Hi Flora,
As always, your thoughts are beautifully articulated. I find the distinction you make between naturism and nudism quite valuable. The shift you mention, especially in places like Germany where nudity is seen as more casual in everyday life (even in film and spas), highlights how the cultural context of nudity is evolving. Your experiences with your friends, while not necessarily representing the wider public, show that nudity can be relaxed and fun without adhering to traditional naturist values. I think this also points to the broader trend of how naturism and nudism are diverging, with many people embracing nudity for fun and relaxation but not necessarily adopting it as a lifestyle or ideology.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts so clearly!
Warm regards,
Vince
This is such a refreshing thread: honest, witty, analytical and insightful. It's great how Flora has the perspective that she's not a true nudist rather than the typical orthodox nudist perspective that others are not true nudist/naturist like they are and if they were the world would be as perfect as them.
As a student of history, my only disagreement was that modern nudism began in a largely agrarian society. Whereas most societies were still primarily agrarian in the late 1800's, my belief is that nudism arose in reaction to industrialization. People needed to get out of the cities, which were generally crowded, dirty and unsanitary at the time, and get back to "the Garden," much like hippies as Flora pointed out. From this perspective, we're still in the formulation phase of the Digital Revolution. After the warm embrace of all things social media, etc., there is likely to be a backlash in some form. Will people want to ditch their Iphones along with their clothes and train at extending their attention spans? Or will nudism go the way of the horse and buggy?
My personal belief is that the decline of nudism as we know it is primarily driven by individualism and the unwillingness to be part of a tribe or creed. In 2000 the book "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community" came out which was precient in describing this. First the bowling alleys and now the churches are being shuttered. European society has been more driven by the government than the US since WW2, but the overall creed for Western societies has yes been individualism. The idea is to invent yourself as you go along, making things more opportunistic and event-oriented.
Looking at the Sinsheim Spa you mentioned, it claims itself to be an experience destination with no focus on nudism. On their website's small print the spa section is listed as "Textilfreier Bereich, ab 16 Jahren" or "Clothing free area for ages 16 and older," but there's no mention of the traditional nudist "FKK." In the US as nudist resorts close, "World Naked Bike Ride" events are growing in popularity. Here in Chicago, a generally progressive city in the heart of the more Puritanical Midwest, we had a large post-summer unofficial nude beach on Hollywood in the city, but only after the Labor Day weekend when the lifeguards were no longer keeping people from drowning or getting naked per policies. People seem to care less about rules, and if the community at large is fine with nudity, it becomes acceptable. The diffference is that it's spontaneous among friends and not designated, organized and officially sanctioned. That makes me think that nudism is dead or dying, but long live the freedom to ditch the clothes.
Hi there,
I couldnt agree morethis thread has indeed been refreshing, with all the honesty, wit, and deep analysis from everyone involved. Floras perspective on not considering herself a "true" nudist is refreshing in itself. It opens up the conversation beyond the often rigid lines some in the naturist community draw between what constitutes real naturism or nudism.
As a fellow student of history, your point about modern nudism being a reaction to industrialisation rather than arising in an agrarian society is an excellent clarification. People escaping the grime and overcrowding of cities during the Industrial Revolution did seek refuge in nature, much like the hippies later did. This suggests that naturism or nudism has always been partly about finding peace and balance when societal and technological advancements push us too far from our natural roots.
Were definitely still grappling with the Digital Revolution, as you said. I wonder what form that backlash might takewhether its people giving up their iPhones in favour of a more "connected to nature" experience, or whether nudism continues in more spontaneous forms, as you mentioned. It could go either way, or maybe both paths will coexist.
Your point about individualism and the declining sense of tribe or creed resonates deeply. "Bowling Alone" was a wake-up call about how disconnected modern life has become, and its interesting to see how that parallels the decline of naturism as a communal practice. In many ways, Western societies have adopted a "build your own identity" approach, which can clash with the collectivism that naturism once embodied.
