Naturism, Sex, and All the Messy Bits We’re Not Supposed to Say Out Loud

31 Comments

1. Pingback: Naturism: What Replaces the Trigger of Nudity Equals Sex?

2. Thank you. Very wise words that would make this world a much better place…if only people were able to listen and not so narrow minded. Still,it is important that this message should be shared. Cheers to that!

   Loading...

   Reply
3. Pingback: Naturism vs Swinging: Why Being Nude Doesn’t Mean What You Think

4. Great article. Similar for my wife and I – we are not swingers but nudity is erotic for both of us.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. It can be. But it isn’t always.

      Loading...

      Reply

   2. I think it can be very sad when it is unnaturally taught that it should not be. I always like to say, and have said for a good while, “The body is athletic (more so nude). The body is beautiful (more so nude). The body is vulnerable (more so nude). The body is mechanical (more so nude). The body is fluid (more so nude). The body IS art (more so nude). The body is sexual… You get it.” Fill in the blank.
      It is actually unfortunate in my opinion to train this natural truth out of existence. Eyes can be arousingly beautiful. The body IS erotic. Even minimizing this is a sad loss. We are almost always sexual if we are lucky enough. The key and EXCEPTIONALLY CRITICAL element is completely controlling our behaviors. Embrace a love for seeing things as sexual! But behave with respect and total control of self. I can walk down the sidewalk and smell the food from the cafes and see the people eating. My mouth may water. I may be inclined to order my own meal, but I seldom do. I have NO intention or desire to get in the faces of the diners, to ask them for food, to get others to notice when I have and am enjoying food, and certainly not to try to take their food. I just appreciate the sensory gift instead of convincing myself that it’s better to believe that because it would be inappropriate for me to take their food, I should become conditioned to not see it as desirable on its own merit. Some could say, “oh, but food is really for eating”. Well yes, but their food is not for me to eat. THAT is the important point for me to embrace. Further, food can serve as art without any plan for consumption. I could go on but -too much with the comparison, you probably understand I am guessing. Essentailly, what I am saying is HOORAY FOR YOU for keeping the eroticism in nudity. IT IS natural and it is a gift. It goes back to the quote I shared above. The body is so many many things, but erotic is not the least of them, and sexual activity should not have to be present to recognize AND appreciate this valuable quality. The problem is with turning “erotic” into something shameful or perceived as dangerous when it is, on its own, as objectively benign as nudity (while going hand in hand with it in natural conditions). Behavior is the standard that must be maintained. Keep that view alive and be grateful!

      Loading...

      Reply

5. Oh, and one more item I left out from the giant message I just sent a while ago and realized I needed to include… Even Nacktkultur (the forerunner of FKK) actually had a number of sexual elements (though not overt) without condemnation of such unless they drew the focus away from the core values of health and nature. In fact, Nacktkultur, in its formative years, operated in a less puritanical German cultural milieu, where nudity was more readily tied to naturalism and less aggressively divorced from sexuality. And, while Nacktkultur didn’t encourage sexual behavior, it didn’t condemn natural attractions or subtle eroticism with the same fervor, viewing them as part of the body’s natural state rather than a threat to the movement’s ideals. It didn’t focus on or invite sexual elements specifically, but… You get it. Even the roots of some of these organizations were more in line with what I am suggesting is more ideal, more natural, more historically present/founded, etc. But, as I have also presented, both FKK and the AANR required a “rewriting” of the rules in order to survive in their respective cultures at those times. They are not the way they are because it is the heart and soul that makes them great. They are the way they are because necessity is the mother of invention.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. We are not going to see eye to eye on this one. And that’s OK.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Having a voice definitely does not require seeing eye to eye. But, it is a precious treasure nonetheless. In this exchange you have provided that and honored the principle immensely well. Having a voice is about sharing perspectives, facts, learning, and hopefully respecting with an appreciation of greater contextual understanding. I do not have to agree with a Muslim, but I can deeply value discussion and the validity of another’s faith. Thank you again for the exchange. Thank you for encouraging people to think, process, and stretch beyond the most basic and lowest effort mental paths – even if doing so presents them with an uncomfortable struggle. You are brave in your community, and I appreciate that as well. Yes, that is OK ;-).

         Loading...

