If one's identity is only that they are a nudist or gay or black or whatever, I consider that very sad. One's identity should be a rich and complex web of traits. Making one trait the only important thing in your life leaves you vulnerable to influencers and echo chambers. It should shift as the environment requires. Depending on what I need at the moment, I'm a nudist, a soldier, an engineer, a daddy, a lover, a grandpa, a husband. a hiker, a photographer, a student, a paid sex object, a writer, a political activist, and a host of other things as needs require. I have a variety of psychological traits that help me intuitively understand certain problems. A completely "normal" person is pretty ineffective in helping neurodiverse folk without a whole lot of training.
I regret none of those things. All things that I am now or have been in the past continue to influence me.
Having a multifaceted personality protects you from being a ditto-head. I may be a naturist. I may be an engineer. Most nudists ate not engineers. I get mostly non-nudist POVs from the engineers and mostly non-engineering POVs from the naturists I know. Democrats should have Republican friends. Christians should have atheist friends. This helps you make up your own mind about issues and (partially) immunizes you against the "us v. them" disease that is so rampant.
If you don't have friends you disagree with, that is the definition of a social bubble. Online, it is an echo chamber.. It is in the nature of influencers, social bubbles, and echo chambers to treat diversity of view points as treason, not interesting questions to be explored. Strength in absolute conformity is the objective of fascism.
If I write a blog, it is at one time or other going to include ALL of those aspects. Posts will be derived from my life. Since one of my aspects is that I'm a nudist, there are posts about that. There are military posts. There are philosophical posts. There are sexual posts. There are posts about social issues. There are posts about aesthetics. I figure that if you are not willing to be completely honest about yourself to the world, even if it is just on an anonymous blog, you have a problem. You do not like yourself and fear being disliked by other anonymous people you'll never meet.
If you are a nudist who supports gay rights, you should be supporting nudism at gay events and gay rights at nudist events. You should not care about optics because "optics" does not care about you. Be who you are wherever you are. The haters will hate you regardless of where you hide.
I posted here about the reaction to my discussion of the WNBR on a forum. Two different people hated me quite vocally. But... several people who were NOT nudists supported me. If I were gay, not a single thing would have changed. If I were in a closet about the WNBR, or didn't participate because nudists should never mix with textiles, I would have avoided the hate but never known the support. In my book, that would be a huge loss.
Nudity is a touchy subject for the public and the nudity of a minor is an extreme case of touchiness. Perhaps nudists don't see anything sexual about it but that is not true of large portions of the public. They perceive the nudity of a child as making them sexually vulnerable and clothing is armor. There really are pedophiles out there. Parents can reasonably worry. That worry is easily weaponized.
GTA may well be an extremely virtuous and pure organization but a minor isn't going to be able to make that judgement, nor is an external viewer. Most people are going to assume the worst because it is the safest thing to do when children are involved.. That this didn't occur to GTA is problematic.
The best policy is not to have "memberships" for minors. If parents are members, they should be allowed to bring their minor children, but only as long as the kids are appropriately supervised.
I’m disappointed in the framing, “There is no N in LGBTQ”—that may be true, but there sure are LGBTQ in nudism. And our cause, for body autonomy, freedom of expression, and body freedom, is largely shared with the LGBTQ+ community. The “don’t ‘drag’ us into it” argument is isolationist and flawed—the conservatives in the Wisconsin legislature last year did not care to differentiate between these communities when attempting to effectively criminalize naturism, and neither do the Libs of TikTok care to split hairs when they call nudists perverts and groomers. And for that matter, when naturists in Toronto enjoy the nude freedoms afforded to them at Hanlan’s Point, remember that it was the LGBTQ+ community who largely fought for and won those freedoms, over a history that is just as long if not longer than any organized nudist movement. It’s not conflating the two communities to say we must stand together. Our “fringe” enjoyment of social mixed-sex nudity is just as despicable to those who would prefer the gulag for the gays as any Pride demonstration is. I’m ashamed when I see many “naturists” trying to plead for empathy to the Chaya Raichiks out there, as if with an ounce of power she wouldn’t have us all living in The Handmaids Tale. It only empowers the bigots.
One thing I have learned -- the hard way -- about the naturism community is that it has people from all walks of life, including conservatives. Which is why I keep politics out of this forum and try to keep it laser-focused on naturism.
Again, as I mentioned in my post here, I have been seriously conflicted over this issue since I read the post in your forum. I initially wrote a post responding to it the day after, but didn't publish it while I thought more about it all. The above post is a totally revised and toned-down version.
I know naturists and LGBTQ folks share common issues, and I know many LGBTQ folks are also naturists -- including me. But I wouldn't wish the hate my community of LGBTQ people is currently experiencing on anyone. For example, last September, there were mass rallies across Canada protesting against LGBTQ people, organized by members of two religious groups. It was disgusting. The protests garnered mainstream headlines -- some of which I wrote for my newspaper -- across the country that day and was widely viewed as an exercise in hate, decried by liberal politicians (but not conservatives) from coast to coast. One of the religious leaders behind the protests actually called for a boycott of any business that supports LGBTQ people. I can't tell you how sad and hurt I was that day as I had to keep up an objective front and edit copy and write headlines about it all.
The one positive thing, if we can call it that here in this forum, is that naturists were not a target of hate that day. Not a word was said by the anti-LGBTQ crowd about naturists.
Maybe that is the most important takeaway from my post: why bring the hate we in the LGBTQ community are facing down on naturists, too, if we don't have to?
Maybe I am being too overprotective. But the thing is, many conservative types who might frown upon LGBTQ lifestyles -- but don't openly discriminate and generally keep their thoughts to themselves --- are also naturists (which is why I stay away from politics here). We cannot assume that all naturists want to be aligned with the LGBTQ community.
As a member of the LGBTQ community who used to blog about our issues before I discovered naturism, I am happy for the support of naturists. Lord knows, we need all the support we can get these days. But I don't want naturists to suffer the same fate.
Again, I welcome comments and all points of view, whether you agree or disagree.