Sinsheim Spa is a great example of this shift. Its become more of an experience destination rather than an authentic naturist spot, with nudity just being a part of the offering rather than the focus. The same could be said about events like the World Naked Bike Rideless about the creed of naturism and more about fleeting moments of freedom, where nudity is an expression rather than a lifestyle.
It does seem that the organised, traditional forms of nudism might be on the decline, but as you said, the freedom to ditch our clothes may live on in new, spontaneous, and less structured ways. Itll be interesting to see how that evolves as society continues to adapt to new social and technological realities.
Thanks for sharing your thoughtsthis was a great read!
Best regards,
Vince
First, I have to say that this is one of the most intelligent discourses I've seen on this site. I hope it continues.
Stoneandy wrote:This is such a refreshing thread: honest, witty, analytical and insightful. It's great how Flora has the perspective that she's not a true nudist rather than the typical orthodox nudist perspective that others are not true nudist/naturist like they are and if they were the world would be as perfect as them.
What he said. I'm not sure what Flora meant when she said she's not a "true nudist," although I interpret it to mean that she's not in search of nudism as a lifestyle, where it's important to live in nudist communities and be around nudists as a default rather than an occasional excursion. I'm that way myself... I go to my local nudist resort maybe two or three times a year for a weekend, but I have no desire to live there. My local non-landed club holds nude get-togethers every month or so, and I go to some of them, because they usually feature a hot tub or pool, and it makes sense for me to be naked in contexts like these.
I've always defined a nudist as a person who believes that if it doesn't make sense to wear clothes, it makes sense not to wear clothes. It really doesn't matter to me whether the person is a solitary or a social nudist, or whether they pursue a lifestyle of being some sort of ideal naturist who doesn't smoke, drink, wear makeup, or go in for calisthenics or hiking in the nude.As a student of history, my only disagreement was that modern nudism began in a largely agrarian society. Whereas most societies were still primarily agrarian in the late 1800's, my belief is that nudism arose in reaction to industrialization. People needed to get out of the cities, which were generally crowded, dirty and unsanitary at the time, and get back to "the Garden," much like hippies as Flora pointed out.
My own reading corroborates that impression, at least in the United States. But it's hard to tell what was practiced in agrarian societies. In less "civilized" societies, nudity might not have been widespread as a life-style, but there seems to be a more casual approach to it in communal bathing and swimming. Again, it's a situation where "if it doesn't make sense to wear clothes..."My personal belief is that the decline of nudism as we know it is primarily driven by individualism and the unwillingness to be part of a tribe or creed. In 2000 the book "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community" came out which was precient in describing this. First the bowling alleys and now the churches are being shuttered. European society has been more driven by the government than the US since WW2, but the overall creed for Western societies has yes been individualism. The idea is to invent yourself as you go along, making things more opportunistic and event-oriented.
This may be in line with my own distinction between "personal nudism" and "social nudism." The latter doesn't always have to be practiced in resorts or nude beaches and such, where it's conspicuous. Instead, it can simply be friends shedding clothes when visiting each other's hot tubs and pools, or skinny dipping at a local river. I think that this goes on more frequently than it did in the past, but it's so under-the-radar that it doesn't make an impact on a concept of communal nudism, and its participants are probably not members of a local or national nudist association.Looking at the Sinsheim Spa you mentioned, it claims itself to be an experience destination with no focus on nudism. On their website's small print the spa section is listed as "Textilfreier Bereich, ab 16 Jahren" or "Clothing free area for ages 16 and older," but there's no mention of the traditional nudist "FKK." .
I'm surprised that there's an age restriction. The only restrictions in the resorts I've been to (at least the ones that advertise as "family friendly") are that children be under the supervision of their parents or guardians. But there may be some legal impediments in the area where Sinsheim Spa is.
Wow, I never thought that my usual boringly long morning blurb would generate so much contributions.
