Just found this on the intertubes. Exactly my sentiments …
Category Archives: nudism
Dress
Seen today on Facebook …
How to dress for your shape: are you human-shaped? play up your confidence and natural sex appeal by wearing whatever the fuck you want.
Life Tip: As the weather gets warmer, continue to wear whatever the fuck you want. Flaunt everything or keep it cool under cover. Dress to make yourself feel rad.
How to get a bikini body:put a bikini on your body
Want sexy own-the-beach summer legs? shave, or don’t because they’re your fucking legs.
The only thing to add is: Or wear nothing at all! ☺
On the Offensiveness of Vaginas
A few days ago Naturist Vision fired a loud warning shot across the bows of all of society. In a post entitled Vaginas and Nudity the author points out that words such as “vagina”** must not be ostracised from the vocabulary just because a few puerile prudes deem it offensive. It’s a short article, but here is it’s essence:
[…] Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown’s use of [vagina] led to her censure. In the aftermath a state representative declared the word “vagina” so offensive that he wouldn’t say it in mixed company.
Now [a male] Idaho High School science teacher […] is being investigated for saying “vagina” during a sophomore science class […]
[…] it is time for us to pay attention. That our society finds the proper term for any body part offensive suggests we need to redouble our efforts to educate the public about body acceptance. That the “offensive” word refers to a specifically feminine body part is more evidence of the misogyny [in] our society.
We must find a way to normalize words that describe our bodies. Teaching our children to refer to their genitals as “wee wee” or “pee pee” […] is a huge mistake. Bowing to a misinformed public who prefers not to hear words like “penis” and “vagina” is another.
The underlying message is that women are bad, sex is bad and our bodies are bad. Turning the vagina into [something] whose name shall not be spoken can only have disastrous effects on our society as a whole […]
[…]
It stands to reason that if people are offended simply by hearing the word “vagina” they certainly wouldn’t want to see one live and in person!
OK, so this is religiously prudish America and the post is partly about the loss of rights to nudity and nudism. That makes the general thrust no less apposite, in America or the UK, or indeed anywhere else.
It is becoming increasingly important, as I observed again the other day, that nudity and sexuality are normalised, not marginalised and criminalised, and that this would actually be to the benefit of the whole of society.
** For now we’ll gloss over the fact that most times folks use “vagina” they actually mean “vulva”.
Kids and Nudity
I’m getting increasingly worried about society’s attitude towards children and nudity. Both allowing kids to see adults nude and adults to see children nude.
Neither is actually a problem, but society is making it into one.
There’s an interesting opinion piece by Laura over at Catharsis under the title Why NOT Being Naked In Front Of Your Kids Is Weird:
[A] single father, recently found himself under Child Protective Services investigation after some mothers of his 6-year-old son’s friends reported him for showering with his child.
These mothers apparently think because the dad showers with his son, he’s a pedophile. NOT because the kid reported his dad touched him inappropriately or because the kid reported his dad demanded to be touched inappropriately by his son.
Simply because the dad showered with his 6-year-old son. Period.
You know what I think about that? I think that’s bullshit. And I think anyone who takes an innocent act like being naked around a child to the level of pedophilia ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
There are real cases of sexual abuse out there — cases of children being seriously harmed by the adults around them. THERE ARE REAL PREDATORY ABUSERS OUT THERE SCARRING CHILDREN PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY. Simply because a parent is naked in front of his children does NOT make him an abuser, and threatening a parent’s custody of his child with no evidence of such activity is both negligent and irresponsible.
(Emphasis in the original.)
Which, of course, is absolutely right.
OK, so that’s in America. But we’re very little different in this country.
I am concerned at the vilification of artist Graham Ovenden for his portrayal of naked children. OK, Ovenden has recently been convicted of inappropriate conduct with some girls many, many years ago. I don’t know how much abuse, if any, really did occur; I wasn’t there at the time, I wasn’t at the trial and I haven’t seen the evidence only some of the press reports. But the very fact that an artist can be pilloried in the way he has, so long after the event, and when he appears to have taken care that children he was drawing/painting were chaperoned, is deeply worrying. The fact that the charges relate to events 30-40 years ago, and in large part it seems to be the girls’ word against Ovenden’s, smacks of trumped up complaints and something which probably should never have got to court. Although as I say I’ve not followed the details closely, so I may be wrong. But it has been enough to set my alarm bells ringing.