         Reply

6. Thank you again. This is refreshing for certain. I value the discourse.
   In your first reply, you referenced indigenous cultures where nudity was the norm and stated that “all treat social nudity as non-sexual”. I established that this is very much not the case. I even pointed to multiple real-world locations of modern day where social nudity and elements of sexuality are not mutually exclusive but do not bear almost any resemblance to “lifestyles” venues. I recognize that not all communal practices are “naturism”. However, it seems that anywhere public/social nudity is allowed, the organizations you referenced seem to believe they hold the ultimate truth and have authority to say what people can and cannot do to have “approved” social nudity. I am only stating that there ARE places and cultures where the safety, respect, comfort, and absence of concern for any of these things exists alongside the allowance for but NOT FOCUS ON elements of sexuality. To be clear, I was not inferring that the Roman baths were examples of 19th and 20th century nudism/naturism organizations. I tried to make that point clear in the original message. I apologize for not doing it as well as I might have. I was only pointing out that the group of which I am aligned (Christians) who in today’s world would be among those most likely to cry fowl about any hint of un-hidden sexuality, while on occasion being able to be fine with “non-sexual nudity” were in fact, in the early days, not bothered by it until a very specific central authority changed their objective lack of offense into a concern that incidentally is also one of the primary sources of the shame around nudity that exists today. That change is the key.
   You said, “Naturism is a modern philosophy that grew out of Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries”. As an organized group with a title? OK. But if that is the case, then social nudity practicing people of the past and of so many different cultures who did not officially have the name, seem to be blessed by the fact that they were not beholden to the same rules, because **based on their behaviors** those rules were not only unnatural, but 100% unnecessary for them to live peaceably, respectfully, happily, and healthily. So at best, these rules are an adaptation required to survive in a sick society, but touted while making erroneous claims about the ultimate truth, or lack of it behind them. At worst, they are an unnatural tangle and the reason such organizations find themselves at odds with so many others and so defensive all the time. Either way, if nudism/naturism can only be defined by these groups, they should not reference other cultures’ social nudity and most definitely should not tell others practicing social nudity what the rules are unless they own the land upon which such people are occupying. And, most of all -see next paragraph- they should not act as if their positions are absolute and universal truth where social nudity and safety/respect etc. are concerned.
   This is about objectivity and the fallacy of the organizations you mentioned to suggest or even imply that their rules regarding sexuality are actually somehow universal truths let alone anything resembling ideal. To be fair, if one views sexuality in the light they frequently do, because of the attitudes in those cultures (exhibitionists, voyeurs, pornographers, swingers, etc.), they are correct. You said, “if naturist spaces today blurred into sexual spaces, they would stop feeling safe for families, for women, for couples, for anyone who just wants to relax.” And my point has only been that this is ONLY TRUE because it has been taught through certain cultures, but it is absolutely not a universal truth as some would have it seem and as proven by the spaces and cultures I mentioned, which again, are only a sampling. Further, using the phrase “sexual spaces” is a significant element to gaining the key. Just because something sexual exists does not actually mean somewhere becomes a sexual space. One may eat in the park, but the park is not typically recognized as a dining space. It is concepts like this, that anything sexual makes a space a sexual space or that it must be relegated to a certain space that is objectively and historically simply almost only true when an authority figure or figures change nature to serve a purpose (generally control over others), and it has typically not led to a healthier treatment of the subject -often quite the opposite. In fact, this is very often when sexual things become especially pervy and creepy sorts begin to use it for control, humiliation, degradation, filth, etc. You said, “Naturism works precisely because people know the expectation: nudity does not equal sexual availability.” Two points here:
   1) This is only true if one gate-keeps naturism as defined by such organizations (addressed above). And I know the knee-jerk reaction will be to jump up at me saying that this is a deep line in the sand, but this reaction is because the paradigm is so entrenched in the minds of those organizations and adherents that they won’t even be able to understand what I am saying. They will read what they think rather than what I am actually getting at. If you just said “nudity does not equal sexual availability” and add the word “automatically” in there at the right spot, I would agree 100%. I said it because there really are plenty of places and cultures (as I identified specifically and *again* that was not all of them by any means) where a social nudity works very well and a very different approach applies. Often they tend to be places that such organizations or followers