, AANR sponsored The AANR World Record Skinny-Dip. Club owners and beach organizers reported that many people participated who had never before been nude in mixed company. The press reports were the greatest we have ever seen for an event. Clubs signed up new members. The event portrayed wholesome family nude recreation. No one confused it with a strip show or a swinger convention. The event told me that, with focused marketing, our resorts and AANR can grow in membership without a sexual tone.

AANR has drawn a line in the sand. Good for them, and good for nudism. We cannot allow the adult lifestyle folks to hijack family-friendly nudist resorts and turn them into outdoor strip clubs.

Writers like Laura Leyrer need to be more responsible when throwing around the word "nudist" when referring to swinger resorts. The public is confused enough already without being subjected to even more misinformation from supposed "experts."

Stamp of Approval

Today should be hailed as a milestone in the history of modern nudism, for "Dear Abby" has given her stamp of approval to the lifestyle. When the reluctant wife of a nudist wrote in to ask if she should join her husband in his clothes-free lifestyle, she received the following answer:

I'm not opposed to it. From everything I have read, and from readers' testimonials, the naturalist lifestyle is healthy and upbeat, so give it a try. Just be sure to wear sunscreen.

I'll forgive Abby for using the word "naturalist" instead of "naturist", because it's rare that any media personality says that taking off all of your clothes is "healthy and upbeat." Contrast her statement with that of Alicia Silverstone, who admitted to gardening and swimming in the nude, but denied that she was a nudist. It's terrific that Silverstone enjoys the freedom of not wearing clothes, but her nudist denial is inherently dishonest, merely a ploy to prevent her from being tagged with the label.

We need more media personalities like "Dear Abby" to come out and say that the nudist or naturist lifestyle is perfectly OK.

Another positive in the media is the writings of Detroit Day Trips Examiner Laura Leyrer, who has now created a new category for Nudist Adventures, which should do a great deal to promote nudism in the Midwest. I don't know Laura, but her avatar shows her with a bright, beaming smile, and her skin with the healthy glow of sunshine. With all the male nudist bloggers and writers out there, it's refreshing to have a woman's point of view on the issues.

Readers of this blog are encouraged to write to Dear Abby and Laura Leyrer to thank them for their endorsements.

Damage Control

With California now set to crack down on nudity on state beaches, AANR is spinning wildly to do damage control on its decision to throw San Onofre Beach under the bus.

...other venues where nudity has been traditionally enjoyed may be under threat now that California’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling regarding the Cahill Policy. This situation is, of course, what the American Association for Nude Recreation feared could happen when the Naturist Action Committee filed suit against the California Parks System.

What a crock. Nudity was under threat the minute the California Department of Parks and Recreation declared an end to nude sunbathing on San Onofre. It was not the NAC's lawsuit which caused this, so blaming them is appalingly disingenuous. What AANR really did was hedge its bets, taking a path of appeasement with the DPR instead of doing the right thing and standing up for naturist rights. It was not hard to predict the the NAC lawsuit would ultimately fail, mainly because it was over administrative process, claiming that the DPR did not go through the proper procedures to ban naturism from San Onofre.

AANR is urging everyone to stick to the facts, but is failing to present a full and honest explanation, in my opinion. The fact is that AANR has nothing, only some vague communications and what they call an "atmosphere" with the DPR, and when they ultimately come up empty-handed they are prepared to blame the NAC lawsuit for poisoning the waters of negotiation. This is all merely political posturing and does nothing for the interests of nudists and naturists.

The DPR must have been delighted when AANR failed to join the NAC lawsuit, and sensing a split and weakness in the nudist community, they played AANR for the fool, taking them out of the game with empty promises. Now that the DPR is set to start banning nudity in other areas, the fact that they cannot be trusted has become abundantly clear.

Blind faith in political leaders, and trusting them to do the right thing, leads to loss of freedoms and civil rights.

It's time for AANR to admit its mistake and work to unite all nudists and naturists to fight this threat.

When Do They Need a Fig Leaf?