That’s not to condone paedophilia; far from it. As Laura says (above) there are predatory abusers out there; and it is right that where there is sufficient evidence they are brought to justice. But I worry that we are straying into witch-hunt territory, where merely making an allegation is enough for a conviction and that having to provide evidence and to prove a case “beyond reasonable doubt” has gone by the board. This is gutter-press, mob justice.
Merely painting, drawing or photographing a child naked, or showering with a child (yours or anyone else’s) does not constitute paedophilia. Just as a mixed, nude, adult sauna (the norm in Scandinavia!) does not ipso facto mean there is sexual abuse.
We are rapidly approaching the stage where it will be a criminal offence for anyone to see any child nude at any time: parents will not be allowed to bath their newborns; and doctors will not be able to examine child patients. Clearly this is a nonsense and would lead to a major deterioration in health.
As I have observed before nudity and sexuality need to be normalised, not marginalised and ciminalised. I have always maintained that if we had a healthier understanding and acceptance of desires, sexuality, nudity and our bodies it would have far reaching positive effects on our health and our attitudes. Bring children up to understand their bodies, their sexuality and to accept nudity as something normal and they will be more balanced as individuals; more able to discuss their inner feelings and worries; more at ease discussing their medical problems with their doctor. All of which has to be good, if only in terms of catching serious disease earlier and when it is more easily, and more cheaply, treated. But I believe it would also be of great benefit psychologically.
Five Questions, Series 3, #5
OK, guys & gals, we’ve come to the last of the Five Questions I posed some weeks ago. So here goes …
Question 5. If you could get everyone who reads this to do one thing, just once, what would you get them to do?
Now this probably isn’t going to come as a surprise to many of you but I think my answer would have to be:
To go completely nude in public, or just in their garden, for 1 hour during the hours of daylight with their friends and/or family.
Those who read here regularly will how I believe that we would all be better adjusted mentally, and healthier, if we were all more comfortable with our bodies, nudity, sex and sexuality. We would be more comfortable discussing “intimate” matters with our doctors so we wouldn’t delay seeking help for supposedly embarrassing ailments. We need to normalise nudity and sexuality, not marginalise and criminalise them.
To go nude, with friends and family is the start of this process. I was brought up in a family where nudity was nothing to be remarked about, and indeed quite normal. Consequently I have no fear of being nude, of seeing other others nude, nor of discussing anything “embarrassing” with my doctor. There’s nothing to be ashamed of, or embarrassed about — at the end of the day we all know, give or take the odd scar and mole, what’s underneath those jeans and t-shirt. So where’s the problem?
And no, being the wrong size or shape isn’t an excuse! We’re all the wrong size and shape, because there is no right size and shape! We’re all different. Some are tall, some short; some fat, some thin; some have darker skin than others; some have larger or smaller accoutrements than others. It’s all normal. And the variety is all part of the spice of life. No men, you don’t end up getting an erection (and frankly so what if you do, it’s natural); girls don’t end up looking at every bloke’s dangly bits; and men don’t spend their whole time ogling girls’ chests (or lower). No-one gives stuff whether you shaved there or not. And no, it doesn’t pervert children; they’re actually remarkable unfazed by it all and there’s actually evidence they end up better adjusted. So you end up behaving like civilised beings! Try asking the Swedes, where anything other than a totally nude, mixed sauna is seen as rather odd.
Indeed if we could get people to experience social nudity, then I bet that a good proportion of them would actually enjoy it and find it liberating. They may well end up wondering what all the fuss was about.
In my view social nudity is a basic human right, and I think all public swimming pools etc. should have to provide a few hours of clothes optional sessions every week. I bet it would soon catch on (and no, not for those reasons).
Try it, you might like it!
— oo OO oo —
OK, that concludes Five Questions, Series 3. I’ll do another series in a while.
Meantime, do please suggest suitable questions for consideration.
Underground Fun
Is anyone up for a giggle on Sunday? If so it is No Trousers on the Tube Day 2013.
See Annie Mole’s Going Underground blog or Facebook for more information.
Sadly, as usual, they’ve arranged it at a time I can’t do. Boo!
Nudity Stupidity
So we have two, rather different, men in the news this week for appearing nude. Prince Harry for playing strip pool at a party and Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler, incarcerated again in Scotland for walking nude down the street. Neither has done anything overtly illegal (Gough is convicted of breach of the peace, although frankly from what I’ve read I don’t see how) but both are being punished. Both might reasonably stand accused of stupidity, given what they know; but stupidity alone isn’t illegal.