The only reason we don't get as much hate as the LGBTQ community is because we are too small and too obscure to be bothered with. I've still gotten my share, though. It is the curse of being even partly out of the closet. I've even been ragged on by supposed nudists who felt it was morally wrong to be nude around textiles (WNBR, anyone?) Only an exhibitionist would do such a thing, right?
And "obviously" we are grooming children for molestation because disgust towards nudity is their first line of defense against being molested, right?
There is no proper distinction between a "Don't say gay" law or prohibiting minors from seeing a drag show, and shutting down a historically nude beach. Exactly the same people and exactly the same mind set with exactly the same objective. They consider the nude beach sexual, and we are never going to convince them otherwise because it is an article of faith in their internet bubble. It doesn't matter what nudists think or want. If a subculture thinks nudity is aberrant sexual behavior, we'll be tossed into the "LGBTQ+" bucket as part of that "plus" whether we like it or not.
Perhaps the problem is that the only people who would allow a nude swimming group to have a booth at an event are the LGBTQ community. But then the alternative is to have no outreach at all.
I agree with what most of what you said, besides your last paragraph, as I know groups that would and have, conservative groups, mind you. Moreover, the perceived fear that I think Evan is expressing over conservative groups coming after naturist venues because of what happened in Wisconsin is a silly one, and out of anything, having GTA at the Pride event put a spotlight on us as a target in areas, where there may not have been before.
As a regular at Solair Family Nudist Resort in Woodstock, CT, which values diversity, I've encountered both conservatives and progressives. Solar differs from other nudist resorts in America by how many families attend or are members there, a lot of members are 2nd or 3rd gen nudists. On weekends, it's typical to see approximately 40 families, with children from babies to teens.
Many of these families lean conservative. I know some of the parents are even elected officials who might oppose events like drag shows for children but have no issue bringing their kids to Solair. In their view, a nudist resort like Solair is non-sexual (a sentiment all here would agree with), whereas they perceive drag shows as inappropriate for their children. Now, as someone who considers himself liberal, but probably more center, I agree.
I don't have kids of my own, but if I ever did, I would raise them as naturists; that has always been the plan in my mind. I would take on holidays to different resorts around the world, even sign them up for the AANR Youth Camps. But, and I say this as someone who is demi-bisexual, I don't think I'll take them to a Pride event as I don't think it is appropriate for children. I have been to a few Pride, and I find them uncomfortable with how much sexuality is flaunted, and the nude body sexualized. Which is why I haven't been to one in years. But, I go to Solair at least three times a year.
Funny when you say, "They consider the nude beach sexual, and we are never going to convince them otherwise because it is an article of faith in their internet bubble."
Because in my experience, again, I don't know where you live (rural , urban, blue state, red state), but in more socially progressive CT, I find that it's is the progressive LGBT community who find a nude beach sexual, while the more conservatives or moderates gays and straights don't.
I live in a very conservative community in a liberal state (CA) next to a very liberal city (LA). It seems the conservative folks all fled to the exurbs.
My experience is that the people who are accepting of sexuality in general and not just sexuality that is rigidly defined by rules are also accepting of nudity and not just nudity in rigidly defined circumstances.
Los Angeles allows and supports the World Naked Bike Ride. The people along the way accept it as just another quirky aspect of the big city. There is nobody arguing in front of the city council to pass an ordinance.
If you head to the suburbs and exurbs, no such activity would be tolerated.They tried it once in Ojai and there was violence and law enforcement just let it happen and no effort to later prosecute. (They couldn't legally stop it because there was no law against nudity and it couldn't be denied a parade permit.) Regardless, the lesson was learned and nobody is going to try that again.
So, while there are definitely many conservative nudists, socially conservative textiles are generally intolerant of nudism. They conflate it with a sexual threat. These are the people who want to shut down nude beaches and forbid minors from attending nudist clubs.
At the nude beaches I have been to in California, there are generic nude beaches and there are gay beaches. There are a couple of gay beaches near San Francisco and they do have a sexual aspect. Probably an aspect of SF culture, definitely not shared by the rest of the state. They are well known and non-gay people don't go there.
Getting away from SF, there are plenty of gay nudists who visit regular nude beaches without getting sexual about it. Since there are straight couples who head off to the bushes to make out, I don't specifically see it as a gay issue. It is just a matter of textiles not sharing the nudist ethic. When we have nudist events around LA, the gays who participate don't behave sexually. The last nude hike I was on was probably 50% gay with no sexual behavior.
Whenever I think of the nude events in SF, I think of Gypsy Taub, and I know she is into some shady stuff: conspiracy theories, I believe she was in a relationship with a 14yo, the father of her children, who tried to kill a member of Congress. It is sad because it makes us look bad.
Yeah, here in New England, CT, I am diffidently in a political bubble, even compared to that of the West Coast (the whole CA, but also Portland, Seattle areas), and by that I mean, in away, I feel we are more socially liberal, but in the classical sense of the word "liberal", where no body cares if you are nudist, gay, straight, trans, a gun owner, smoke marijuana, have an abortion, etc. as long as what you do, do not infringe on the rights to prevent others from doing what they enjoy or want to do.
Same with our "conservatives" here. Conservatives in CT, and pretty much all of New England, are more Rockefeller Conservatives, where they just want to lower taxes. We don't have the "religious right" here. We also have many Democrats who are gun owners and both (for the most part) Republicans and Democrats want tougher gun control, and background checks. Only for the good guys. Solair, the nudist resort I go to started out as a gun club, and still has a shooting range.
We also have a gay Republican state Congresswoman.
I think one reason why many gay people are Republicans here are because they are business owners. And I find at the nudist resort I go too, there are many wealthy people (although naturist philosophy supposed to be anti wealth, or you don't talk about it, of course it comes out anyway).
But yeah, we don't have those conservative anti gay, anti nudist problems you find in other parts of the country.
I guess my point is that the only ones attempting to make these distinctions are naturists. You don’t see the lgbtq community trying to distance themselves from naturists when they are targeted by alt-right media. You sure don’t see far right groups considering the nuances between communities. What benefit to naturists is derived from saying “that’s not us”? I would argue it isolates us more, makes us more vulnerable. Of course there are conservative naturists. But will that help us when an authoritarian government wants to clamp down on fringe activities? I’m not convinced it will. Not one bit.
