Naturism is not:
- just sunbathing
- just visiting nudist clubs
- just going nude in or around the house
- just eating, washing and entertaining guests in the nude
- just camping, hiking, or canoeing in the nude
- just writing and talking about it.
Naturism is all of these things and more. It not only represents a value system shared by over 20 million people worldwide, it also represents a lifestyle, a way of life.
In more conservative Western societies such as Canada, England and the United States, naturism presents hurdles for those who embrace its gymnos philosophy – hurdles of public and private roles, image definition, balancing textile (clothed) and naturist behaviors, and of habitation arrangements regarding location, privacy and access.
As with other things people hold true or worthwhile, naturism is called upon to be defended or justified. Due to its basic value of body shamelessness, it is defended more frequently than believing in abortion, nuclear defense, or gay/lesbian rights. This is in part because strangers and even friends have never asked themselves: Are clothes necessary? Why? or, why must the moral majority prevail over this particularly primordial life ethos? What virtues has ‘civilized’ modern society gained over our ancient nude cultures to make our birth nakedness (as nature intended) now immoral, disgusting, lewd and to be hidden from view? What happened to those tens of thousands of years of body acceptance?
For some advocates today, naturism represents a kind of ‘social movement’, akin to Green Peace, Amnesty International, Pro-Choice, and so forth. It has several characteristics that help define it this way: 1. a defined philosophy, 2. a central political core (INF, FCN, INA), 3. active (several no deceased) protagonists (Erickson, Weinberg, Vais, Baxandall, Cunningham, Hill, Erlickmyer, Williams, Scheller), and 4. internal communication devices (INF Newsletter, Going Natural, ASA Bulletin, Australian H & E, Naturist Society N & N). It lacks however, several more defining aspects of a true movement: a) a shared and clearly defined set of strategies; b) effective charismatic and/or consistent leadership; c) a wide supportive economic base; d) unified human resources.
A ‘collective conscience’ across the world has never been achieved among naturists because:
- in several European countries (France, Denmark, Germany, Holland Bulgaria) it has not been necessary to coalesce because most practical naturist recreational needs have been met through protective by-laws or local ordinances;
- the sub-groups (ASA,BNS, INF, FCN, ANF, etc.) are fractured among themselves over issues of leadership, goals, and priorities;
- relatively few precedents in law have been won in most non-European countries (except Canada), through collective or cooperative efforts;
- there are great economic and inter-member organizational difficulties (travel costs, postage, exchange rates);
- many member groups and federations of naturists are too busy fighting issues at home to lend time and resources for INF (global body) objectives.
In these ways, naturism differs from religions, cults, clubs and international organizations.
Source: Naturally Carolina
Original publication 31 October, 2020
Posted on NatCorn 3 weeks ago
Reference to an article does not infer endorsement of any views expressed.