Uneasy bedfellows?!
Heresy Corner has a scathing summation of the issues. On Prince Harry:
And if a 28 year old man takes his clothes off in the company of other consenting adults, who cares?
It’s only a naked body. We’ve all got one of those. If you’re a distinguished actor you may well have displayed it to all the world in the name of art. This is the 21st century.
And, more tellingly, on Stephen Gough:
Gough has spent most of the past six years in prison since making the mistake of bringing his naked frame north of the border, where a Presbyterian horror of the body lingers despite repeated SNP claims that Scotland is a mature, progressive democracy ready for full independence.
[…]
Gough’s case is simple: “there is nothing about me as a human being that is indecent or alarming or offensive.” He poses no danger to society. He has never physically attacked anyone or interfered with property, nor has he used insulting language: his “crime” is to upset the sensibilities of prudes, of whom there are obviously a large number in Scotland.
[…]
Is nudity “indecent”? Only if you assume, as Anglo-Saxon prudes tend to do, that nudity implies sex. There are other reasons for being naked that have little to do with sex — taking part in a game of strip-billiards, for example.
[…]
It’s hard to escape the view that Gough’s real crime is not so much outraging public decency as refusing to conform. Keeping him upholds the majesty of the law which Gough’s defiance challenges, at a cost to the taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
[I would also take issue with the assertion that sex is indecent. Like nudity, sex and sexuality have to be normalised not criminalised and/or marginalised. But let’s leave that aside for now.]
At least there appears to be a tiny amount of common sense appearing in all this. Prince Harry is apparently likely to be punished only by being given a dressing down (pun intended) by his commanding officer (though GOK what it has to do with his CO) and made to donate some of his salary to charity. Meanwhile the Kirkcaldy Sheriff has ordered Gough to undergo psychiatric tests, which might give him a way out of the corner he and Scottish “justice” have painted him into.
Nevertheless, frankly, both cases are ridiculous. We need to come to terms with the fact that nudity is a normal part of the human condition. Get over it! Our princling has done nothing most of us wouldn’t have done; his only crime is his parentage. Gouch is agreed by all to be harmless but eccentric. The former should just be ignored. The latter allowed to go on his way and also ignored.
What is perhaps more important is to ask why people appear so outraged by these cases. I suspect it goes back to what I was writing about yesterday: most people need some outside influence to give them their moral code because they are unable (or unwilling) to think it through for themselves. Once that happens these people are prey to ridiculous, even dangerous, influences: anything from the abhorrence of nudity, through male dominance, to terrorism.
But it isn’t just the traditional religions that are now occupying this morality defining territory. The tabloid media (papers, TV, radio) have become the new religion — the definers of morals — and thus the definers of what people think. Too many people still adhere to the “if it’s in the paper, it must be true” and pause to think no further.
Well it’s time to grow up and start thinking. Time to rise up against the Mrs Grundys of this world.
If it harm none, do as you will.
Stephen Gough
Interesting press release from British Naturism (BN) on the charade of the Stephen Gough case: Life imprisonment for dressing naturally. They’re right on the money. This is a farce, even if Mr Gough is being wilfully confrontational.
So “life imprisonment” is an over-reaction? No, because apparently a Scottish judge has made it clear that he will continue to be imprisoned until he gives in. Given that everyone agrees he is harmless, that is crazy and obscene treatment. Indeed I could suggest that under the international convention on human rights it amounts to (in the legal phraseology) “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Apart from the fact that Mr Gough clearly has little money, why has this case never been referred to the European Court of Human Rights?
Whether you like nudity or not, the whole affair is a disgrace of the first order.
Five Questions #3
OK, so here, as promised, is my answer to the third of the five questions I promised I would answer.
This one is quite easy for me to answer. But it may be uncomfortable for some to read. So …
Question 3. What would you do differently if you knew nobody would judge you?
Answer: Have the courage to go nude in public much more.
As many out there will know from previous posts I have no problem with nudity and I have never hidden the fact that I spend a lot of time at home unclothed, or barely clothed. I had a somewhat Bohemian upbringing and was introduced to naturism by my parents at the age of about 9 or 10. As a consequence I have never had a problem with nudity — mine or anyone else’s.