My point, which a lot of people don't get, it that it doesn't matter what we think of ourselves. And have no control over what the general public thinks of us. We are such a tiny fraction of the population that in most localities, we have zero political power.
If you are NOT a nudist and you are a social conservative, you will likely reject nudism as sexual depravity. Not a lot we can do with them.
If you are NOT a nudist and you are socially "liberal," you will likely accept nudism as an aspect of diversity and not worry about it. If naturist groups weren't so busy tearing themselves apart, we could work with them.
And "NOT a nudist" are 99+% of the population - the people who matter as far as our rights are concerned.
It doesn't matter how small a group is... They can still have power. Our words and actions can still reach people and change always begins somewhere. That's a dangerous thought path to go down... And naturist groups aren't 'tearing each other apart'. Many just refuse to change for the better and are reaping the consequences. Especially when it comes to youth, diversity and acceptance.
Well said! I think that by looking back at different points in nudist history, it’s clear that both groups have historically supported one another and need to do so going forward. We can’t let the detractors on both sides chip away at how far we have come!
I definitely see your point. Nudism is not under the constantly expanding rainbow umbrella that Pride represents. I remember too vividly the time when Nudism was being pulled under the umbrella of Christianity. The rules and restraints placed upon christian people of the textile world, especially the youth, assumed a high place in the Nudism/ Naturism community. Some 50-60 years later the Christian identity in Nudism has faded with the aging population and many Nudist societies and clubs have gone by the wayside because the aging members refuse to change.
I believe that Nudism should evolve as a Nudists centric ideology and not be involved in any other ideology. With saying that, I also feel it’s important that Nudism be an open community for everyone. No one should be held in higher regard nor fear of being shamed for who they are.
Complex issue. While naturism and LGBTQ are not synonymous, they certainly share some positions. I find my naturist beliefs aligned with many of the LGBTQ — openness, acceptance, compassion, understanding. But that said, naturism is separate and distinct. One does not necessarily speak for the other. Promoting naturism across all of societies subgroups is a good idea. But it should be done in a manner that advocates for naturism and its general philosophy. Naturists have to consider the tone of the event they are supporting and how it aligns with naturism. Like I said, not a simple issue.
Personally as a naturist that does a lot of naked hiking/walking, idont think we should be linked in with the LGBTQ community as it would confuse the different issues we have.
I can see that there's an appeal in keeping things straightforward. But of course, the different members of the LGBTQ community also have different issues - trans people have different issues from bisexual people, for example (recognising that of course a person can be both trans and bisexual!). So, the argument might be made that we should drop one or more letters from LGBTQ for the same reasons of simplicity.
The thing about the LGBTQAI+++ community is that 90% of the political strength is from the G.
L and B have a lot of numbers but aren't as publicly political. Many Q are G by a different name.
A lot of the letters are there because they had too few numbers to have any political power on their own. But if you can ally with a larger group that has numbers, you get to share that power.
Thank you for a thoughtful piece. FWIW, I think that the Pride movement and the naturist movement are separate things, although there are strong overlapping areas.
The Pride marches that I have seen and those that I have seen reports on, tend to celebrate diversity but also seem to promote a level of sexual liberation and expression that many in the naturist movement are rallying against. As a moderator for a bluesky feed, I see many posts where LGBTQ+ people equate the nude beach as an opportunity for sexual activity. (I know, "Not All").
As a cis white male who happens to be a naturist, I have no desire to try and use the Pride movement to further my cause. I fully support the Pride movement and celebrate the diversity that it encompasses. I support the notion of body freedom and freedom of expression. If Pride is your tribe, you do you, and I applaud you.
I am sure that many naturists think that naturism can benefit from fighting against similar discriminations and misconceptions by joining in the Pride parades, but that is not something I subscribe to. Let LGBTQ+ people have their moment in the spotlight.
Naturists need to come up with their own celebrations and support the ones we already have.
We have the WNBR. At least in LA, its a nudist celebration. It started as bicycle safety and fossil fuel protests. Nudism has as much to do with fossil fuel protests and bicycle safety as they do with gay issues.
I agree that the WNBR is not a particularly nudist celebration. I have done one, and probably won't do another, as I have now ticked it off the bucket list. Although as a cyclist, I support the message about bicycle safety. Having said that, anything that gets people naked in the community can only be a good thing in terms of combatting the negative stereotypes that seem to persist around the naturist / nudist lifestyle. Staying in the closet will change nothing.
I was also thinking more about some of the naked yoga, swim and dining events that seem to be happening in places around the world, as well as some of the naked hiking excursions. As naturists, we need to support these events when they happen.
I see any opportunity to get nonsexual nudity in front of textiles in an area that is not hostile to the idea is a win. Every time you see a naked person and the world does not blow up slightly reduces the apprehension.
I have been attacked by people who think this is just exhibitionism and that we should keep nudity behind closed gates and high walls and between people who are vetted to be "our kind" of people. I believe that attitude is an important factor in why nudism is aging and dying.
The tortoise MUST stick its head out if it is to make any progress.
As a straight man, I feel that I ought to defer to my brothers and sisters who own the Pride "trademark." On the other hand, there's always a kind of succession in human affairs. For instance, my daughter-in-law staffed a booth promoting her union at the Twin Cities Pride.
Nudists have the same range of sexualities and genders as non-nudists, and the LGBT+ community has it's fair share of nudists. This is the inevitable realism of intersectionality. It isn't unusual for nudist organisations to have a special interest or sub-group of LGBT+ members. Why wouldn't a public protest/celebration of either, contain a complete representation of it's membership?
Nudists are not going to take over Pride any more than LGBT+ is going to dominate nudism. It's about inclusion or more specifically, not excluding specific groups just because they might not be universally popular. If it's a fear of public perception then it's incumbent on us to find a way around that or reach a healthy compromise. There is already nudity at some Pride events and it's already seized upon by Pride opponents. A token group of simply naked participants, who's role is clear, isn't going to make bigots any more bigoted.
