I think what is important is that we ensure that the words we use maintain a respect for our life choice, and if one gets commonly used for other meanings then the fact that it is hi-jacked can mean that we either have to work twice as hard to reclaim it or lose it.
It has saddened me that in recent years a symbol of joy for all children in the world has ben hi-jacked by the LGBQT community. The rainbow should not have sexual connotations and children should be able to continue to seek pleasure from seeing a rainbow and drawing a rainbow without others claiming it means more than just lovely colours in a blue sky and the fantasy of a pot of gold at the end. I feel that a want for individuals to raise sexual orientation awareness to others should not have sexualised something so innocently connected to childhood. And I really do not understand why people who work in banks, shops, estate agents etc feel a need to wear emblems to tell people of their sexual orientation. Why do we have to feel that everything needs sexualising. I do not care what sexual orientation my bank teller is, and it seems strangely obsessional that every where you go now sexuality is placed as so important. It is basically inappropriate to bring sexuality into places where sexuality has no relevance. Can loans, credit cards, withdrawing cash etc have anything to do with sexuality? The more we allow sex to infiltrate everything we do and everywhere we go the more we encourage everyone to think about sex and sexuality. The more we encourage children to lose their innocence, sexual pestering and threat, flirting and inappropriate behaviour on the internet, and so on and so on. We need to take a step back and ask questions like: Why does my son have a teacher who has photos of him and his boyfriend on the wall of his classroom and rainbow flags everywhere? What relevance does that have on Geography and his ability to teach his students Geography?
I am not someone who judges someone based on their sexuality, I am happy for people to be who they are and be in peace, but I do wonder why our sexuality has become something that is promoted everywhere irrespective of logic or reason.
Which brings me back to the naturism/nudism question. When people start to bring their sexuality into naturism it either has no purpose at all, or it changes the purpose of naturism and creates a sexual tension and atmosphere which in turn can actually lead to a more libertine interpretation of naturism. And it seems that this is happening with the idea of "nudism" in the US. However, there are those that feel the movement to adult only events and venues in the UK, and elsewhere, is doing the same with the word "naturism." When you add to this the modern woke approach we are seeing in the UK of promoting to people based on gender and sexuality it is very hard to not consider that many non-naturist will be considering naturism isn't for them because of the obsession with sexuality- which creates an idea that it is an obsession with sex itself. No matter how unnecessary it may be in the classroom or bank or supermarket it is easy to understand that these places are not about sexual encounters. But in an environment where people are naked, maybe drinking and dancing in the evening, camping over night around others, have dunes to hide out in etc it is easy to misinterpret the adult only, and sexuality interest as something much more worrying. And that misinterpretation is sadly proved to be correct thinking on occasions, and the more we see the confusion grow the more the misuse will grow.
In a recent H&E a celebrity couple who travel the world and never seem to come across any families or children in their travels and writing wrote about sexual encounters in dunes. "You may be wondering what the big deal is. Many of us if we're honest, have put dunes to good use in an overwhelming moment of passion at least once in our life. But that's between consenting adults. What if you don't consent?" Their issue with sex in the dunes is basically not that they think people shouldn't do it but that they should invite/lure strangers to join them in the dunes and then spring the sexual element onto them. It is unbelievable really that they have written this and it goes to show that people seem happy to sexualised everything and as naturist seem OK to say they have had sex in the dunes. What effort did they go to to ensure no one else could see them? How can they guarantee their are no children or families around? Or simply adults that could be really pained by such encounters. Not all adults are able to as they put it "understand that exhibitionism and voyeurism are popular fetishes, and as long as there's consent between all parties, we wondered if we should really be annoyed about it." The problem is that if you are causing offence through sexual encounters you are damaging naturism and the parties involved go far beyond those physically involved but also includes those who happen to witness it (what if the passer-by had recently been raped or had childhood traumas or simply doesn't want to see sexual encounters in public)- that is why the laws are there to protect us and why not being easily shocked is not a good enough excuse. How about the damage it can do to naturism when it gets in the press or has locals calling for the end of naturism at this location. And is there any difference to accepting that naturist have sex in the dunes than allowing them to share sexualised images here on ANW, or send penis images to strangers on Facebook, or having sharing sexual activity on Twitter while saying "I am a naturist/nudist."