However I am acutely aware that many others do find nudity a problem and that the law — often erroneously — acts as if public nudity were illegal, which by default it isn’t in the UK. As I understand the law (and I’m not a lawyer so it likely isn’t this simple) public nudity only may become illegal if there is intent to harm or disturb people, or if there are complaints; essentially the police generally have no powers to intervene unless there are, or they have good reason to believe there will be, complaints.
Given that others are likely to be upset by nudity and that one wishes to be a good neighbour and not to fall foul of the law, this means that I am a little circumspect about where I practice nudity. Indoors or on the patio where there is little chance of being overlooked is fine; walking down the High Street probably isn’t.
So one has to draw the line somewhere. One doesn’t go out unclothed. I mostly don’t stray down the garden or answer the front door without donning a pair of shorts, at least. And one doesn’t entertain visitors without at least a modicum of clothing. But I would like not to have to feel this way.
If I were braver, which is what this question is asking, I would be happier to answer the door, or do things in the garden or with visitors around, without worrying about being clothed. And one would have the courage to demand that the local swimming pool run “clothes optional” session — after all isn’t this part of equality and human rights?
Would I be happy to go shopping in the nude? I don’t know; it may not be a physically comfortable thing to do, and besides one needs somewhere to keep a credit card. But I would like to think that I could, legally and without upsetting people, if I wanted to. It shouldn’t be a big deal.
Sadly too many people still regard any nudity as a sexual act. It isn’t. And here, unfortunately, TV and the other media are very much to blame: if they portray nudity it is almost always in a sexual context so we shouldn’t be surprised that nude = sex in many people’s minds. And as we know there is the misapprehension that sex is dirty, hence nudity is dirty and disgusting … and we have arrived at prudery. But there is not a shred of evidence that nudity causes harm; if anything the opposite is true as this and this briefing documents from British Naturism highlight.
If anything nudity is less sexual (and much healthier) than being clothed. That pretty girl (or guy) you just saw walking down the street probably looks ordinary without clothes. In the nude state little is left to the imagination, so there isn’t the prospect of what’s being hidden to titillate us. Once you’ve seen half a dozen you’ve seen them all: young or old; fat or thin; male or female; black, white or sky-blue-pink. Clothing is much more sexual than nudity, despite that we all know — give or take the odd scar — what is underneath our clothes. (And anyway scars are interesting; they tell stories!) So where is the problem? Why do we have to hide our bodies away?
I actually think this is important for all of us and that prudery is a major public health risk. I have written here, and in other posts, about how a relaxed attitude to nudity is good for us.
I passionately believe that if we were all more relaxed about nudity and more comfortable with our, and everyone else’s, bodies (and sexuality) we would be a lot healthier. Both mentally and physically. If we were we’d find it much easier to discuss our bodies (and bodily functions) with each other and especially with the medical profession — something which doesn’t cause me a problem. As an example I had to visit my (very nice, lady) GP a few days ago because of a problem with my male equipment. I had no problem whatsoever being examined or talking to her about it. Why should I? My GP has seen and heard it all before; probably so often she is bored stupid by it. Isn’t it better I get a possible problem checked out now rather that leave it to become a serious problem later? You still hear so many stories of people who, for whatever imagined reason, “don’t like” to get things checked out and hence end up with major medical problems or worse. It just isn’t worth it.
We need to normalise nudity, and sex, not marginalise and criminalise them.
Really where is the problem?
What's so Shocking about Breasts?
BBC TV Breakfast presenter Susanna Reid has accused viewers of over-reacting to sightings of her cleavage.
Oh FFS! What’s so shocking about breasts? Even whole breasts, let alone glimpses round the edge?
Answer: Nothing!
Women have breasts. So do men. Women’s breasts are multi-functional. Men’s aren’t. Men are allowed to show theirs. Women aren’t. How is this logic? Where is the problem?
Answer: In your mind!
Who cares whether the breasts in question are on TV, at the supermarket, in my front room, or on the beach? Why should that make any difference?
We all know, give or take the odd interesting scar, what’s under these pieces of fabric we call clothes. So how does it matter if the fabric isn’t there? If everyone was naked, wouldn’t we find it obscene that people wanted to cover themselves up?
Come on people, get a life! Bodies and nudity are normal. They aren’t de facto sexual, or criminal, or dirty, or “not nice” — except in your mind. Try getting real and getting comfortable with bodies; try being body and sex positive for once. Try adjusting your mind.
Yes, it’ll change your outlook on life — for the better. And who knows, you might actually like it!
And remember: If you see anything God didn’t make, throw a brick at it!
Good call, Susanna!