Whilst nudism and Pride are essentially different at their core, the two share a lot of common ground. We all face similar prejudice and discrimination - we are both persecuted minorities. There's overlap in our shared need for freedom of expression, for example to do with our own bodies as we need, to dress (or not) as we wish, without the threat of shaming. LGBT+ isn't an ideology and for many nudists being naked isn't an ideology either - it is part of our identity. Whether everyone likes it or not, there IS some overlap between the two communities - we should acknowledge that, and embrace it. If observers are confused then let's educate them.
Pride processions are happy to welcome a variation of groups in the ranks, so why not naturist groups or individuals? Prides are carnival events, which encourage flamboyance and exuberance - that's the whole point. In the UK and some other countries, public nudity is lawful anyway, so it wouldn't be as big a deal as it might be in North America, but as your piece reported, the police aren't really the problem - it's the optics that worries people.
I can understand having mixed feelings about this. I most definitely agree that what I call the 'alphabet people' (please don't jump to conclusions about this) are more accepted by society than nudists. They are MUCH more accepted!!!! To affiliate with this group would go against the position of many who believe in nudism/naturism, I can certainly understand this. As a person who has opinions about nudism and sexuality that go well beyond the mainstream, I don't really know a clear answer, but I do know that there are groups that are VERY much against social nudity, or any nudity. I consider these people to be DANGEROUS zealots! I wish that we lived in a more sensible and peaceful world!!!
As a naturist, thank you for this article. As a naturist and a member of the LGBT+ community (I am Demi-bi), I was one of the commenters who spoke out against GTA from being at Pride, and I was met with backlash. Backlash, from my knowledge, from someone who is not part of the queer community but only an ally. As an ally, it is most important to listen to those in the community foremost before acting.
As someone who advocates for non-sexual nudity that comes from naturism and other family-friendly nude events, which sounds like GTA offers, I do not think it was appropriate for the organization to be at Pride, an event that is the celebration and liberation of not only the human body (how naturism does) but at its core diverse sexuality. Having GTA, at Pride sends mixed messaging as to what naturism is about. I have spoken with other LGBT naturists since, both online and in person, and they agree with me.
On the flip side, I know many non-naturist LGBT people who are not naturist allies. They are uncomfortable with children being nude with adults. Many believe that nudity IS sexual and do not believe or want to support the idea that it could be non-sexual or family-friendly. I have lost LGBT friends over the fact that I go to naturist campgrounds where there are children, as they see it as" inappropriate". I have some friends who said they would only join me at a naturist campground or even if there were no kids and they were allowed to be sexual.
So, having a (to my knowledge) non-LGBT member write in the original PN article that we are each other allies is laughable and insulting. Especially saying that I "show empathy" for the alt-right group, which I certainly do not.
To me, the original article is nothing but an example of "straight white saviorism" that has been coming from the left in recent years, to show that they "support " marginalized groups, but in reality all they do is override their voices.
No apology necessary, I think most probably assumed I wrote it. I did not. The author chose not to use their name out of an understandable concern for the potential of retribution from the LoTT types.
I don't know if it is on there; maybe I missed it, but maybe I should have a disclaimer on the top mentioning the article was written by a guest author who wished to stay anonymous.
And as someone who was attacked by an extreme right-winger about a year ago, I can understand wanting to stay anonymous.
One thing about your blog, is that I do feel safe here, along with the Naturist Hub.
Apart from the WNBR events, there are no regularly held 'naturist' events done in public spaces. Anyone is welcome to start one, with the caveat that getting a permit to hold it might be problematic. The fear that some participants in the march would go nude could be a factor. Thus, it's maybe inevitable that naturism advocates would wish to use certain events to try and promote their cause. I dont think that is inherently a bad thing, but the event organizers should have the ultimate right to decide what sub-groups gets to be represented at the march.
I don't know about "regular." But if you are in the SF area, there are 4 WNBRs per year, a couple of Pride events and some smaller events. Public nudity is legal as long as there's a parade permit.
There could be a LOT more nude events. They had nude Shakespeare in NY Central Park. These sorts of thing doesn't happen nearly as often as they could. They end up being put on by textiles more often than not. Textiles understand that nudity is revolutionary while nudists fear rocking the boat.
Yeah, here in New England, CT, I am diffidently in a political bubble, even compared to that of the West Coast (the whole CA, but also Portland, Seattle areas), and by that I mean, in away, I feel we are more socially liberal, but in the classical sense of the word "liberal", where no body cares if you are nudist, gay, straight, trans, a gun owner, smoke marijuana, have an abortion, etc. as long as what you do, do not infringe on the rights to prevent others from doing what they enjoy or want to do.
Same with our "conservatives" here. Conservatives in CT, and pretty much all of New England, are more Rockefeller Conservatives, where they just want to lower taxes. We don't have the "religious right" here. We also have many Democrats who are gun owners and both (for the most part) Republicans and Democrats want tougher gun control, and background checks. Only for the good guys. Solair, the nudist resort I go to started out as a gun club, and still has a shooting range.
We also have a gay Republican state Congresswoman.
I think one reason why many gay people are Republicans here are because they are business owners. And I find at the nudist resort I go too, there are many wealthy people (although naturist philosophy supposed to be anti wealth, or you don't talk about it, of course it comes out anyway).
But yeah, we don't have those conservative anti gay, anti nudist problems you find in other parts of the country.
The article motivate us to think over this issue.. Nice article..
As a naturist one should always have a pride, however the actions out of proudness should not be aggressive or should not exhibit arrogance.. Actually speaking, our love for the naturism lifestyle should not become a issue for anyone..The naturism lifestyle is for the naturists & must be practiced just for the sake of ourselves.. It's not necessary to display, exhibit our naturism love just because we feel proud of our naturism lifestyle...
Personally, we find that one has nothing to with the other and we do not support LGBTQ. That said it's our opinion only. Everyone has a right to their own as well.
If one's identity is only that they are a nudist or gay or black or whatever, I consider that very sad. One's identity should be a rich and complex web of traits. Making one trait the only important thing in your life leaves you vulnerable to influencers and echo chambers. It should shift as the environment requires. Depending on what I need at the moment, I'm a nudist, a soldier, an engineer, a daddy, a lover, a grandpa, a husband. a hiker, a photographer, a student, a paid sex object, a writer, a political activist, and a host of other things as needs require. I have a variety of psychological traits that help me intuitively understand certain problems. A completely "normal" person is pretty ineffective in helping neurodiverse folk without a whole lot of training.