of those organizations might claim as falling under their “rules”, but they simply do not. *AGAIN*, there are in fact, a number of nude-friendly places where sex is really, really, NOT the focus, but if something sexual happens and people are not “in your face”, most will not make any fuss – particularly if someone is in an area somewhat away from others -clearly not trying to put on a show, but not necessarily “hidden” either. This is because it is not a big deal to them. People do not act like they would in N. America and so many other places. “You don’t even notice being around naked people after a while”… Yep, people don’t get crazy around the sexual elements in these places either. Sexual things aren’t always happening everywhere. These are not sexual spaces where people come to focus on sex. It is simply not a thing typically fussed over because it is not viewed and thus not typically presented in the diseased way so much of N. America and a good bit of the world deal with it. I fear we may not be able to keep it this way, in part thanks to N. American cultural influences -and in part a loud N. American & U.K. nudist community that wants to universally define what public nudity should and should not be, even for places and people who have practiced it MUCH LONGER THAN THEY HAVE. To be clearer, virtually nobody feels a basic erection needs to be covered, BUT virtually nobody acts like their swelling needs to be the center of attention and directed at anyone in particular either. If naturism can be defined as something that is not only restricted to outside of a formal organization’s rules, there are plenty of people (like myself) who see “lifestyles” venues as a truly sad perversion – a sort of sexual “psych ward”. Hey, their society helped put them there. It doesn’t mean they are bad people. Regardless, the people I align with and I am describing are people who love being at places where people do not care about nudity, that are truly, and I mean TRULY NOT focused on just sex. They are people who would generally not be impressed with other people acting like they are shooting a porno, but simultaneously, they do not cry foul and start quoting The Holy Book of N. American & UK nudist commandments if something sexual is implied or seen. They ARE respectful (perhaps more-so than many of the “official” nudist venues in N. America or the U.K.), but even more genuine/relaxed. In these locations it is just generally accepted as natural or healthy and to create objectively pointless fuss if a couple or individual may on occasion be visible with minimal effort, but perhaps not especially noticeable = nonsense. It is sort of like eating in public. People may seek a somewhat private place, but it they can be (and are seen) nobody is going to get crazy and throw the made up rules at them.
   2) I’ll quote you here again, “Naturism works precisely because people know the expectation: Nudity does not equal sexual availability”. The only reason that concept has truth in practice, is the objectively harmful but very subjective views of the cultures that the branding of naturism you are referring to was born. ********In the locations and cultures I have keep alluding to, with a relaxed attitude surrounding nudity and sexuality, nudity does not equal sexual availability either.******** The coexistence of both does not prevent their social nudity from “working” smoothly or people from feeling safe and relaxed.
   RESTATE:
   If “Naturism” can ONLY be defined by the men and women who “established” organizations, the organizations, they are in fact gate-keeping and defining the “rules” of ALL social nudity despite the undeniable reality that history and various other cultures have unequivocally PROVEN are not universally true and perhaps, not even ideal or especially healthy. This is really one of the key points. What they espouse may work great and be necessary in their respective cultures, but they are utterly not objective truth or even natural, though these groups and those who follow them frequently seem to crown themselves (often self-righteously) with the authority to do so for all who view social nudity as normal and healthy. As I’ve acknowledged, culturally, the rules they enforce in places (esp. N. America – ARE LIKELY NECESSARY FOR THEIR SURVIVAL). But, factually, as I keep pointing out, what they represent is more of an unnatural focus on nudity coinciding with what is socially found in their respective countries and so many cultures. Funny enough, most textiles view their thoughts on **non-sexual nudity** with the same *subjective* derision, incredulity, and similar reasons for concern as those organizations view anything sexual – yet, they do not, at least openly, recognize their position only objectively stands due to the societal demands where they operate. Are they necessary? YES! But not entirely for the reasons they state, and to suggest that other cultures where social nudity does not automatically exclude anything and everything related to “sexual”, need to “shut that down” and “put it where it belongs” = incredibly ape-like and uncivilized toward those who have found *natural* balance without the ugliness of the twisted and pervy culture. You can have both in a safe/civilized/relaxed world.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. We appreciate how much thought you’ve put into this, but here’s where we stand: naturism exists as it is. It’s a modern philosophy with its own roots, its own values, and its own boundaries. It doesn’t need to be justified by every culture in history, and it doesn’t need to absorb practices that mix nudity and sexuality in order to be valid.

