No Place for Children

Guy W. Farmer is apparently a long-time critic of Burning Man, and a new column published today attacks the festival as being a magnet for sex offenders.

So where was Child and Family Services? Don't ask. When I visited Burning Man last year I saw a naked middle-aged man who could have been a child molester cavorting dangerously near “Kidsville.” My official escorts laughed it off, explaining that everyone goes naked at Burning Man, “the way God intended.” OK, but I don't think God intends to make young children readily available to sex offenders on public lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which makes more than $1 million a year off a Black Rock Desert bacchanal that grosses $12 million to $15 million each year for its Bay Area organizers.

I'm not recommending that people take their kids to Burning Man, but this sort of hyperventilating over sex offenders is not only overblown, it's patently dishonest. Farmer cites an example of the arrest of a 20 year-old man arrested on a warrant for some fondling incidents in Texas unrelated to Burning Man, and then he exclaims that "he wasn't the only sex offender at the event" without presenting any evidence to support this claim.

Attendance at the 2009 Burning Man festival peaked at an estimated 43,435 people on one day. That would make the event roughly the size of Rockville Maryland, a very upscale and respectable city in affluent Montgomery County, which has a registered sex offender list with 55 people, making the ratio of residents to offenders 1104 to 1. By contrast, Burning man has a 43,435 to 1 ratio, if you go by Farmer's claims.

If you accept Farmer's argument, then you must conclude that the city of Rockville is no place for children.

Farmer's beef with Burning Man seems to be primarily that the festival is held on public lands, and his dishonest use of statistics is exactly how the California Department of Parks and Recreation has attacked the nude sunbathers at San Onofre Beach.

What is really at the heart of these attacks is the nudity - some people cannot accept the unclothed human body as the natural state. They believe that the addition of clothing, even a scanty bathing suit, will magically transform people into law-abiding citizens, while ignoring the fact that virtually all crimes are committed by people wearing clothes.

More and more nude events are being held on public lands -the World Naked Bike Ride, Spencer Tunick's photo installations, Bare-to-Breakers, Burning Man and the Fremont Solstice Parade, and more. Not only are these events well-attended and widely accepted, they have become modern traditions.

In a recent post on her Open Source Sex blog, Violet Blue wrote, "Those who can’t be bothered to understand can just suck it up. Or, they can live in the present with the rest of us and quite worrying what people think. This is the new school of life."

Now Violet is talking about sex, but the same attitude can and should be adopted by naturists in gaining more widespread acceptance. As The Academic Naturist recently wrote in his Guerrilla Naturism essay, "I believe that the primary reason that people don't like us is because they don't understand us, followed by the opinion that we are a rare group. The solution is to educate. We need to show that there are a lot of us, that nudity itself isn't bad, and that we are good people just like them."

I don't think the folks at Burning Man give a hoot what people like Guy W. Farmer think, and have no interest in educating anybody. Same for the folks at Bare to Breakers and other events. Much of this public nudity has little to do with defined naturism - it's a form of rebellion, a pushing back against the society and culture which has turned the human body into a product, something to be adorned, altered and admired for its appearance, and not its essence.

So Guy W. Farmer can rant and rail all he wants against Burning Man and other events with public nudity, and cry that they are somehow dangerous for children, but he ignores the overwhelming numbers of young people who are participating in these events. No place for children, Guy? These are your children, and they're not happy with the schizophrenic culture your generation has created, a society steeped in pornography and sexual imagery, yet still sexually repressed and immature.

So remember, Guy - at Burning Man, they are burning you.

Myth-information

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.

NAC Bashes AANR

While TNS (The Naturist Society) members frolic at the annual Eastern Gathering, the NAC (Naturist Action Committee) has released an update on California's San Onofre Beach which is basically an attack on AANR (American Association for Nude Recreation).

The tempest is based upon AANR's receipt of a letter from Tony Perez, Acting Deputy Director for Park Operations in California, which basically reiterates the 1979 "Cahill policy" which states that nude recreation is allowed in all state parks unless there is a complaint by a private citizen. While the original policy makes no exceptions as to which public lands fall under the rule, apparently the new Perez letter designates "remoteness" as a condition for clothing-optional use.

NAC appears to have a valid point. AANR does not mention the "remoteness" limitation in its "Government Affairs" column in the May 2009 bulletin. Alonzo Stevens, AANR Government Affairs Chair, implies that the Perez letter offers assurance that "the Cahill Policy was not threatened in the state of California, with the exception of San Onofre, because of the litigation." In fact, the exact words in the letter are as follows:

Since 1979 the Cahill Policy has tolerated nude sunbathing in remote state park areas up to the point where a complaint is received from a member of the public. It remains in effect as a practical approach to enforcement of CCR Section 4322 in remote areas.

The original Cahill letter makes no mention of "remoteness" as a condition, so this is indeed a new interpretation.

I agree with NAC that the notion of "remoteness" as being a necessary component of a clothing-optional beach is dangerous, because keeping such areas away from populated areas will only further stigmatize nude sunbathing, and will no doubt draw unwanted sexual activity.

The question also seems to be whether of not the Perez letter is official policy. In the case of the 1979 Cahill Policy, a letter was sent to park officials statewide, and I don't see any evidence that the "remoteness" condition has been widely distributed, but its clear that at the very least, Perez considers it to be his policy.

AANR claims that California's Parks and Recreation Department "wishes to partner" with AANR on a "neutral project", whatever that means. This could just be an effort to "appease" the nudist community by offering a remote piece of land for clothing-optional use, and to make the issue go away.

Or, AANR could be playing the fool, cleverly drawn out of the current beach fight by the DPR with the promise of a partnership which will ultimately be reneged upon if and when the state succeeds in banning naturists from San Onofre.

Or, for all you cynics out there, AANR could be deliberately trying to derail the public lands issue in California in order to force more people into private clubs and resorts.

As Abraham Lincoln once said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." NAC and AANR should be united on this issue, but blind ambition and foolish politics are pitting the two organizations against one another. It's getting ugly, and ultimately members of both organizations stand to lose more than they gain. But who is right on this issue?

NAC claims that AANR is willing to throw San Onofre Beach under the bus in order to further its own agenda. That does appear to be the case.

AANR has sold its soul to the devil on this issue. Since the Court of Appeals is set to issue a ruling soon on the San Onofre case, AANR is betting that the Department of Parks and Recreation will ultimately win, even if it loses in the short run. While the DPR is currently obligated to enforce the Cahill Policy, it will likely attempt to make changes through administrative process, and the "remoteness" condition appears to be their goal.

Clothing optional beaches must be accessible, visible, legal and family-friendly. Banishing nudists and naturists to remote areas only further marginalizes the lifestyle, attracts the perverts and the creeps, and ultimately makes it easier for governments to shut down the activity altogether.

AANR needs to join the NAC in fighting to keep the Cahill Policy in effect as it was originally written in 1979. Anything less is a defeat for nudists and naturists everywhere. In the short run, by siding with the DPR, AANR will no doubt continue to claim victory, especially if an official clothing-optional area is created in a remote area of California. Such a "victory" would be short-sighted and hollow.

You can donate to the NAC here.