I regret none of those things. All things that I am now or have been in the past continue to influence me.
Having a multifaceted personality protects you from being a ditto-head. I may be a naturist. I may be an engineer. Most nudists ate not engineers. I get mostly non-nudist POVs from the engineers and mostly non-engineering POVs from the naturists I know. Democrats should have Republican friends. Christians should have atheist friends. This helps you make up your own mind about issues and (partially) immunizes you against the "us v. them" disease that is so rampant.
If you don't have friends you disagree with, that is the definition of a social bubble. Online, it is an echo chamber.. It is in the nature of influencers, social bubbles, and echo chambers to treat diversity of view points as treason, not interesting questions to be explored. Strength in absolute conformity is the objective of fascism.
If I write a blog, it is at one time or other going to include ALL of those aspects. Posts will be derived from my life. Since one of my aspects is that I'm a nudist, there are posts about that. There are military posts. There are philosophical posts. There are sexual posts. There are posts about social issues. There are posts about aesthetics. I figure that if you are not willing to be completely honest about yourself to the world, even if it is just on an anonymous blog, you have a problem. You do not like yourself and fear being disliked by other anonymous people you'll never meet.
If you are a nudist who supports gay rights, you should be supporting nudism at gay events and gay rights at nudist events. You should not care about optics because "optics" does not care about you. Be who you are wherever you are. The haters will hate you regardless of where you hide.
I posted here about the reaction to my discussion of the WNBR on a forum. Two different people hated me quite vocally. But... several people who were NOT nudists supported me. If I were gay, not a single thing would have changed. If I were in a closet about the WNBR, or didn't participate because nudists should never mix with textiles, I would have avoided the hate but never known the support. In my book, that would be a huge loss.
Nudity is a touchy subject for the public and the nudity of a minor is an extreme case of touchiness. Perhaps nudists don't see anything sexual about it but that is not true of large portions of the public. They perceive the nudity of a child as making them sexually vulnerable and clothing is armor. There really are pedophiles out there. Parents can reasonably worry. That worry is easily weaponized.
GTA may well be an extremely virtuous and pure organization but a minor isn't going to be able to make that judgement, nor is an external viewer. Most people are going to assume the worst because it is the safest thing to do when children are involved.. That this didn't occur to GTA is problematic.
The best policy is not to have "memberships" for minors. If parents are members, they should be allowed to bring their minor children, but only as long as the kids are appropriately supervised.
I’m disappointed in the framing, “There is no N in LGBTQ”—that may be true, but there sure are LGBTQ in nudism. And our cause, for body autonomy, freedom of expression, and body freedom, is largely shared with the LGBTQ+ community. The “don’t ‘drag’ us into it” argument is isolationist and flawed—the conservatives in the Wisconsin legislature last year did not care to differentiate between these communities when attempting to effectively criminalize naturism, and neither do the Libs of TikTok care to split hairs when they call nudists perverts and groomers. And for that matter, when naturists in Toronto enjoy the nude freedoms afforded to them at Hanlan’s Point, remember that it was the LGBTQ+ community who largely fought for and won those freedoms, over a history that is just as long if not longer than any organized nudist movement. It’s not conflating the two communities to say we must stand together. Our “fringe” enjoyment of social mixed-sex nudity is just as despicable to those who would prefer the gulag for the gays as any Pride demonstration is. I’m ashamed when I see many “naturists” trying to plead for empathy to the Chaya Raichiks out there, as if with an ounce of power she wouldn’t have us all living in The Handmaids Tale. It only empowers the bigots.
One thing I have learned -- the hard way -- about the naturism community is that it has people from all walks of life, including conservatives. Which is why I keep politics out of this forum and try to keep it laser-focused on naturism.
Again, as I mentioned in my post here, I have been seriously conflicted over this issue since I read the post in your forum. I initially wrote a post responding to it the day after, but didn't publish it while I thought more about it all. The above post is a totally revised and toned-down version.
I know naturists and LGBTQ folks share common issues, and I know many LGBTQ folks are also naturists -- including me. But I wouldn't wish the hate my community of LGBTQ people is currently experiencing on anyone. For example, last September, there were mass rallies across Canada protesting against LGBTQ people, organized by members of two religious groups. It was disgusting. The protests garnered mainstream headlines -- some of which I wrote for my newspaper -- across the country that day and was widely viewed as an exercise in hate, decried by liberal politicians (but not conservatives) from coast to coast. One of the religious leaders behind the protests actually called for a boycott of any business that supports LGBTQ people. I can't tell you how sad and hurt I was that day as I had to keep up an objective front and edit copy and write headlines about it all.
The one positive thing, if we can call it that here in this forum, is that naturists were not a target of hate that day. Not a word was said by the anti-LGBTQ crowd about naturists.
Maybe that is the most important takeaway from my post: why bring the hate we in the LGBTQ community are facing down on naturists, too, if we don't have to?
Maybe I am being too overprotective. But the thing is, many conservative types who might frown upon LGBTQ lifestyles -- but don't openly discriminate and generally keep their thoughts to themselves --- are also naturists (which is why I stay away from politics here). We cannot assume that all naturists want to be aligned with the LGBTQ community.
As a member of the LGBTQ community who used to blog about our issues before I discovered naturism, I am happy for the support of naturists. Lord knows, we need all the support we can get these days. But I don't want naturists to suffer the same fate.
Again, I welcome comments and all points of view, whether you agree or disagree.
The only reason we don't get as much hate as the LGBTQ community is because we are too small and too obscure to be bothered with. I've still gotten my share, though. It is the curse of being even partly out of the closet. I've even been ragged on by supposed nudists who felt it was morally wrong to be nude around textiles (WNBR, anyone?) Only an exhibitionist would do such a thing, right?
And "obviously" we are grooming children for molestation because disgust towards nudity is their first line of defense against being molested, right?