      If someone wants to build a different philosophy that includes sexuality as part of social nudity, they absolutely can. But that would be their philosophy, not naturism. Just like we don’t go telling vegans they need to include meat in their diet because humans ate meat for millennia, we don’t accept that naturism needs to include sexuality simply because other cultures once blurred the two or still do. Naturism as a philosophy made a conscious choice about its boundaries… and those boundaries are exactly what make it work and what we love about it.

      At some point, we have to stop redefining terms to meet our own agendas. If someone wishes to create something new, go ahead. Maybe call it Retro-Pagan Lifestyle or The Church of Casual Sexology. But let’s be clear…. it wouldn’t be naturism. Naturism doesn’t need to be everything. It can be itself.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. And you make my point. “Naturism” gatekeeps social nudity behavior norms.
         1) “It’s a modern philosophy with its own roots, its own values, and its own boundaries.” — The organizations that you reference “gate-keep” what is “naturism”. The general spirit and ideas of their version of “naturism” have been alive and well LONG LONG before any of these organizations existed.
         2) “If someone wants to build a different philosophy that includes sexuality as part of social nudity…” What I have been pointing to is not building a different philosophy. It IS the original philosophy for eons and so many cultures worldwide. What these organizations define, THIS, is taking from that and building “a different philosophy”. And, it is one that actually does not work particularly well, but is simply the best they can do because of the cultures they exist in — hence (but not limited to) the derision and division/invasion in their own communities from outsiders and a handful of their own. The reason these organizations MUST (and again, I acknowledge they need to) be so unnatural (often MUCH more asexual than many textiles naturally are on a daily basis) is largely due to the philosophies the cultures maintain that lead them to treat *anything* sexual in the same way they treat nudity in general (which is extremely negative, unhealthy, imbalanced, and frankly tragic).
         3) “But that would be their philosophy, not naturism.” Again, what the organizations/groups call “naturism” existed in spirit so long before they came onto the scene, but they then re-defined… Not the other way around. Not totally unlike the Augustine shift in my own faith. After that, one could be whatever they wanted, but if they didn’t agree, they weren’t a good Christian (no matter how many other tenants they shared or the fact that they were only doing what existed before the new rules)… Is it true that, now, they were not true Christians? No. But someone in the organization decided THAT past stuff had nothing to do with the “true” practice they now proclaimed as real Christianity.
         4) “Just like we don’t go telling vegans they need to include meat in their diet because humans ate meat for millennia…” I would submit an alternate comparison might work better. It would be more like telling humans who ate meat soaked in natural juices for millennia “You are not the true meat eaters since you eat meat differently than our ‘modern philosophy with its own roots’ meat eaters organization determined to be the true order of meat eaters. Only prime-rib is real meat -AND, if you include ANY -and we mean *any* au jus, you are not practicing meat eating. It is only because we stick with prime-rib and avoid the au-jus entirely that we are able to be true meat-eaters and that you are ABLE to have the correct joy that we defined in meat eating. Au-jus is fine, in fact many of us like it too, but if you want to eat it, that is wonderful, don’t let anyone see it, do not mention it, do not show any sign of it. OR alternately, you must go do so with the people who swim in it, gargle it, bath in it, and splash it about on their faces expecting everyone to watch closely. But it has no place with real meat eaters. And, even though you’ve done this for so long, and live somewhere we have no control over, our rules still apply when we come to your tables. If you do not think so, we will make sure your restaurants and butchers get the message eventually so that you too can understand the benefits we have found as real meat eaters.” Not perfect, but perhaps more accurate.
         5) “Naturism as a philosophy made a conscious choice about its boundaries…” The organizations DID INDEED make a conscious choice — and… along with many of their devotees act as the ultimate authority gate-keepers to *attempt* (not entirely successfully I’ll add) to define what social nudity should and should not be for all participants – unless they go to “lifestyle” venues. This is true even in places those organizations do not operate or have jurisdiction over.
         *****************This is part of the challenge I am trying to nail down.****************
         6) “And those boundaries are exactly what make it work and what we love about it.” Those boundaries make it something, yes. However, without those boundaries (still boundaries, but NOT necessarily THE SAME boundaries), the general concept has worked (and does today) in places where people do not out and out seek, but do not go crazy condemning any and every element of sexuality that may or often may not present.
         7) “At some point, we have to stop redefining terms to meet our own agendas.” Exactly. Thank you! And this is what so many of these formal organizations (we’ll call them the “organized religion of ‘naturism'”) have done. Not the other way around. They took philosophies that already existed and re-wrote the rules to survive in the countries and cultures where they spawned.
         8) “Maybe call it Retro-Pagan Lifestyle or The Church of Casual Sexology.” How about “The Original Practitioners of Social Nudity Before the ‘Modern’ Philosophy”? Or we could just use no name at all because it is what humans from nearly all walks did and were – and in a few places still are. Thus, by nature, it does not need a title to attach to as one would if one is attempting to create and evangelize a set of constructed survival rules? That does make one think though. As a “church” or sort of organized religion, all the rules of the organizations could fit.
         I am GLAD that North America and the U.K. have champions for public nudity. I really am. It is something at least. However, I definitely do not want them acting sanctimonious, authoritative, and defining what is acceptable in the Netherlands, areas of Spain, parts of Sweden, areas around Greece/Crete, the Canary Islands, Croatia, and *so many* other places in Europe (and a few in Asia) that have not yet been fully missionaried by the great Church of “Modern Philosophy” Naturism. Thankfully, some countries and communities today do not need that amendment to their natural/nudist/social nudity practices like the sadly perverted North American culture genuinely does. I will say it again, it IS necessary there. It seems like when there is a problem with pervy sorts in the places I have referred to, sadly, it is usually American or British tourists (or individuals from even more repressed countries) acting out in despicable animal ways.
         The organizations are necessary there. They do not have a claim on “true naturism” or defining it no matter what they say. If people like the invented and artificial version of social nudity that those organizations carefully constructed, that is fine. It is fine as long as they do not try to proselytize and redefine (as you said) what natural social nudity entails and has entailed for so long and in so many other places that are not surrounded by such an unhealthy society. To be clear, I am NOT espousing beaches/parks that look like a porno shoot. It is actually the opposite really. We are talking very different realities that may be (especially) very hard to comprehend for most North Americans (and Brits). If one wants to say that “the naturist movements associated with these organizations have invented a social nudity construct that I happen to really enjoy.” I can 100% get with that statement. But, let us be clear. They have no right or even authority telling people anywhere other than their own properties, what the correct way is. Otherwise, they are gatekeeping at places they have no authority and where any social nudity is anything other than the brand they promote. This point is ESPECIALLY TRUE if they stand by the claim that anything that does not fit their definition is something else. If it is something else, then TRULY they have no jurisdiction and need to stop trying to “correct” (because what you said is not not true nudism and our rules are what make this beach, trail, campground, that we do not own or run, good). And this does not account for the challenges associated with using examples erroneously such as the suggestion that indigenous tribes did not have any trace of sexuality mixed with nudity to support the historicity/foundational strength of their philosophy. But then distancing from those cultures when it turns out, the implication does not hold. It is understandable. Making the attachment carries a suggestion (no matter how slight) that theirs (the organization’s ideas) are something more natural, less concerning, and what has always been. But like so much of the position, it ignores the simple truth. As you said, it is “a modern philosophy,” though simultaneously, it is really a modified—rewritten version of what has been from nearly the beginning of time (much to its credit and especially if it recognizes it even when that past is inconveniently proven to be otherwise than thought and espoused). Perhaps the organizations can more rightly and simply state that they invented a specific brand of social nudity with interesting rules that create an environment that is able to potentially function even in sexually damaged cultures. This would work logically, truthfully, and be a good start.
         I’ll let it be (for now) :-). MOST OF ALL – THANK YOU FOR CIVIL AND OPEN DISCUSSION WITHOUT RESPONDING LIKE ANGRY CHILDREN! I am so appreciative of you being able to have real exchange without either shutting down or being personally nasty. Bless you for such goodness. Really, you have high praise from me (for what it is worth) not only for you civility, but making it through my novels loaded with “*”, “ALL CAPS”, parenthesis a-plenty, and an generous dash of dashes. Thank you guys.

