![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastThe nudist1 movement - at least as it manifests in Australia and the US - is one i personally find problematic. Nudism has long held an attraction for me, and at one stage a former partner and myself were members of an Australian nudist club affiliated to the Australian Nudist Federation. Nowadays i consider myself a 'nudist' in the sense that:
Having said that, however, the Australian nudist movement is something i don't feel comfortable participating in at the moment.
My experience is that the organised nudist movement is conservative-bordering-on-puritan. Many nudist groups are anxious to convey the notion that they're basically your local conservative Christian Church group, sans clothing. One of the primary ways these groups seek to do this is to emphasise, very strongly, that nudity has nothing to do with sex, that the two things are completely separate, and that there is zero tolerance for any 'perverted', i.e. lewd or sexual, behaviour on group grounds or events.
To a certain extent, this makes sense. Our society is obsessed with sex - but only in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink sort of way which fails to encourage open, frank and detailed discussions on the topic. Unsurprisingly, this results in people seeing far more overlap between certain topics relating to sexuality and relationships than necessarily exists. In this specific case, people in Australian society most regularly encounter other people fully naked in sexual situations; and so people assume that nudity inevitably and inherently involves a sexual situation. Of course, this isn't actually the case, but the assumption is so deep in many people's minds that countering it requires strong statements. And given that the nudist movement does aspire to be something for all ages, it's even more important to loosen the connection in people's minds between nudity and sexuality, to assure people that kids won't be inappropriately exposed to sexual activities.
However, i often feel that the strong counter-statements are far too often based on sex-negative and queerphobic values. Active members of the movement frequently make use of phrases typically associated with theocons, like "family-oriented" or "pervert". "Family-oriented" seems to be shorthand for "Good'n'wholesome, with no sexuality present or allowed". "Pervert" seems to be shorthand for "voyeur / exhibitionist / swinger / non-heterosexual / child abuser" - conflating the last term with the previous terms in a way typical of religious bigots.
i consider myself to be both a voyeur and an exhibitionist - i love watching other people be sexual, and i love to be watched whilst engaging in sexual activity. i am also, of course, a queer and a swinger. However, it's hardly the case that this means i inevitably engage in sexual activities related to these identities irrespective of the context: i very much make an effort to do so only where all parties involved have explicitly given, or at least strongly implied, their consent2. i take offence at the notion that i'm in the same category as sleazes who fail to consider whether their sexuality-related behaviours are appropriate for a given context, and fail to check for mutual consent.
An excellent example of the attitudes i've typically encountered in the nudist movement occurred a few years ago, when i wanted to promote the World Naked Bike Ride via Pleasure Activism Australia. i felt that doing so was appropriate not because the WNBR was a sexual event, but because i felt it promoted acceptance of body diversity, which i feel is an important part of getting people to feel comfortable about their own bodies, and thus, in turn, their sexuality. One of the organisers, however, would have none of it, and indeed, was so anxious to dissociate the event from anything related to sex or sexuality, so as to ensure that 'genuine' people wouldn't be turned off the event, that he created a rule for the relevant e-group which said that any group member who had "sexually suggestive names or email address name [or] "who list their hobbies and interests as sexual activities on their personal profiles" would be expelled from the group! Unsurprisingly, i felt it necessary to respond with the following:
The above experience didn't surprise me. To me, it neatly encapsulated the issues that i have with the nudist movement in Australia. It contains far too many people whose obsession with eliminating any association of nudity with sex/uality is so strong that one can't help but wonder if they doth protest too much (à la queerphobic politicians who turn out to frequent gay cruising spots). Perhaps the nudist movement will eventually take on a more progressive, balanced perspective3. Until that time, however, it's not a movement i feel comfortable being an active member of.
- i very much prefer to go naked as much as possible;
- i feel my society's negative attitudes towards nudity are unhealthy / neurotic; and
- i believe that communal nudity can be a positive experience demonstrating the diversity of the human body and encouraging body-acceptance.
Having said that, however, the Australian nudist movement is something i don't feel comfortable participating in at the moment.
My experience is that the organised nudist movement is conservative-bordering-on-puritan. Many nudist groups are anxious to convey the notion that they're basically your local conservative Christian Church group, sans clothing. One of the primary ways these groups seek to do this is to emphasise, very strongly, that nudity has nothing to do with sex, that the two things are completely separate, and that there is zero tolerance for any 'perverted', i.e. lewd or sexual, behaviour on group grounds or events.
To a certain extent, this makes sense. Our society is obsessed with sex - but only in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink sort of way which fails to encourage open, frank and detailed discussions on the topic. Unsurprisingly, this results in people seeing far more overlap between certain topics relating to sexuality and relationships than necessarily exists. In this specific case, people in Australian society most regularly encounter other people fully naked in sexual situations; and so people assume that nudity inevitably and inherently involves a sexual situation. Of course, this isn't actually the case, but the assumption is so deep in many people's minds that countering it requires strong statements. And given that the nudist movement does aspire to be something for all ages, it's even more important to loosen the connection in people's minds between nudity and sexuality, to assure people that kids won't be inappropriately exposed to sexual activities.
However, i often feel that the strong counter-statements are far too often based on sex-negative and queerphobic values. Active members of the movement frequently make use of phrases typically associated with theocons, like "family-oriented" or "pervert". "Family-oriented" seems to be shorthand for "Good'n'wholesome, with no sexuality present or allowed". "Pervert" seems to be shorthand for "voyeur / exhibitionist / swinger / non-heterosexual / child abuser" - conflating the last term with the previous terms in a way typical of religious bigots.
i consider myself to be both a voyeur and an exhibitionist - i love watching other people be sexual, and i love to be watched whilst engaging in sexual activity. i am also, of course, a queer and a swinger. However, it's hardly the case that this means i inevitably engage in sexual activities related to these identities irrespective of the context: i very much make an effort to do so only where all parties involved have explicitly given, or at least strongly implied, their consent2. i take offence at the notion that i'm in the same category as sleazes who fail to consider whether their sexuality-related behaviours are appropriate for a given context, and fail to check for mutual consent.
