Yes Matt - your partner seems to get naturism better than some people who are being paid to represent naturism!

Anna recently wrote a piece for H&E, which we of course both chatted about and as always pooled our minds, and in it she spoke about a naturist club like Broadlands being an example of how society has worked for thousands of years and how such places could be used as models for modern society healing. Naturism is a beautiful example of Real life and Real people in Real society - so how in the world can any of the national bodies be getting it so wrong? Once again, I would like to clarify, the complaints were very much aimed at certain bodies and not all. It seems such a nonsense- it is like choosing the salad because you are dieting and then smothering it in treacle. We have this amazing life choice that is so healing and bonding and yet we are having these modern, trendy, woke, anti-social, sexualised, disrespectful views being dribbled all over it. 

Naturism is being ruined by egos - egos of influencers, "celebrities", attention seekers, arrogant board members, bullies and profiteers. Naturism is acting as stupid as other aspect of life are acting on the internet and we should be above this. There is a unhealthy attitude that is growing that sees naturism purely in terms of business, and when this happens it will be distorted by any means possible to make more money, to tick more fashionable boxes and to pamper more egos. It is a very sad fact that there are people out there right now who are making out that they are doing what they do for naturism and they are not, not one bit! 

As we mentioned in the survey, naturism should make money, that is part of how it proves its credibility, but if people are not true to naturism in their attempts to make money then they are false naturists. No better than the fake "sermon-sellers" prostituting religion and miracles to line their pockets and to bring them glory. 

So much of the financial machine is corrupt. Businesses that lie, avoid taxes, pretend that profits go towards charity, exploit young/old/vulnerable/minorities, sell things through lies, scam and cheat, pollute and damage, break laws and so forth. Naturism should be beyond all of this, it should be shining a moral light into the gloom and saying, this is the way to be. Naturism is about honesty, removing barriers and being real. That is why we have created Get Real! Naturism has to be real to be appreciated, understood, grow and to be naturism. 

We are supposed to see through all the dressing up and the fakery of the world. What are we doing allowing naturism to become tainted by such things. 

People have bought into ANW because it is clear that ANW believes in naturism. It is clear that Anna and myself have a passion for Real Naturism. It is clear that many of ANW members carry that same passion in their lives all over the world, maybe that is why some in the survey described ANW as like being in a family. We are on the same side. It is obvious that many people in the survey feel that their national body is not on their side, and some         believe that it is not even on the same side as naturism! All countries deserve to have a positive, well intentioned, national body that is populated by people who only care about naturism and want to see more people becoming naturists and want to see the local clubs spread around their regions grow and flourish. Some national bodies are doing this, the members of other national bodies should demand the same respect and open honesty and care. These bodies exists to pass down naturism to future generations, board members are "torch bearers" for future lovers of naturism. It isn't their private little enterprise and should never be about anything but caring for the naturists in their country. And not just the paying members, but all naturists, they have a moral duty to protect naturism- and if that moral duty is being ignored for profit, glory and woke tag words then they are doing something very wrong. They are not just ruining naturism today, they are ruining it for ever, and if naturism is the only sensible voice out there fighting against perversion and body loathing then they are also possibly ruining the future of man kind and the world. This may seem dramatic, but maybe if they see the exagerated importance of what naturism is possible of they may also see the terrible shame of their attitudes. 

In reaction to a question today in one of the groups about "why some naturist accommodations are intended for gays only" I have posted this on the bigger picture of segregation by age, gender or sexual orientation: 