         Loading...

         Reply

7. I appreciate much of what you write. You guys are great! Thank you!
   I admit that as I read this, I was hearing the claim to be a rebel on the fringe in the nudist community, but kept thinking it sounded like smoke and mirrors. It was sort of, “Lookout! this is cutting-edge fringe talk here! But, we’re actually just going to say what is ultimately NOT any different than what the holy scriptures of the AANR say. But, if we say the word ‘sex’, we’re really, really wild. See how wild! Also, in case we did not make it clear, we agree adamantly 100% with everything that the nudists we are suggesting we differ from actually also say.” So yes, I admit, this is what I was getting from most of the column. BUT the “When Nude Sparks Desire” section REALLY hit with a satisfying authority! That, was the best part of the article by a country mile from my perspective and where I started to see that you “get it”.
   I believe your statements, “If you’ve ever been to a nude beach and thought ‘Wow,’ congratulations… you’re alive. The trick is not turning that thought into an action. Being turned on doesn’t give anyone license to leer, comment, or cross boundaries. Look, admire, don’t act.” should have been the entire article. The rest waters the message down in my opinion and ultimately, as I said, sort of just sounds like quoting the apostles of the AANR (but with an angle to try to make the message sound more exciting).
   Here’s my take after being a nudist for a good while. The U.S./N. America and much of the U.K. have an incredibly unhealthy and frankly weird/unnatural brand of nudism. In their culture, they generally process anything sexual in the same way that textiles process nudity. Saying, “we like sex” is not anything unusual. Both nudity and seeing sex on their own merit are objectively unable to normally harm a viewer. The textile cannot see how public nudity (regardless of if anything sexual is going on) can be anything other than obscene. The N. American nudist community cannot see how anything public that is *even remotely* sexual can be anything other than obscene. But objectively, the harm is almost entirely what is assigned to it -and assigning harm to something that is not only objectively harmless, but potentially GOOD, is a travesty. I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority do NOT live in societies that are ready to grasp this properly. However, there are countries outside the U.S. where sexuality and nudism are not, **100%** “one for here and another for there”. This does NOT mean there is pressure of sexualization as the article explains valuing and being free from. It means a healthy and un-perverted view of it. They are naturally intertwined (pun intended) without judgement unless someone is making an effort to be obscene (which would typically be a N. American etc. saying “LOOK AT ME SO I CAN GET OFF BECAUSE I HAVE A DAMAGED AND PERVERTED VIEW OF SEX AND NEED THIS TO HEIGHTEN MY EXPERIENCE — ie. *illness*). It is NOT — NOT — NOT the focus. It may even be rare, but it is also not unheard of or really given much concern unless people seem to BE the issue. In order for this to work though, almost an entire culture has to be conditioned so differently from N. American puritanical conditioning. I am ABSOLUTELY NOT saying everyone should go and try to turn things it into a sex show. I am saying that in a fully healthy and natural culture, sex, not entirely unlike public eating would be a non-issue as long as people are not trying to be obnoxious about things. I am not saying it would or should always be the expected focus. That is ACTUALLY THE OPPOSITE of what I am saying. I am pointing out that in cultures where sexual things are no more fussed about than nudity, it happens, people are fine, and this is likely far more natural and healthy psychologically than the almost cult-like religious practices of the AANR. Anyone can disagree and HATE what I am saying, but the facts are the facts and there are/have been tribes, as well as countries outside the U.S. and U.K. where reality proves these ideas to be true. The challenge is, in the N. America, hardly anyone can distinguish between seeing “sex” and seeing “porn”. They are *absolutely* NOT automatically or objectively the same, but in N. America most minds cannot separate them.
   Here is a kicker, because of the LONG HELD perverted view of most Americans and frankly MOST of the world, this harmful capacity DOES in fact create a REAL problem that I fully acknowledge and see as the reason the AANR HAS TO (***for its very survival***) have the rules and practices that it sadly does. Again, I am not saying we need to change things NOW. I AM saying that what you have now in N. America (out of societal necessity) is not anywhere close to what it would be if it were truly natural and as beautiful as we maintain. The part that makes it seem particularly sad is that over there, so many literally fail to even be able to see it. Frankly, I view exhibitionists as people who are ill as a result of turning nudity/sexuality into something they objectively are not. ****People should not “get off” because something is “naughty”. This is not healthy. They should be aroused and enjoy because something is beautiful and good****. Sadly, unless a culture/society can grasp and embrace this concept, sexuality at nudist venues WILL BE pervy, will be the realm of creepy people, and look/feel like a freak show of filth. I believe THIS is why we have the situation we have, but I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT DEFEND the approach you have at most of the N. American venues (and the U.K.) as being the best or even completely good. It simply is not, and this is precisely one of the reasons why you have the discussions as well as challenges you are seeing. You have a sickness over there and because of it, you have to take sad, but necessary precautions.
   And as perhaps the biggest shocker, this is all coming from a devout Christian who believes the world would be best off if people waited until marriage to have sex and then only did so with the person they are married to.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. Thank you for such a thoughtful response. We respect the depth of your perspective, but we see things differently on a few key points.