: The New York Times today has an exploration of childhood nudity, how it's so natural and spontaneous, and the hang-ups of the adults who struggle to deal with it.

For many parents, allowing a child to run around naked at home is perfectly natural, an expression of physical freedom that represents the essence of childhood, especially in the summer. But for others, unclad bodies are an affront to civility, a source of discomfort and a potentially dangerous attraction for pedophiles. These clashing sensibilities can create conflict, even when the nudity in question takes place at home.

With all the regulations and ordinances against public nudity in America, how long will it take for lawmakers to begin looking behind closed doors, such as in the case brewing against Jasmine Trail in North Carolina? The American distaste of any public display of flesh is irrational to the point of being paranoid, that the mere sight of a nude toddler is bound to attract perverts, pedophiles and child killers. The DA in the Jasmine Trail investigation is going after the nudist campground, not for any specific complaint or incident, but merely because the fact that there are nude people on the property must mean that something untoward is going on. Usually people are upset when they see actual nudity, but in this case someone is going after nudity that cannot be seen.

Aly Mandel, 41, a school psychologist and mother of five in Highland Park, N.J., said she, too, felt ire from extended family members for allowing her daughter Ava, now 6, to roam naked in and around the house when she was younger.

“My mother, it used to drive her crazy how naked Ava was,” Ms. Mandel said, explaining that the girl abhorred clothes. “My mother-in-law also, they both felt it crossed the line of what was appropriate. My mother-in-law would come in and automatically say, ‘Ava, put on your clothes. Put on your underwear.’ ”

There is no rational reason for ordering a toddler to put on clothes. People will always tell you that it's "indecent", or "inappropriate", but they cannot tell you why. It's transference of adult shame, built up over years of cultural mores and religious teachings. This is what nudism and naturism allows people to unlearn. In as little as 10 minutes a first-time social nudist will realize that all the modesty, all the hiding behind clothes, all the body issues, and all the discomfort of textiles on flesh suddenly begin to melt away. The sight of a nude person of any age is no longer shocking, it becomes normal.

Sometimes it’s the grandparents who are more permissive. Robert Kohlbrenner thought nothing of it last summer when his grandchildren, two boys, ages 4 and 10, and a girl, 6, asked if they could skinny-dip by the dock on a very hot day at his home on Oneida Lake in upstate New York.

“I think it’s fun for them,” said Dr. Kohlbrenner, 58, a psychologist in private practice, who found out later that his son did not approve. “If you can’t do it when you’re a kid, when can you do it, you know?”

How about all your life? Last weekend I saw a couple who appeared to be at least in their seventies, wearing nothing but floppy hats, socks and shoes. They were walking hand in hand by the pool, comfortable with their own nudity just like innocent toddlers. Forget ambition, forget the paper chase, or the pursuit of money - if you want true personal peace, just get naked and have some fun like those skinny-dipping children.

Around the age of 3 or 4, children begin to differentiate between what’s private and what’s public, experts say, and they usually begin to feel modesty soon after. But parents’ attitudes play the largest role in determining whether children are comfortable being naked at home, said Lawrence Balter, a psychologist at New York University and the editor of “Parenthood in America,” an encyclopedia.

“If someone has what appears to be an overly strong reaction to seeing young children running around naked, it tells us about their own hang-ups, their own inner conflicts,” Dr. Balter said.

Yes, thank you. Beware the person who overreacts to simple, non-sexual nudity. Anyone who can only see something sexual in nudism and naturism likely has psychological problems that are more than cultural. When Rep. Mark Foley attacked nudist camps for having children on the premises, he later turned out to have an attraction to teenage boys. When Rev. Ted Haggard attacked homosexuals from the pulpit, he later admitted to having gay sex with a male prostitute.

John Louie, 38, a vice president at the Mattel toy company, said that he is “definitely protective” of his daughter, but that modesty plays a larger role.