There is no proper distinction between a "Don't say gay" law or prohibiting minors from seeing a drag show, and shutting down a historically nude beach. Exactly the same people and exactly the same mind set with exactly the same objective. They consider the nude beach sexual, and we are never going to convince them otherwise because it is an article of faith in their internet bubble. It doesn't matter what nudists think or want. If a subculture thinks nudity is aberrant sexual behavior, we'll be tossed into the "LGBTQ+" bucket as part of that "plus" whether we like it or not.
Perhaps the problem is that the only people who would allow a nude swimming group to have a booth at an event are the LGBTQ community. But then the alternative is to have no outreach at all.
I agree with what most of what you said, besides your last paragraph, as I know groups that would and have, conservative groups, mind you. Moreover, the perceived fear that I think Evan is expressing over conservative groups coming after naturist venues because of what happened in Wisconsin is a silly one, and out of anything, having GTA at the Pride event put a spotlight on us as a target in areas, where there may not have been before.
As a regular at Solair Family Nudist Resort in Woodstock, CT, which values diversity, I've encountered both conservatives and progressives. Solar differs from other nudist resorts in America by how many families attend or are members there, a lot of members are 2nd or 3rd gen nudists. On weekends, it's typical to see approximately 40 families, with children from babies to teens.
Many of these families lean conservative. I know some of the parents are even elected officials who might oppose events like drag shows for children but have no issue bringing their kids to Solair. In their view, a nudist resort like Solair is non-sexual (a sentiment all here would agree with), whereas they perceive drag shows as inappropriate for their children. Now, as someone who considers himself liberal, but probably more center, I agree.
I don't have kids of my own, but if I ever did, I would raise them as naturists; that has always been the plan in my mind. I would take on holidays to different resorts around the world, even sign them up for the AANR Youth Camps. But, and I say this as someone who is demi-bisexual, I don't think I'll take them to a Pride event as I don't think it is appropriate for children. I have been to a few Pride, and I find them uncomfortable with how much sexuality is flaunted, and the nude body sexualized. Which is why I haven't been to one in years. But, I go to Solair at least three times a year.
Funny when you say, "They consider the nude beach sexual, and we are never going to convince them otherwise because it is an article of faith in their internet bubble."
Because in my experience, again, I don't know where you live (rural , urban, blue state, red state), but in more socially progressive CT, I find that it's is the progressive LGBT community who find a nude beach sexual, while the more conservatives or moderates gays and straights don't.
I live in a very conservative community in a liberal state (CA) next to a very liberal city (LA). It seems the conservative folks all fled to the exurbs.
My experience is that the people who are accepting of sexuality in general and not just sexuality that is rigidly defined by rules are also accepting of nudity and not just nudity in rigidly defined circumstances.
Los Angeles allows and supports the World Naked Bike Ride. The people along the way accept it as just another quirky aspect of the big city. There is nobody arguing in front of the city council to pass an ordinance.
If you head to the suburbs and exurbs, no such activity would be tolerated.They tried it once in Ojai and there was violence and law enforcement just let it happen and no effort to later prosecute. (They couldn't legally stop it because there was no law against nudity and it couldn't be denied a parade permit.) Regardless, the lesson was learned and nobody is going to try that again.
So, while there are definitely many conservative nudists, socially conservative textiles are generally intolerant of nudism. They conflate it with a sexual threat. These are the people who want to shut down nude beaches and forbid minors from attending nudist clubs.
At the nude beaches I have been to in California, there are generic nude beaches and there are gay beaches. There are a couple of gay beaches near San Francisco and they do have a sexual aspect. Probably an aspect of SF culture, definitely not shared by the rest of the state. They are well known and non-gay people don't go there.
Getting away from SF, there are plenty of gay nudists who visit regular nude beaches without getting sexual about it. Since there are straight couples who head off to the bushes to make out, I don't specifically see it as a gay issue. It is just a matter of textiles not sharing the nudist ethic. When we have nudist events around LA, the gays who participate don't behave sexually. The last nude hike I was on was probably 50% gay with no sexual behavior.
Whenever I think of the nude events in SF, I think of Gypsy Taub, and I know she is into some shady stuff: conspiracy theories, I believe she was in a relationship with a 14yo, the father of her children, who tried to kill a member of Congress. It is sad because it makes us look bad.
Yeah, here in New England, CT, I am diffidently in a political bubble, even compared to that of the West Coast (the whole CA, but also Portland, Seattle areas), and by that I mean, in away, I feel we are more socially liberal, but in the classical sense of the word "liberal", where no body cares if you are nudist, gay, straight, trans, a gun owner, smoke marijuana, have an abortion, etc. as long as what you do, do not infringe on the rights to prevent others from doing what they enjoy or want to do.
Same with our "conservatives" here. Conservatives in CT, and pretty much all of New England, are more Rockefeller Conservatives, where they just want to lower taxes. We don't have the "religious right" here. We also have many Democrats who are gun owners and both (for the most part) Republicans and Democrats want tougher gun control, and background checks. Only for the good guys. Solair, the nudist resort I go to started out as a gun club, and still has a shooting range.
We also have a gay Republican state Congresswoman.
I think one reason why many gay people are Republicans here are because they are business owners. And I find at the nudist resort I go too, there are many wealthy people (although naturist philosophy supposed to be anti wealth, or you don't talk about it, of course it comes out anyway).
But yeah, we don't have those conservative anti gay, anti nudist problems you find in other parts of the country.
I get along with people who are "socially liberal, but in the classical sense of the word." We are a vanishing breed.
I guess my point is that the only ones attempting to make these distinctions are naturists. You don’t see the lgbtq community trying to distance themselves from naturists when they are targeted by alt-right media. You sure don’t see far right groups considering the nuances between communities. What benefit to naturists is derived from saying “that’s not us”? I would argue it isolates us more, makes us more vulnerable. Of course there are conservative naturists. But will that help us when an authoritarian government wants to clamp down on fringe activities? I’m not convinced it will. Not one bit.
My point, which a lot of people don't get, it that it doesn't matter what we think of ourselves. And have no control over what the general public thinks of us. We are such a tiny fraction of the population that in most localities, we have zero political power.
If you are NOT a nudist and you are a social conservative, you will likely reject nudism as sexual depravity. Not a lot we can do with them.