      First, on culture: while you suggest there are societies where nudism and sexuality are naturally integrated, most established naturist traditions actually draw the same line we’re defending. German FKK, Nordic sauna culture, and Indigenous communities where nudity was once the norm all treat social nudity as non-sexual. Where nudity and sexuality do mix.. Cap d’Agde, Hedonism, Desire… those aren’t naturist spaces. They’re lifestyle destinations borrowing the label, and versions of them exist in almost every country.

      Second, on the idea that we’re just echoing AANR, we disagree. Yes, AANR says “nudism isn’t sexual,” but often in a way that sounds like a legal disclaimer. We’re not repeating dogma… we’re articulating why boundaries matter, how they play out in real relationships, and what makes naturism feel safe. That’s not scripture… that’s our lived experience.

      Third, “look, admire, don’t act” is good advice, but it’s not the whole story. It doesn’t account for how people process vulnerability, how culture shapes perception, or how naturism fosters trust. That’s why we expand beyond the slogan.

      For us, naturism works because the baseline expectation is non-sexual social nudity. That’s the heart of it. It doesn’t deny sexuality exists (we’ve written plenty about intimacy and vulnerability) but sexuality belongs in private, not in the shared spaces where people come to breathe freely.

      So yes, we’ll keep drawing the line between naturism and sexuality. Because without it, you don’t get safe communities. You just get chaos with a nudist label slapped on top.