An excellent example of the attitudes i've typically encountered in the nudist movement occurred a few years ago, when i wanted to promote the World Naked Bike Ride via Pleasure Activism Australia. i felt that doing so was appropriate not because the WNBR was a sexual event, but because i felt it promoted acceptance of body diversity, which i feel is an important part of getting people to feel comfortable about their own bodies, and thus, in turn, their sexuality. One of the organisers, however, would have none of it, and indeed, was so anxious to dissociate the event from anything related to sex or sexuality, so as to ensure that 'genuine' people wouldn't be turned off the event, that he created a rule for the relevant e-group which said that any group member who had "sexually suggestive names or email address name [or] "who list their hobbies and interests as sexual activities on their personal profiles" would be expelled from the group! Unsurprisingly, i felt it necessary to respond with the following:
i think this is going overboard.The organiser was unmoved; and so i left the group.
Firstly, some background about myself: i am one of the moderators of the Pleasure Activism Australia Yahoo! group, which has over 150 members. i also, along with a former partner of mine, spent time as a member of an ANF-recognised nudist club.
Given my position as a moderator of the PAA Yahoo! group, i most definitely understand the frustration of people joining a group (or wanting to join a group) for purposes other than those for which it was intended. Despite the PAA Yahoo! group page stating very clearly, at the top of the page:PLEASE NOTE: Pleasure Activism Australia is NOT an adult personals/contacts group; it is a forum for discussing human sexuality and the politics surrounding human sexuality.we still regularly receive applications for membership which read something like:Hi, like the sound of your group, I'm a 41 yo male looking for a sexy woman to have fun with.:-/
So i agree that people shouldn't be joining the group for reasons which don't match the purposes of the group; nor should they be posting content to the group which doesn't match the purposes of the group.
However.
The rules that you have now put in place basically dictate how people can express their identities online. The rule of"not having a picture in your personal profile that goes beyond the decent standard for naturists"a) implies there is a single, universally-agreed upon standard of morality for /all/ naturists, and b) seems to imply that only 'immoral' naturists have sexual interests as well as an interest in non-sexual nudity. People who have sexual interests /but/ are also interested in non-sexual nudity - such as myself - will be put in the position of having to hide those interests merely for the sake of belonging to a WNBR group, or else having to establish a whole new email account just in order to be a member of this group (a process which, in my extensive IT experience, many people find less than trivial). And i suspect that many people will end up deciding they would rather not be a member of the group, rather than have the online expression of their identity controlled by the group in question.
In my particular case, i imagine that neither of my current email accounts would allow me to remain a member: neither my Pleasure Activism Australia account (since its name links it to a sexuality-focused group), or my account with 'bonobo' in the name (since 'bonobos' are apes which are known for resolving social conflict through sexual means). Further, i would have to edit my Yahoo! account to remove any suggestion that i have sexuality-related interests, which, given my position as Co-ordinator of Pleasure Activism Australia, is rather disingenuous, to say the least. And since many people consider non-heterosexual identities to be purely about sex as well, to be on the safe side - that is, to ensure that people don't link sex to me and thence to WNBR - i would have to remove any reference to my sexual orientation as well. Well, sorry, but queer identities have to be kept under wraps in our society enough as it is, and i, for one, refuse to stay silent about who i am (i.e. queer).
The reason i mentioned above that i was a member of a nudist club is to indicate that i am very aware of people wanting to completely dissociate nudity from sex. Unfortunately, you will never convince /everybody/ that nudity is not always sexual; and to attempt to do so, particularly in the manner being undertaken here, is more likely to alienate potential allies than to convince current 'enemies'. Certainly i know a number of people my age (31) who are, for all practical purposes, nudists, but who actively don't want to get involved with clubs because of the shrill anti-sexual attitudes of certain clubs and/or particular members of those clubs. It should come as no surprise that those who have more laid-back attitudes towards human nudity are often those people who have more laid-back attitudes towards sexuality as well.
In summary: i strongly agree with the aims of the WNBR. i have no intention whatsoever of initiating sexual discussions in this group. But if these rules are applied to the Melbourne group, i will not be hiding who i am, or creating a new email account, simply in order to remain a member of the group - i will respect the rules by leaving. Do you really want to get rid of people who have sexual interests but /also/ have a /genuine/ interest in non-sexual nudity?
The above experience didn't surprise me. To me, it neatly encapsulated the issues that i have with the nudist movement in Australia. It contains far too many people whose obsession with eliminating any association of nudity with sex/uality is so strong that one can't help but wonder if they doth protest too much (à la queerphobic politicians who turn out to frequent gay cruising spots). Perhaps the nudist movement will eventually take on a more progressive, balanced perspective3. Until that time, however, it's not a movement i feel comfortable being an active member of.
1. Or 'naturist'. There are extensive debates over what the two terms are said to imply, and which is the 'better' term.
2. An example of the latter would be the time when my former partner and i were eating lunch in one of the public parks surrounding Melbourne's CBD, and a couple engaged in some pretty obvious oral sex in a nearby glade - 'obvious' in the sense that i didn't have to move from my spot, or make any particular effort, in order to see what they were up to. i thought it was really hot - public outdoor sex, mmm!
3. Although apparently the phrase 'progressive nudism' has already been tainted by swingers. :-P