First, I was trying to make a distinction between naturism and nudism. Probably useless as everything which ends in ism tends to become a sort of religion. So fine, let's not use such definitions. My point was that I am not making social nudity a goal in itself, indeed it makes sense not to wear clothes and it is pleasurable in certain circumstances, most often with zero teasing intent. Do I use my nudity to tease? Maybe sometimes, in private contexts, but I think I am far sexier when I hide a bit of my skin, and you have seen me in hundreds of pics in teasing attire, this is Elegant Nudist Ladies, not Natural Naturist Ladies' group... I do like to look at other nudists (OK, mostly other women, so I don't think it's a sexual thing), I think people look so much better and more natural unstrapped in small pieces of fabric which make them look like walking sausages.
I once tested the members of the group asking if they would rather be the only one naked or the only one dressed in a group which includes lots of members of their preferred gender. Most said the only one naked. I'd rather be the only one dressed. So I guess I'm more voyeur than exhibitionist.
Now, is the "debasement of money" dilemma reversible as Richie suggests? So, to sum it up, women become very scarce, they are replaced by gay guys, straight guys lose interest and the place becomes gay... Would that attract women back? I don't know. Not me. It's not only that being the only eye candy on a beach is uncomfortable. I don't feel unsafe, I am basically always accompanied by D in such case. But I feel that I don't belong there. So I wouldn't come back to be the only woman on a gay beach. But that's just me. Now another argument would be that such process can't be irreversible because in such case all nudist venues would become gay - and there are simply not enough gay guys to occupy them. So they may become scarcely populated and attract shyer people, who prefer a bit of intimacy, women included, which in their turn will attract more men etc. and process could indeed be reversed...
I did propose that one of the three causes of the decline of naturism is the increasing individualism. Both the late 19th century FKK and the mid 20th century flower power movements were about utopic communities of happy and loving people. But I put it in contrast with decreasing libertarianism (to use the American wording). Which is a paradox. Those movements wanted to go off the grid, to get the Government out of their beaches, beds, lives. We are now under much more Government control and supervision than ever. We go to Government-sanctioned nudist places, Government can supervise all our internet activity, its cameras can see us everywhere in public spaces, we even have to provide a photo ID to upload pics on a nudist site because not even Government itself, but a credit card company so decided... So, with ever increasing individualism but also government control in a society where a majority of members consider nudism an aberration, where do you think nudism is going, North or South?
The recent Individualism movement to be recognized as a "This is what I want to be" has moved society in quite a ways, opened up dialog and acceptance for many the different parts of the human population, some in positive ways, others in somewhat questionable ways. Unfortunately, nudism and naturism have yet to grab hold of the mainstream idea of acceptance. Our governmental regulations saddle us here in the Western Hemisphere. Some have recently relaxed in addressing the diversity of the population; others still clasp the ancient values of what is believed to be acceptable and what "they" think is inappropriate. The verdict is still in discussion.
Is it headed North or South?
I would want to believe in a Northerly direction. The perception of how nudity and naturism are presented in public will tell. Social nudism and naturism have their place in society. As long as it is not defaced, my hope is that it will survive public scrutiny heading in a Northern direction.
So many thoughts! So much, I'm struggling to come up with a reply that would do the earlier posts justice!
Perhaps I'll just consider the concept of being a 'true' nudist or not, based on the breadth of activities one partakes in. I tend to stick to beach visits but that's a restriction of opportunity to me as much as a restriction of desire. But then there's these sophisticated Europeans who regularly partake in communal nudity such as spas and saunas, but aren't 'nudists'. Or perhaps'naturalists', even.
To me, the threshold is possibly defined by how comfortable one is in a communal setting in one's skin. Is that too broad? After all, I'm not nudist enough to walk down my street nude in daylight, so by some definitions I may not be 'true'. But then I am happy at the clothing-optional beach, even if the only other person there is a dressed local walking his or her dog. A spa would be nice to try, but doesn't seem an option here.