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Thank YOU for not responding with indignation and rage. Your last comment is profound. It is profound because it *is* true in the cultures I identified, but what you said about nudist communities outside of those you mentioned does not ring true. And I personally believe “lifestyle” venues are a symptom of illness that has been created and nurtured by the society I previously described.
         You said, “Indigenous communities where nudity was once the norm all treat social nudity as non-sexual. ”
         This is simply not true. This will be long, but hopefully helpful. What you said mostly only rings true **AFTER** Euro/Christian influences taught them how ashamed they should be. I will site a few examples to make my point, but they are NOT by any stretch the limit of valid examples. The first stretch will be a little extreme, but it is to address not only the concept of sex always being viewed as private and for good reason but to go *extreme* (which yes, is MUCH FARTHER than I AM PERSONALLY willing to concede comfort) and combat the objective validity of the “family setting” mantra. I clarify because otherwise what I will include would ABSOLUTELY SOUND DISGUSTING AND CREEPY. There is no alternate agenda here. Context – I am NOT saying all could or should jump to such a reality. I am only suggesting that the arguments that exist that have eliminated such a reality in so many places, among so many cultures, and definitely the less “liberal” extensions of those concepts (ie. I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT personally saying throw children into the exposure list) are not objectively sound and yes, may even *ultimately* be a source of more negative than good. So hold on tight and here we go:
         Let us start with anthropological accounts of certain indigenous cultures, particularly Polynesian societies like pre-contact Hawaii (before European influence in the late 18th century). In these communities, sexual activity was often not treated as a private matter, and there was little to no stigma or concern about it being observed by family or community members, including in shared living spaces. This openness extended to children, who commonly learned about sex through direct observation without the guilt, shame, or taboos prevalent in many Western cultures.
         Key Examples from Anthropological Research
         * Pre-Contact Hawai’i:
         * Sexual behaviors were permissive and celebrated as a natural, pleasurable part of life, akin to eating or other daily activities. Genitals were viewed as sacred (with chants and songs honoring them), and nudity was common in family and communal settings, such as bathing or swimming, without sexualization.
         * Privacy was minimal due to communal living in hale noa (family houses), where sex often occurred in shared spaces. This created a form of “public privacy,” where family members, including children, could witness sexual activity without it being remarked upon or considered inappropriate.
         * Children learned about sex openly through observation of parents, relatives, or even animals, starting from a young age. Masturbation and early sexual exploration were encouraged and socially approved, with no concepts of “premarital” or “extramarital” sex, illegitimacy, or monogamy restrictions.
         * Comparisons to Western cultures highlight lower rates of sexual dysfunctions (e.g., impotence, lack of desire, or orgasm issues), which were reportedly rare. This is attributed to the absence of guilt, shame, or anxiety around sex, unlike in societies influenced by Judeo-Christian values where such problems are more common. Pre-contact Hawai’i also had no sexually transmitted diseases until European arrival, further contributing to a lack of sexual health concerns.
         * Similar Patterns in Other Polynesian Cultures:
         * In Mangaia (Cook Islands), a related Polynesian society, sex was similarly open, with young people trained in sexual techniques and activities occurring in communal contexts. Children were exposed to sex as a normal part of life, and anthropological studies (e.g., by Donald Marshall) note low incidences of sexual neuroses or dysfunctions compared to Western norms.
         * Samoa, as documented by anthropologist Margaret Mead in Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), featured casual attitudes toward sex. Children grew up witnessing sexual activity and other life events (like birth and death) in communal settings without shielding, fostering a relaxed view of sexuality. Mead argued this contributed to smoother adolescent transitions and fewer psychological issues around sex, though her work has been critiqued for potential idealization.
         * Broader Indigenous Contexts:
         * Among some North American indigenous groups, like the Wendat (Huron), communal longhouses housed multiple families, and ceremonies (e.g., endakwandet) involved public sexual activity as a form of healing or celebration, with little emphasis on privacy. Sex was seen as something to embrace without guilt, and women’s sexuality was respected.
         * In other cases, such as certain Amazonian or Himalayan tribes (e.g., Zo’é or Ladakhi), non-monogamous practices and fluid gender roles were integrated into community life, with sexual expressions not hidden. Anthropologists note that in these settings, diverse sexualities were normalized in family structures, potentially reducing stigma-related issues.
         Perspectives on Harm and Development
         Anthropological studies suggest that in cultures where sex is framed as natural and positive—without Western associations of sin or secrecy—exposure to sexual activity (including by children) does not inherently lead to trauma or problematic behaviors. Instead, it may support healthy development by promoting body positivity, consent, and realistic expectations. For instance:
         * Low rates of sexual dysfunction or problematic sexual behaviors (PSBs) (interpreting this as problematic sexual behaviors, such as abuse, inhibition, or disorders) are linked to the cultural absence of shame. Research contrasts this with Western societies, where privacy norms and moral judgments can exacerbate issues like anxiety or objectification.
         Now, a couple of additional items to include:
         1) I am NOT talking about exhibitionist pervy and creepy behavior. I am talking about cultures and mindsets that do not make a fuss if someone is doing something sexual. They DO exist where naturists/nudists thrive together. This is extremely different from someone trying to essentially get their arousal as they try/desire to get everyone else’s attention – WANTING TO BE WATCHED playing a large role in their motivation. For example, there are a number of places around the Canary Islands where one can engage in sexual activity, and where people often do, and it is visible to anyone who makes a minimal effort to observe, BUT the object is not “lifestyle” perversion. It is simply a choice that does not involve people needing to conceal OR people needing to get everyone to watch. It is more of a smile and an “oh, good for them” if they happen to be observed and nobody feels affronted. To quote my first message, “People should not “get off” because something is “naughty”. This is not healthy. They should be aroused and enjoy because something is beautiful and good”. HOPEFULLY this can stay pure in the Canary Islands and not polluted by the (often Americans) who are ill from most of N.American and similar views. There are a number of places like this around Croatia as well. In fact there are SO many others around Europe and even some in Asia where nudism/naturism and sex are often together, but NOT in the disgusting, degrading, “need it/doing IT AS A KEY SOURCE of arousal” yes, “creepy” way that most of N. Americans would and how the AANR ends up seeing it. I acknowledged the AANR has to have it’s rules. I just see them as a less than ideal defense against an unfortunately very damaged culture. And yes, FKK is similar in its premise, but a visible erection at FKK settings is actually not totally unheard of and in practice, unless someone is acting like they need everyone’s attention, NOBODY really cares! Further, head over to the Netherlands here, and Vondelpark allows for sexual activity in the open in the evening. No fuss, and NOT a lifestyles venue like the places you mentioned that, I again, personally see as the sexual versions of crack houses (no pun intended this time) or opium dens.
         2) In the Roman baths, even early Christians would have observed sex acts yet they enthusiastically flocked to those baths without offense initially. Post Augustine era Christianity is where nearly all of our western views of sexuality and the “naughtiness” of nudity arise from. Before this, there were a few Christian voices that expressed concern over Christians potentially being tempted to fornicate or commit adultery, but being in the presence of the acts wasn’t even widely condemned. The point is, even THEY did not struggle with this concept. A significant reason much of the world does IS in large part associated with post Augustine teachings.
         Thank you for hearing me out. I REALLY DO appreciate you guys. It is good to be able to have civil talk about these things.