At a party at a friend’s home recently, Mr. Louie bristled when the hosts let their 4-year-old daughter splash naked in a children’s pool, and his wife allowed Rebecca to join in. “I don’t want to see her naked and, frankly, I don’t want to see other kids running around naked either.”

Well why not? What is it about the sight of naked children which causes people to bristle and turn away? I would think most people would smile, or laugh, at the sight of chidren at play, clothed or unclothed. Bottling up the natural instincts of children to shed their clothes only teaches them body shame, that there is something wrong and repulsive about their flesh. Adults should not be transferring their own guilt, false modesty and irrational fears to their children. We are all born with nude bodies, we all see ourselves when we change clothes or bathe, so why is it so shocking when we see someone's else's nude body?

We need to step back in time a little bit, when nude swimming at the YMCA was the norm, when kids skinny-dipping in a local pond were the inspiration for a Norman Rockwell illustration, and when schools required gang showers after physical education classes. There is nothing wrong with the sight of a human body that some good old-fashioned social nudity cannot cure.

UPDATE: Here is a good response to the NYT article from a naturist.
UPDATE 2: Whatever happened to naked summers?

Nude Beach Scene "More Active" Today

That's what the San Francisco Bay Guardian is reporting, but along with that increased nudity is a "jump in warnings for rude or illegal behavior being given by park police and rangers." The article attributes the poor economy as a factor sending more and more people to the beaches instead of taking more expensive vacations. The overall situation is very fluid, with increased law enforcement, the apparent loss of San Onofre Beach as a clothing-optional venue, and the one positive possibility of making Muir Beach exempt from anti-nudity laws. On top of those situations is the California economy, which is basically bankrupt, threatening the closure of 220 state parks and beaches.

Although nude activity is increasing, the push back from law enforcement and government agencies appears to be on the upswing, too.

Related articles by Zemanta

• SFBG Nude Beaches Guide Arrives! (sfist.com)
• Responsible Nudity: Famed clothing optional Muir Beach has... (sf.curbed.com)
• Nude Man Masturbating On Marin Nude Beach (sfist.com)

Worst Case Scenario

Image via Wikipedia

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the storm surrounding Jasmine Trail Nudist Resort in North Carolina, and I have a lot of questions. You can refresh your memory by reading my takes here and here, and the news reports here and here.

Why hasn't Johnny Clevinger been charged with manufacturing child pornography?

What was the nature of the complaints which called police to the Clevinger home a dozen times, and who were the complaintants?

In the "hundreds of photos" found of other children, were they nudes? If so, did Clevinger take these photos, or are they from books and magazines?

The reports say that Clevinger was planning on making a visit to Jasmine Trail, but that he was arrested before he could go. Was Clevinger a member, and had he visited there in the past? Did he visit other nudist or naturist venues?

Why did Jasmine Trail remove all nude photos of both adults and children from their website? Were they advised by an attorney, or by AANR, or did they just panic?

Why was Clevinger's bond increased from $50,000 to $250,000?

Why is Jasmine Trail the subject of an investigation if there have been absolutely no complaints?

Since there have been no complaints, why does Department of Social Services director Bob Johnson say that parents who take their children to Jasmine Trail should be charged with neglect and that it would be "a very easy case to prove?"

Since there have been no complaints, why is District Attorney Scott Thomas planning on asking lawmakers to place age restrictions on nudist resorts?

One possible answer to all these questions comes to mind.

The DA and police were probably frustrated with the numerous complaints against Clevinger, which were likely over nude photos which didn't rise to the level of real child pornography, which is probably why he was never arrested before now, and why he has not been charged with kiddie porn.

Instead, the DA decided to charge Clevinger with "taking indecent liberties with a minor and first degree sexual exploitation of a minor", focusing more on the man's behavior rather than on the photos themselves.

Knowing that this would be more difficult to prove in court, the DA decided to ratchet up his investigation to include Jasmine Trail Nudist Campground, even calling in the FBI in order to lend a sense of urgency to his crusade.

If he can convince the public that naturism is a sexual behavior, and that naturist parents are guilty of neglect, and that nude photos on a resort's website are exploitative, then that strengthens his case against Clevinger, who is described as a naturist parent.