People can sexually share and we can see it as harmless or nothing to do with us, but when it is done in the guise of naturism then it does naturism harm and brings naturism into disrepute. Sadly most people who are currently promoting naturism show little interest in families, and are happy to appear trendy, accepting and cool - but you can be overly accepting! This couple in H&E may well be happy to get "overwhelmed" in naturist locations, but they should appreciate that if they are happy to do that, then it should be something they keep to themselves, putting it in print in a naturist magazine endorses the idea that it is acceptable if both parties are consenting and is just another aspect of naturism. If they were writing for a Brass band magazine would they tell people that they are happy to have sex on the bandstand following an afternoon consent, and also they create an illusion that being around naked people and being naked yourself can lead to feeling sexually "overwhelmed." This article is stunning in the fact that they feel empowered to write this and that they do not consider that it will offend genuine naturist readers and that the magazine was even happy to publish it.
Every day we see the protection of naturism slipping as we allow naturism to pander to the sexualised world that is becoming more and more obsessed with sex. Those people who are in positions to protect naturism for future generations are failing in their duty because they are too busy ensuring naturism appears hip enough to fit in with the sexualisation of our society. They have lost their way because they have forgotten why naturism exists in the first place. Naturism grew as a way to step out from modern life and preoccupations and take time out to enjoy more traditional, healthy, family friendly, non-sexualised moments. Pushing away families and embracing modern obsessions and sexual tensions and ideas is basically throwing 100 years and more of naturism to the hungry wolves and allowing a sexualised much more libertine form of social nudity to replace it, one that will never be embraced by a huge portion of society because at its core it involves adults breaking the law, no matter how consent they may be, it can never be anything but an extreme minority life choice.
Naturism on the other hand has the natural ability if understand by society to have mass appeal based on lawful and respectful approaches to life, the environment and communities.
When it comes to this topic we have to ask ourselves is the word "nudist" already lost and should those genuine nudists out there help to ensure that the word "naturism" isn't lost; or is the bigger picture one of us all ensuring that those that misuse both words are actively discouraged and we work together using both terms to ensure our life choice stamps out the sexualisation of naturism/nudism and that we insist all future promotions from our national bodies, clubs and other supporters are aimed at creating a strong understanding that naturism is family friendly and non-sexual and there can be no blurring of any sort allowed. If someone wants to head into the dunes they do so not as naturists or nudists but something else entirely.
I never thought of the rainbow but now see where you are coming from!
I want to say like with everything else there are bad apples that ruin it for the rest of us!
at March 21, 2025 6:21 PM GMT 
As a young teenager for Rob, the rainbow flag was a universal symbol of coming together and being at one with all, which just happens to nicely fit Rob’s ethic about his view on naturism. Rin as most people on ANW know, loves colour and rainbows, and as a result her life long wish when she met Rob was to have rainbow coloured hair. It cost a fortune first time around but he paid for her to do it a good few years ago as a part of her Christmas gift. Since that time, Rin has been asked many times what her sexuality is, mainly due to the fact that it is now the symbol of the LGBT community. We support that community have many friends who are a part of it, but the instant assumption that she is gay is saddening, because for Rin as an artist, her statement is simply her love of colour.
We feel it is now something similar within naturism, does the word “Nudist” imply sexual content? We do not want it to, we simply want it to be what it always has been, which for our North American friends means the same as it does for our European and UK friends, which is an alternative word used for naturism.
Naturism and Nudist have always only ever had one meaning, and yet these days a new and unfamiliar form of the two sweeps across the world, and we are startled by the modern idea of how nudism or naturism can be, or should be sexualised. RnR have always been laid back and open minded, and so currently we are finding we are being challenged by this new section of naturism/nudism that wants to use sexual labels and sexual content within naturism, because for us, it is a bridge too far, as we feel it is putting what is already the tattered reputation of naturism in the public media, at even greater risk.