If you are NOT a nudist and you are socially "liberal," you will likely accept nudism as an aspect of diversity and not worry about it. If naturist groups weren't so busy tearing themselves apart, we could work with them.
And "NOT a nudist" are 99+% of the population - the people who matter as far as our rights are concerned.
It doesn't matter how small a group is... They can still have power. Our words and actions can still reach people and change always begins somewhere. That's a dangerous thought path to go down... And naturist groups aren't 'tearing each other apart'. Many just refuse to change for the better and are reaping the consequences. Especially when it comes to youth, diversity and acceptance.
Well said! I think that by looking back at different points in nudist history, it’s clear that both groups have historically supported one another and need to do so going forward. We can’t let the detractors on both sides chip away at how far we have come!
I had to Google "Chaya Raichiks." She is a thoroughly detestable and vile human being.
ANY kind of cancel culture by either the MAGA or Progressive crowds is disgusting.
I definitely see your point. Nudism is not under the constantly expanding rainbow umbrella that Pride represents. I remember too vividly the time when Nudism was being pulled under the umbrella of Christianity. The rules and restraints placed upon christian people of the textile world, especially the youth, assumed a high place in the Nudism/ Naturism community. Some 50-60 years later the Christian identity in Nudism has faded with the aging population and many Nudist societies and clubs have gone by the wayside because the aging members refuse to change.
I believe that Nudism should evolve as a Nudists centric ideology and not be involved in any other ideology. With saying that, I also feel it’s important that Nudism be an open community for everyone. No one should be held in higher regard nor fear of being shamed for who they are.
Complex issue. While naturism and LGBTQ are not synonymous, they certainly share some positions. I find my naturist beliefs aligned with many of the LGBTQ — openness, acceptance, compassion, understanding. But that said, naturism is separate and distinct. One does not necessarily speak for the other. Promoting naturism across all of societies subgroups is a good idea. But it should be done in a manner that advocates for naturism and its general philosophy. Naturists have to consider the tone of the event they are supporting and how it aligns with naturism. Like I said, not a simple issue.
Personally as a naturist that does a lot of naked hiking/walking, idont think we should be linked in with the LGBTQ community as it would confuse the different issues we have.
I can see that there's an appeal in keeping things straightforward. But of course, the different members of the LGBTQ community also have different issues - trans people have different issues from bisexual people, for example (recognising that of course a person can be both trans and bisexual!). So, the argument might be made that we should drop one or more letters from LGBTQ for the same reasons of simplicity.
The thing about the LGBTQAI+++ community is that 90% of the political strength is from the G.
L and B have a lot of numbers but aren't as publicly political. Many Q are G by a different name.
A lot of the letters are there because they had too few numbers to have any political power on their own. But if you can ally with a larger group that has numbers, you get to share that power.
Thank you for a thoughtful piece. FWIW, I think that the Pride movement and the naturist movement are separate things, although there are strong overlapping areas.
The Pride marches that I have seen and those that I have seen reports on, tend to celebrate diversity but also seem to promote a level of sexual liberation and expression that many in the naturist movement are rallying against. As a moderator for a bluesky feed, I see many posts where LGBTQ+ people equate the nude beach as an opportunity for sexual activity. (I know, "Not All").
As a cis white male who happens to be a naturist, I have no desire to try and use the Pride movement to further my cause. I fully support the Pride movement and celebrate the diversity that it encompasses. I support the notion of body freedom and freedom of expression. If Pride is your tribe, you do you, and I applaud you.
I am sure that many naturists think that naturism can benefit from fighting against similar discriminations and misconceptions by joining in the Pride parades, but that is not something I subscribe to. Let LGBTQ+ people have their moment in the spotlight.
Naturists need to come up with their own celebrations and support the ones we already have.
We have the WNBR. At least in LA, its a nudist celebration. It started as bicycle safety and fossil fuel protests. Nudism has as much to do with fossil fuel protests and bicycle safety as they do with gay issues.
I agree that the WNBR is not a particularly nudist celebration. I have done one, and probably won't do another, as I have now ticked it off the bucket list. Although as a cyclist, I support the message about bicycle safety. Having said that, anything that gets people naked in the community can only be a good thing in terms of combatting the negative stereotypes that seem to persist around the naturist / nudist lifestyle. Staying in the closet will change nothing.
I was also thinking more about some of the naked yoga, swim and dining events that seem to be happening in places around the world, as well as some of the naked hiking excursions. As naturists, we need to support these events when they happen.
I see any opportunity to get nonsexual nudity in front of textiles in an area that is not hostile to the idea is a win. Every time you see a naked person and the world does not blow up slightly reduces the apprehension.
I have been attacked by people who think this is just exhibitionism and that we should keep nudity behind closed gates and high walls and between people who are vetted to be "our kind" of people. I believe that attitude is an important factor in why nudism is aging and dying.
The tortoise MUST stick its head out if it is to make any progress.
As a straight man, I feel that I ought to defer to my brothers and sisters who own the Pride "trademark." On the other hand, there's always a kind of succession in human affairs. For instance, my daughter-in-law staffed a booth promoting her union at the Twin Cities Pride.
Nudists have the same range of sexualities and genders as non-nudists, and the LGBT+ community has it's fair share of nudists. This is the inevitable realism of intersectionality. It isn't unusual for nudist organisations to have a special interest or sub-group of LGBT+ members. Why wouldn't a public protest/celebration of either, contain a complete representation of it's membership?
Nudists are not going to take over Pride any more than LGBT+ is going to dominate nudism. It's about inclusion or more specifically, not excluding specific groups just because they might not be universally popular. If it's a fear of public perception then it's incumbent on us to find a way around that or reach a healthy compromise. There is already nudity at some Pride events and it's already seized upon by Pride opponents. A token group of simply naked participants, who's role is clear, isn't going to make bigots any more bigoted.
Whilst nudism and Pride are essentially different at their core, the two share a lot of common ground. We all face similar prejudice and discrimination - we are both persecuted minorities. There's overlap in our shared need for freedom of expression, for example to do with our own bodies as we need, to dress (or not) as we wish, without the threat of shaming. LGBT+ isn't an ideology and for many nudists being naked isn't an ideology either - it is part of our identity. Whether everyone likes it or not, there IS some overlap between the two communities - we should acknowledge that, and embrace it. If observers are confused then let's educate them.