To me, this appears to be a classic witch hunt, in concert with a local television station which has provided sensationalism and a bias against naturism designed to rouse the rabble to stand behind this DA who promises to protect the children of North Carolina.

He's also planning on consulting with the Attorney General and lawmakers to write new legislation against naturists. This guy is covering all the bases, hoping at least something will stick so he can use it against Clevinger.

This is all my opinion, of course, but it seems to make some sense. Take note that the stories never refer to Clevinger as a pedophile, child molester or a pornographer - instead, words like "inappropriate", "indecent liberties", "exploitation", and "intent" are thrown around.

Worst case scenario is that this district attorney succeeds in hanging Clevinger for having non-sexual nude photos of a child (or children) by taking down Jasmine Trail and legislating nudism in the process. While Mark Foley failed in demonizing nudist resorts in Florida, this DA could succeed because he's creating a climate of anti-nudism - witness the recent online unscientific poll which found that nearly 70% of respondents support age restrictions at nudist venues. The poll proves nothing since it could have been bombed by a mobilized effort to skew the results, but anyone watching the TV station or reading their website will now believe that the vast majority of people want children out of nudism altogether.

The first shots in the public relations war over this particular case have been fired, all from one side. Do nudist and naturist organizations have the mettle and means to fight back? Time will tell.

FBI Investigating North Carolina Nudist Resort

WITN News reports that North Carolina District Attorney Scott Thomas and the FBI are looking into the Jasmine Trail Nudist Campground "where kids are naked with adults, and the campground's website that shows pictures of naked kids."

Thomas says his office is looking into whether any state laws like indecent exposure or exploitation are being broken. He's also asked the FBI to take a look at the Jasmine Trail website and advertisements to see if any federal laws are being violated.

Another big concern is the possibility that places like Jasmine Trail could attract pedophiles. Thomas says, "When you have children involved and children being exposed to other adults and certainly other adults not even related and they're there with no clothes on it certainly, in my mind, raises a security issue and safety issue for the child."

Thomas says he wants new legislation to ban children from nudist venues. AANR is defending the resort.

American Association for Nude Recreation spokeswoman, Carolyn Hawkins, says there is nothing inappropriate, lewd, sexual, or perverted about what's going on. "Having a child at a nudist resort...It's just one of the, in my opinion, one of the greatest things that I've ever done in my life. My children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren are all nudists."

It needs to be said up front and clearly that there are NO COMPLAINTS against Jasmine Trail, this is entirely a manufactured controversy by an overzealous attorney general who is not interested in the law, but in furthering his own political career.

Be sure to watch the video here from WITN TV, which treats the subject like Chris Hansen entrapping child predators on Dateline, with the reporter standing outside the resort saying that the owners refused to talk to him. AANR spokesperson Carolyn Hawkins in a phone interview is no match for DA Thomas and Human Services Director Bob Johnson, who are interviewed on camera expressing their concerns about "fit" parents and conflicted children. Johnson says that in an ideal world family nudism would be OK, but that in a realistic world such activity is bad.

"We would have to look at the area from the standpoint of neglect and I think it would be a very easy case to prove."

This has been coming for some time now, with increased hysteria over pedophiles, child pornography, and teen sexting. Make no mistake here - with the involvement of the FBI, these people intend to bust the owners and members of Jasmine Trail for child exploitation, neglect, indecent exposure and child pornography, which would be the beginning of the end for all family nudist venues.

Take children out of nudism, and you kill nudism. Simple as that. This is Mark Foley all over again, but this time with the FBI involved, and in a region of the country which might be more willing to condemn nudism. In the minds of these public officials, and through the damning television report, the people at Jasmine Trail have already been found guilty.

NOTE: It appears that all photographs of children have been removed from the Jasmine Trail website, which is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Morley Schloss and Sunsport Gardens are about the only ones left in naturist cyberspace willing to post photos of children engaging in wholesome nude recreation.