         Loading...

         Reply

         1. Thank you again for such a detailed reply. You’ve clearly dug deep into anthropology, and it’s interesting to see how different societies in history handled nudity and sexuality. We don’t disagree that cultures have existed where sexuality was more open or public, and that Western religion has shaped much of the shame we still wrestle with.

            But naturism isn’t a catch-all for every communal practice in human history. If it were, we’d be calling Roman bath orgies “naturist events” or insisting medieval flagellants were pioneers of the lifestyle. History has plenty of extremes. Naturism doesn’t need to borrow or carry them all.

            Naturism is a modern philosophy that grew out of Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, built around health, equality, body acceptance, and yes… non-sexual social nudity. That boundary is what makes naturism what it is and it’s why every serious naturist federation in the world (AANR, INF, FKK, BN, FCN, etc.) sets it so clearly.

            Anthropology is valuable, but it doesn’t override the lived reality that if naturist spaces today blurred into sexual spaces, they would stop feeling safe for families, for women, for couples, for anyone who just wants to relax. Naturism works precisely because people know the expectation: nudity does not equal sexual availability. That’s the line we’ll always defend.

            Loading...

            Reply

8. Fantastic and beautiful blog

   Loading...

   Reply

9. The ‘s-word’ shouldn’t be taboo subject for us naturists.
   As a naturist couple we’re not ashamed to also be proudly very sex-positive.
   Whilst respecting the normal boundaries for naturism and sex, we can appreciate how both can sometimes overlap too.
   We’re humans with natural desires!

   Loading...

   Reply

10. Nice article which clearly explains sex & naturism are two different entities & at the same time both sex & naturism corresponds each other..Beautifully written…

    Loading...

    Reply

11. Very well summarized. Fun to read.
    This is how naturism and sex- / body positivity go together.

    Sexuality is taken as something joyful and positive.
    Naturism is open to very different aspects.
    Naturists are neither asexual, nor addicted to sex.

    Loading...

    Reply

12. Thank you so much for writing this piece. I could not agree more with you and I am so very happy that someone said sex and naturism in the same sentence and embraced it, expressed it and clarified what , I am sure, a lot of us feel. Sex should not be taboo but like you said it should be kept between those expressing themselves. I always am so reluctant to say any of what you said for fear of eternal damnation. Thank you for for bringing this to the surface so beautifully. It perhaps opens the door too perspectives on the dreaded erection. Thank you for writing these articles. I think you two are amazing.

    Loading...

    Reply

    1. We wrote our opinion about erections as well: https://ournaturistlife.com/2025/06/08/naturism-and-erections/

       Loading...

       Reply

13. Truth and honesty. My favorite.

    Loading...

    Reply

14. Spot on.
    Step 1: Spend a lovely day naked at the resort; pool, hot tub, sauna, sun.
    Step 2: Head back to the condo and open the dating apps.

    Loading...

    Reply

15. Very well written, and a point that (sadly) needed to be made. Well done!

    Loading...

    Reply

16. Well said. I spend much of my time naked. Does that mean I never pleasure myself? Get real!

    Loading...

    Reply

17. Very well writ indeed! And it brings up the issue (which shouldn’t be an issue) of sexuality and gender expression among naturists. I for one have met LGBTQ+, swinger and poly naturists who are as committed to naturist ideals as any “vanilla” naturist. (Who’s truly vanilla? But that’s for a different blog.) Why do so many feel the need to police others’ sexual activity?

    Loading...

    Reply

18. Great article! Definitely going to watch the comments on this one lol

    Loading...

    Reply

19. Great article and 100% true, Naked does not and never has equalled Sex. I have really good friends who I hug and have great conversations and we have NEVER seen each other in clothes. Only at Naturist events and locations. Its a shame that everyone thinks we are all swingers. I would love to invite some Prudes to an event like Nudefest in UK,… they would be sooooo bored in a few hours, finding out that all we do is sit around chatting and drinking and playing sports..

    Loading...

    Reply

20. Thank you for this well written article .The S word describes a natural act an desire for all of us .Not to be confused with living naked !

    Loading...

    Reply

21. Well written!

    Loading...

    Reply