In an ideal world people would like to be in a healthy, natural mix of people. As you correctly write it really doesn't matter what people's sexual orientation is when it comes to connecting with them as friends or fellow naturists. Sadly there is a lot in segregating going on in naturism. More and more we see opportunities not open to people under 18, which therefore cuts out a huge percentage of the human race as around 60% of people live with people under 18. Interestingly we never seem to see an event or venue that is "family only," it may be classified as family friendly, but still allows singles and couples in.  As well as far too many adult only opportunities, we see women on opportunities growing, and many of these "gay" opportunities are open to all men irrespective of sexual persuasion. We see opportunities who refuse single men which is another form of segregation. I can understand that at time connecting beyond just naturism may feel preferable or attractive. How about a naturist book reading club, or naturist vegetarians or other ways that we may have 2 things in common. It may be that sometime it is easier in sharing things in common to have a narrower group of people connecting, and if someone only wants to be with people who are the same gender, or same age, then that is maybe only similar to wanting to hang with people who all want to get drunk, or enjoy jazz, or like fishing. I think the big problem about the idea of segregation comes into view when you start to consider that it is not based on a secondary interest but simply gender or age. Yes there can be times when age may matter - a naturist trip to a brewery may be best aimed at adults, where as a naturist trip to Legoland would surely have to welcome children. And maybe there are times when it is nicer to sit having a chat with fellow men or fellow women over a cup of coffee. But generally it is good to encourage integration. Naturists are already a minority, and it is good for us as a society to intermingle. Children learn from other children, other parents, other single adults, and adults of retirement age, and so do we! We become better rounded and more accepting people by interacting with a mix of other people. I have known of people who hate children being involved in anything: the idea that all children are unpleasant and out of control, but children learn by example and if they are not given ways to learn they will one day be adults that are unpleasant and out of control, and there will be no way of refusing them admission based on age! We learn to trust people not by hiding from them but by getting to know them. The counter argument to women finding confidence to be naturists through women only events is that the segregation implies mistrust, in real naturism we shouldn't be concerned about gender, and it may simply encourage a mistrust of naturism by suggesting men need to be kept at a distance. On top of that how about the 90% of women who actually have male partners and the 80% of women under between 18 and 45 who have children? The problem can become exacerbated when we start to consider that segregation by gender can have a more sexual connotation. Is it adult only or men only or LGBQT only because of sexual connecting reasons? The other side of the argument: do we refuse single men, or offer women only events because men cannot be trusted to not leer and pester? We know that there are venues that have a libertine/swinging approach to nudity, and it is easy to consider that a venue that requires segregation has other ideas in mind. It is like an advert in a classified for "massage" it is easy to assume that the service is more than massage, but where does that leave the real masseurs? It is hard enough to explain to people that naturism isn't about sex, that nudity does equate to sex without the added idea that people wish to segregate based on sexual orientation and also keep children at a distance. Segregation encourages people to assume that there is more than meets the eye going on in naturism, and the existence of libertine venues only reinforce this despite these places not representing naturism. I try to consider this as a non-naturist and I cannot help but imagine that if I looked at an event that was adult only and involved young naked people drinking alcohol and partying late at night I would assume that it was adult only for a very good reason. We always have to ask ourselves: "what message are we sending out to non-naturists?" Although there may be a healthy market for a minority who enjoy segregation, in an ideal world, for positive interaction, a healthy community and long term growth of naturism it is not a trend that should be encouraged.     

What do you think about this topic? 

Segregation & treating people differently - this problem is not limited to naturism. It is everywhere. As Steve ANW said in in this forum in January 2023 “How can my son be told by a career advice officer that because he is a white English male he will struggle to find a job?” There can be no doubt that in todays society the above statement is true. Only this week I read that a growing number of NHS Trusts will guarantee anyone from a ethnic minority background an interview for a senior position in a NHS Trust. And if a white person and a minority ethnic are equally well suited, then the “non-white” applicant shall win the tie-break. Note, these words & phrases are from NHS England.

Whatever happened to the best person for the job, being awarded the job?

There is an established and growing movement which is suggesting all men are aggressors; and that they should be avoided altogether. Its known as the 4B movement: no marriage, no childbirth, no romance and no sexual relationships with men (in Korea, all of those words begin with “B”). There are dozens more movements too, against one type of person or another. But maybe this type of movement fuels demand for women-only events?

Back to naturism in general. I like mixed gender, mixed background, mixed everything events. I would not particularly enjoy being in a group of only men, or only women. Or only anything!

I think society itself needs to change. All the time we have narcissistic people buying things they don’t want, to impress people they don’t like, things will never change.

Mark writes: I like mixed gender, mixed background, mixed everything events. I would not particularly enjoy being in a group of only men, or only women. Or only anything!

We feel that is exactly what naturism should be, and anything that is segregated is damaging to people, and naturism.

This was our forumula when we helped set up one years worth of events at Halkyn in Wales two years ago, we asked ourselves, could we recreate the experience and community feeling of ANW on the site? With that in mind, we set out our conditions for working with NWNS.

We were delighted with the result, because we had all walks of life join us naked at all of our events, and we felt then, and still do now, that the sucess of the events were actually down to the fact that there was no segregation at all.