When we meet a person in real life, we are not interested in who their bed partner is, or what kinds of sex they have. As far as we are concerned that is a private matter that should be secret and special between only them, and not shared to the public or anyone else. We understand that Adult Only, LGBT, Women Only, appears to be very hip and cool, it certainly is in the dressed world which is obsessed with certain people’s rights. From our side of things, if we are completely honest, we do not understand how naturism has ended up this way, because what has always set naturism above the rest, has been the very fact that everyone with Naturism is equal. Times may change, trends may come and go, but sorry, we will always stand up for complete equality in naturism, which embraces the above, only if families and males are also included.
Equality is exactly that, discrimination is treating certain parties better than others, and sad as it may be, currently it concerns us to see such blatant discrimination within naturism/nudism. It must be stamped out and we all return to full equality.
This issue is what I was trying to illustrate with the Rainbow example. Like most (and maybe all) people on ANW we are welcoming of the LGBQT community here and in naturism, and see that as very important. What my issue is with is that everything is sexualised today. Our sexuality and sexual preferences should not matter in non-sexual situations. A bank tellers sexual preference is not something that has anything to do with how they present themselves to their customers. A teacher's sexual relationships is not relevant to teaching their students. And this is the problem. Sexuality is everywhere which means sex appears to be everywhere. Even in the innocent pleasure of rainbows. Children in primary schools are now completely preoccupied with sex and genders. Rainbows have become something that children now argue over and bully over. Pre-pubescent children through those early years are separating off in playgrounds over their sexual orientation claims because sexuality and sex is now everywhere on social media, in politics, in other media, in shops, on high street parades, in the school curriculum, in the cartoons they watch.....
My concern is that this underlying obsession with sex in every walk of life means we are unable to ever fully distance ourselves from its relevance. How in the world can we keep it out of nude recreation when we cannot keep it out of anything else. Our sex lives are becoming something that many people are getting used to sharing, and that is literally happening on social media with graphic imagery that would once have never even got into legitimate pornography.
Our son has even heard that selling naked images, Patreon stripping and being a "porn star" being discussed by teachers as a way of pupils considering making good money when they leave school during careers advice.
The link of the rainbow for sexuality (and it wouldn't matter what sexuality that is) is just a symbol of how everything today is about sexuality and it starts from the moment you can walk and talk. How do we begin to tell people that there is such a thing as non-sexual nudity when people are growing up convinced that everything is sexual?
It is hardly surprising that the word nudism is suffering.
I think the word nude is intrinsically linked to sex. While people are completely unable to separate nudity for sex, this will always be the case. I don't have young children these, accordingly I am somewhat distanced from the goings on in the school system. I know sex has always sold but proffering it as a definite career choice seems somewhat suspect to me.
Back to the point of subverting naturism. I think that one will be harder to subvert, currently there is no intrinsic link as with nudism, nudism is really just a version of nude. Which we have already seen is linked to sexual activity. That's not to say some group wont try to subvert naturism for their own ends but I think it will be somewhat harder.
To some degree we facilitated the subversion of nudism, nudist clubs had high fences and people maintained a level of secrecy about their lifestyle. This secrecy implied firstly something must be wrong with it and secondly because they hid it people speculated it must involve nefarious activities. As the clubs were often called nudist colonies, the nude term became linked to the imagined activities. Swingers jumped on the bandwagon because most of their work was done for them.
Regardless we should be aware of the possibility an ensure ownership of the word.
Some of this can be easily facilitated by removing the mystery, being open about what naturism is and is not. Not only meeting behind high fences and hedges. We can only succeed at this if people understand that being nude is a clothing choice, nothing more and nothing less. Our lives are just the same as everyone elses, maybe less stress, but we chose to live without the encumbrance of clothes.