Does the aesthetic come into it? Perhaps, but I am not certain it has to. Go back to basics, of adorn your bod with accessories that don't defy the underlying nudist vibe, and I probably won't change my thoughts about whether you are in the 'club'.
FloraT wrote:First, I was trying to make a distinction between naturism and nudism. Probably useless as everything which ends in ism tends to become a sort of religion.
The distinction is indeed blurred. Here in the US, "naturist" is preferred over "nudist" in most publications, because the word "nudist" has been hijacked by the porn industry, and has come to be associated with sexual activity. It's another example of how words change meaning when they go through the grinder of public use, as words have done for millennia. (I remember reading about St. Paul's Cathedral in London when it was finished in 1710. One writer commented that it was "awful, pompous, and gross." Those were words of praise in those days... now we would say that it was "awesome, stately, and grand.")It's not only that being the only eye candy on a beach is uncomfortable. I don't feel unsafe, I am basically always accompanied by D in such case. But I feel that I don't belong there. So I wouldn't come back to be the only woman on a gay beach. But that's just me.
Thank you for the perspective. Only once have I been in a nude situation where my companions were two gay men who were hitting on me. It was not a pleasant experience, because I went into panic mode and later realized that I was flashing back on an episode when I was molested as a child by another boy. I don't think I would avoid being with gay men now, but it did give me an appreciation for what women go through, particularly if they're carrying the baggage of having been deemed to be sex objects ever since they hit puberty.Now another argument would be that such process can't be irreversible because in such case all nudist venues would become gay - and there are simply not enough gay guys to occupy them. So they may become scarcely populated and attract shyer people, who prefer a bit of intimacy, women included, which in their turn will attract more men etc. and process could indeed be reversed...
Time will tell, I guess, if there continues to be venues for such a mixture.I did propose that one of the three causes of the decline of naturism is the increasing individualism. Both the late 19th century FKK and the mid 20th century flower power movements were about utopic communities of happy and loving people.
I can speak from first-hand experience here, since I went through that. My first exposure to nudity was through the FKK in the 1960s, and I identified with what we called "freeks" and others called "hippies." We took our clothes off when we could, and saw a world where such communities could exist. But the freeks I knew weren't out to be nude all the time, only when the context called for it.We are now under much more Government control and supervision than ever. We go to Government-sanctioned nudist places, Government can supervise all our internet activity, its cameras can see us everywhere in public spaces, we even have to provide a photo ID to upload pics on a nudist site because not even Government itself, but a credit card company so decided... So, with ever increasing individualism but also government control in a society where a majority of members consider nudism an aberration, where do you think nudism is going, North or South?
Good question. My answer is that nudism is going underground, out of sight of the government. Yes, we are scrutinized intensively when we go for public nudism, only going nude in times and places where the government sanctions it. But as I mentioned before, a lot of nudity goes on under the radar, so to speak.
Speaking of scrutiny: all the resorts I've been to in the western US have pretty intensive screenings before you're admitted. They take your driver's license and, while you're getting the (usually clothed) tour of the facilities, it's compared with the known lists of sex offenders. If there's a match, out you go. So it could be argued that children are safer in the resorts than in most social environments in the textile world.
SteveDoes the aesthetic come into it? Perhaps, but I am not certain it has to. Go back to basics, of adorn your bod with accessories that don't defy the underlying nudist vibe, and I probably won't change my thoughts about whether you are in the 'club'.
A key point there. I see a difference between "adorning the body" and "covering the body." If a person feels that their body is enhanced by shaved pubes, make-up, earrings, studs, nipple piercings, tattoos and so on, but the skin is still exposed to the sun and wind and water, I'm OK with it. I wouldn't go that route myself, but to each his own.
As for clothing, I'm down with it if it's functional. I usually wear sandals. I often wear a hat or a light tunic to keep from being sunburned. If it's colder, I'll put on a robe. If I need to keep track of the time, I'll wear a watch. But that's it.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!