On the activity feed yesterday we talked about tow subjects that have got be considering adding this topic to the forum.
The first was that there are examples of marches/parades that involve nudity but on a sexualised level. Men and Women wearing S&M gear, wearing clothes that purposely expose their genitals and breasts in a provocative way. Let's face it there is a big difference between walking naked and walking dressed but with crotchless clothing or nipple exposing bras. Naturism to me is not about making a big deal about exposing nipples and genitals - it is about placing them in an equal status as the rest of the body and saying "why should it matter if you can see my nipples or genitals?"
Yet it can appear that such "flashing behaviour" with sexualised overtones can appear as acceptable as public display - an acceptability that is not shared for the much more innocent, much more open and honest and much more family friendly nudity of naturism. With the possible exception of the WNBRs when would basic nudity be allowed on our streets? And WNBRs do have their share of protests and hate - as well as having a share of dressing up, body decorating and not really being aimed at families taking part. Plus they are not promoting naturism but other issues - and although naturists can enjoy these rides some organisers are very much against being linked to naturism and nudism - we have had WNBRs organisers tell us they want nothing to do with naturism and have nothing to do with naturism.
So why is it that society seems so much more accepting of sexualising the human body in such parades and marches than encouraging a healthy and honest approach to nudity. Why is it OK for adults to walk through streets on marches virtually naked apart for a few leather straps and studs? You do not have to be a prude or against such parades to see that there is an unbalance here that once again places naturism in the losing position.
The other aspect of yesterday's activity feed that ties in with this is some of the things we regular see on general social media. And not just the "no rules" approach of the likes of Twitter, but also the "No nipples" approach on the likes of Facebook. A naturist group on MeWe had a man sharing lots of random images of many different women lying legs wide apart towards the camera. A naturist group on Facebook had a video of a woman in a skimpy bikini top but otherwise naked crouching and urinating on a street. Another example of how "as long as you don't show nipples" you can basically do anything on Facebook no matter how cruel, inappropriate, illegal, sexual or unpleasant. Every time I visit Facebook on my personal account I see videos of young girls shoving large pieces of meat in their mouths, Why? I keep asking Facebook to not show these videos but they do not go away. And how about all those "Stories" are there any that are not perverse? I keep blocking the people who make them but more are waiting next time.
So here we are again. Healthy naturism is seen as too naughty for social media - but the accepted behaviour is so much worse! Another imbalance, another example of the sexual (and nasty and grotesque) being more acceptable than naturism. Why is it that if a person wanting to make money out of nudity on the internet pretends they are doing it for "sexual equality" or "sexual positivity" they are treated like heroes when really all most of them are doing is using cool and trendy hash-tags replacing words like "pornography" or "online prostitution" and giving themselves and their followers an excuse for doing what they are doing and being paid for it.
What about other public examples: How about people getting offended by naked statues like David, and yet strip clubs are able to actively entice people into their venues with posters and neon lights. Various streets in town around the globe have prostitutes merrily flashing their wares at people walking by, yet what would happen to those people if they chose to walk naked? Would a town centre accept a naturist cafe, as easily as it accepts strip clubs, sex shops and topless bars? People are more likely to be offended by a mother breast feeding on a park bench than a couple in their twenties spending their afternoons there drinking from a selection of beers cans by their side, or another couple with their tongues down each others throats. The police seem to ignore drug use in parks, drunken gangs, people who let their dogs run out of control, rubbish being thrown into ponds and flower gardens, groups of bullies striking fear into young and old alike, but if Steve and I were to sunbathe as naturists in the same park, minding our own business and doing no harm, then how long would it take for us to have a policeman's shadow block out the sun? Why does it seem that naturism is the most worrying of past times? Why are naturist magazines less acceptable on newsagents shelves that sex magazines? Why would an actress or actor be much more likely to do a sex scene in a film than be shot wandering along a beach in the nude?
As far as most of the internet , it seems that sex sells and , unfortunately, naturism doesn't...... 🙄 I liked a few naturist things on Facebook and have been swamped by the feeds from pneumatic young ladies who appear to be very interested in separating me from my money. Must be something to do with Mr Zuckerbergs algorithm. It doesn't matter how many you delete, more appear. 😒
what I found sick on FB was despite having obvious bans on 'child abuse images' they showed a meme of a hog tied child with the caption, this is what happens when you beat me at minecraft.
isn't that child abuse?
so what do they call a 'child abuse image' if that one clearly passed muster.