Pride processions are happy to welcome a variation of groups in the ranks, so why not naturist groups or individuals? Prides are carnival events, which encourage flamboyance and exuberance - that's the whole point. In the UK and some other countries, public nudity is lawful anyway, so it wouldn't be as big a deal as it might be in North America, but as your piece reported, the police aren't really the problem - it's the optics that worries people.
I can understand having mixed feelings about this. I most definitely agree that what I call the 'alphabet people' (please don't jump to conclusions about this) are more accepted by society than nudists. They are MUCH more accepted!!!! To affiliate with this group would go against the position of many who believe in nudism/naturism, I can certainly understand this. As a person who has opinions about nudism and sexuality that go well beyond the mainstream, I don't really know a clear answer, but I do know that there are groups that are VERY much against social nudity, or any nudity. I consider these people to be DANGEROUS zealots! I wish that we lived in a more sensible and peaceful world!!!
Jillian,
As a naturist, thank you for this article. As a naturist and a member of the LGBT+ community (I am Demi-bi), I was one of the commenters who spoke out against GTA from being at Pride, and I was met with backlash. Backlash, from my knowledge, from someone who is not part of the queer community but only an ally. As an ally, it is most important to listen to those in the community foremost before acting.
As someone who advocates for non-sexual nudity that comes from naturism and other family-friendly nude events, which sounds like GTA offers, I do not think it was appropriate for the organization to be at Pride, an event that is the celebration and liberation of not only the human body (how naturism does) but at its core diverse sexuality. Having GTA, at Pride sends mixed messaging as to what naturism is about. I have spoken with other LGBT naturists since, both online and in person, and they agree with me.
On the flip side, I know many non-naturist LGBT people who are not naturist allies. They are uncomfortable with children being nude with adults. Many believe that nudity IS sexual and do not believe or want to support the idea that it could be non-sexual or family-friendly. I have lost LGBT friends over the fact that I go to naturist campgrounds where there are children, as they see it as" inappropriate". I have some friends who said they would only join me at a naturist campground or even if there were no kids and they were allowed to be sexual.
So, having a (to my knowledge) non-LGBT member write in the original PN article that we are each other allies is laughable and insulting. Especially saying that I "show empathy" for the alt-right group, which I certainly do not.
To me, the original article is nothing but an example of "straight white saviorism" that has been coming from the left in recent years, to show that they "support " marginalized groups, but in reality all they do is override their voices.
The article was written by a member of the Toronto LGBTQ+ community
Thank you for clearing that up Evan. I assume you wrote the article. My apologizes.
No apology necessary, I think most probably assumed I wrote it. I did not. The author chose not to use their name out of an understandable concern for the potential of retribution from the LoTT types.
I don't know if it is on there; maybe I missed it, but maybe I should have a disclaimer on the top mentioning the article was written by a guest author who wished to stay anonymous.
And as someone who was attacked by an extreme right-winger about a year ago, I can understand wanting to stay anonymous.
One thing about your blog, is that I do feel safe here, along with the Naturist Hub.
There was a "special to planet nude" byline with a description at the very bottom of the post. Easy to miss but it was there.
Apart from the WNBR events, there are no regularly held 'naturist' events done in public spaces. Anyone is welcome to start one, with the caveat that getting a permit to hold it might be problematic. The fear that some participants in the march would go nude could be a factor. Thus, it's maybe inevitable that naturism advocates would wish to use certain events to try and promote their cause. I dont think that is inherently a bad thing, but the event organizers should have the ultimate right to decide what sub-groups gets to be represented at the march.
I don't know about "regular." But if you are in the SF area, there are 4 WNBRs per year, a couple of Pride events and some smaller events. Public nudity is legal as long as there's a parade permit.
There could be a LOT more nude events. They had nude Shakespeare in NY Central Park. These sorts of thing doesn't happen nearly as often as they could. They end up being put on by textiles more often than not. Textiles understand that nudity is revolutionary while nudists fear rocking the boat.
Yeah, here in New England, CT, I am diffidently in a political bubble, even compared to that of the West Coast (the whole CA, but also Portland, Seattle areas), and by that I mean, in away, I feel we are more socially liberal, but in the classical sense of the word "liberal", where no body cares if you are nudist, gay, straight, trans, a gun owner, smoke marijuana, have an abortion, etc. as long as what you do, do not infringe on the rights to prevent others from doing what they enjoy or want to do.
Same with our "conservatives" here. Conservatives in CT, and pretty much all of New England, are more Rockefeller Conservatives, where they just want to lower taxes. We don't have the "religious right" here. We also have many Democrats who are gun owners and both (for the most part) Republicans and Democrats want tougher gun control, and background checks. Only for the good guys. Solair, the nudist resort I go to started out as a gun club, and still has a shooting range.
We also have a gay Republican state Congresswoman.
I think one reason why many gay people are Republicans here are because they are business owners. And I find at the nudist resort I go too, there are many wealthy people (although naturist philosophy supposed to be anti wealth, or you don't talk about it, of course it comes out anyway).
But yeah, we don't have those conservative anti gay, anti nudist problems you find in other parts of the country.
I’ve sort of taken a vaca from all electro forums and websites for a couple weeks and shrivelled back up in nature.
This post is almost the first I’ve read in a while and it’s a very well written and thought provoking place to start back.
You’ve done such a good job that I’ll need some time to sort out, process and organize my thoughts….
The article motivate us to think over this issue.. Nice article..
As a naturist one should always have a pride, however the actions out of proudness should not be aggressive or should not exhibit arrogance.. Actually speaking, our love for the naturism lifestyle should not become a issue for anyone..The naturism lifestyle is for the naturists & must be practiced just for the sake of ourselves.. It's not necessary to display, exhibit our naturism love just because we feel proud of our naturism lifestyle...
Personally, we find that one has nothing to with the other and we do not support LGBTQ. That said it's our opinion only. Everyone has a right to their own as well.