"why is it that society seems so much more accepting of sexualising the human body in such parades and marches than encouraging a healthy and honest approach to nudity". I think it's on one side because some lobbys are stronger than others, and on the other because society links tightly sexuality to nudity. Being nude is being ready for sex (debauchery). Sexualizing the body but not showing private parts is "fun" and makes headlines (sells).
Events like parades and marches are sometimes commercialized or used for marketing purposes. In such cases, there may be a tendency to prioritize sensationalism and spectacle, including sexualized imagery, to attract attention and generate revenue.
Furthermore, mainstream media tends to sensationalize and sexualize nudity, perpetuating the idea that it's primarily for titillation or arousal. This portrayal can overshadow the more nuanced and non-sexual aspects of nudity, contributing to societal perceptions.
Is there something we can do about it? Yes and no.
Yes, as we need our naturist federations to lobby more, we need more education about nudity and its various forms, including naturism and nudism, we need to advocate for more diverse and realistic depictions of nudity in media, highlighting its non-sexual aspects and promoting body positivity, we need to challenge and reform laws and regulations that perpetuate the stigma around nudity, allowing for more opportunities for non-sexualized nude activities in public spaces, and we need to promote awareness and advocacy efforts to challenge societal norms and misconceptions about nudity, emphasizing its natural and non-sexualized aspects.
No, as we're fighting against deep-pocketed lobbys, as fear of judgment, social ostracization, or legal repercussions can discourage individuals and organizations from promoting a healthy and honest approach to nudity outside of specific contexts like private spaces or designated naturist venues, as nudity has been predominantly depicted in art and media within a sexualized context, reinforcing this association in people's minds.
However, I'm optimistic and I want to believe that, as naturism is legal in many countries, we need to continue to promote naturism, to find the courage to share naturism with others, to be naked whenever and wherever we can and show the world that naturism is respectful.
I (Rob) started this conversation on the main posts, because I saw a contradiction within the mass public, and I was trying to gain some sort of understanding of it. I feel that an important point within all this is being missed, so I will; try to explain my thinking.
In my mind, I saw Fantasy Fest, which is something I have to date not encountered before, and from what I can gather, it is a festival where the public strip naked, (Mainly women), put on paper panties, and get full body painted, in order to walk around the streets, and be photographed by random strangers.
My train of thought behind this, is that this is the “general public,” and it is taking place in Miami, in the United States, a country that is perceived to be very conservative and puritan, where nude bodies offend the largest majority of people.
As naturists we are constantly bombarded with the rhetoric of “The public are offended by nudity” and yet at this event nudity is seen as acceptable, and is even applauded and celebrated.
Anna informed us all this is one of many festivals and events that takes place, some where people wear clothing that expose the nipples and genitals, so people walk around with their nipples, vagina’s, and penis’s on display, and again, this is celebrated and causes no offence, as the general public are quite at ease with it, and not offended.
There appears to me to be a contradiction here.
The members of this site were quick to point out that it is because the behaviour is sexual that it is tolerated, which I feel is a bit of a trigger word for naturists, as they rush to defend their naked none sexual behaviour, but in doing so the point is missed.
It matters not if the behaviour is sexual, what I feel is important is that the public appear to have a tolerant attitude to seeing mass nudity on occasion, as long as it is placed in an almost pantomime fashion. It is still nudity, and the USA appears not to be quite as puritan as it makes out, which is something I have always stated, it is the context that matters.
A few years back there was a huge controversy because a teacher showed images of the statue “David” by Michelangelo, and the chaos was caused as children were shown a statue of a naked man. The public were outraged, so I ask the question, if the statue had been body painted, or even dressed in BDSM gear, would it then be acceptable?
I find this to be a fascinating concept, which does go to the heart of our naturist understanding of ourselves and others. I could possibly be too analytical here, it would not be the first time, but I cannot deny, this thought has captivated my mind for a couple of days now, because there is a huge contradiction here, which I want to understand, I just don’t.
at March 15, 2024 3:05 PM GMT 