One of my pet hates is the differential in accommodation factors between naturists and textiles.

As naturist we always seem to be the ones accommodating the foiebels of textiles.  If someone is uncomfortable with our lifestyle, we dress.  If we get visitors, we dress.  If we go to recreation places, we dress.  We go to a public pool, we dress.  If we visit textiles they don't change to accomodate us. Seems to me that we are always the ones being accomodating.

It would be nice just for once if we visited people who know we are naturists and they greeted us in our normal atttire not theirs or at a minimum didn't look aghast at our choices.

Now I don't actually expect the world to change and I'm probably being an irascible old fart but I'd be interested in the thoughts of others

Grahame I think you are quite right it does seem unfair.

We tend to accomodate minorities it is good to treat all people as equal and to make everyone welcome- though sometimes society over plays it's hand and positive discrimination moves inequality from the past to another level of inequality in our present. Fueling bitterness towards the people who receive it and still encouraging an idea of "difference." 

Likewise as a vegetarian I may expect people to supply me with certian food choices at a party or a restaurant that they may not have offered if I did not chose to be a vegetarian. I chose this not because of allergies. I also would not cook people meat if they came to my house. My diet is also not religious based, but even if it was, it that not really a matter of choice too - do you have to follow that religion. I actually don't expect preferential treatment for being a veggie and I am quite used to saying "don't worry I will eat what there is that isn't meat" and if there isn't anything just going without but that is me.

Examples of this sort are everywhere. In prisons and in schools tolerance is given and sometimes crazy ideas are supported because there is such a need to be PC. So why isn't this level of understanding given towards naturism. Why do you not get clothing optional areas in restaurants or even more sensibly in all parks and beaches - and why do we need to be segregated anyway? Towns are either afraid to post banners for a majority holiday at all or post them to cover all minorities or to remove any individuality. Merry mid winter holiday to all! 

I can understand minority choices that are illegal not being supported and I can also understand a clamp down on some choices like alcohol consumption in some parks if the behaviour connected to the alcohol has been exhibited as bad by many people. Naturism just really doesn't get a look in at all. 

So here is my thought (which may appear rather a large leap of faith - or may not) maybe it is because deep down we all know that naturism is not a minority choice or lifestyle but in our inner consciousness it is a majority thing - that everyone should be a naturist - ie not wearing clothes when the weather and the situation makes sense. The reason textiles get preferential treatment is because really they shouldn't be the majority and that people who live afraid of nudity and their bodies are the ones who need the preferential treatment. That even though actual naturists are really in a minority that the vast majority of human history being clothing optional and relaxed about social nudity hasn't changed or evolved in our subconscious. Basically naturists being people who act naturally are not really a minority - no matter what we may be told. It does seem true that many questionaires show that a majority of people have been socially nude, skinny dipped or would strip of on a beach if they were given the right circumstances.

Away from the thought above I would like to mention an example of naturists having to be accomodating.

We are often given remote beaches and then forced to the far end of those beaches. Be happy with the fact you get anything even if you are being shoved into a corner! The truth is that those beaches who don't segregate never seem to have any people taking offense and help encourage new people to try naturism and trust it. 

One of our local beaches which has a good hundred naturists on it at anytime of the day, and is busy for much of the year, used to have pretty direct access from the beach car park. A couple of years ago the beach introduced kite boarding. With about 400 metres of beach and sea given over to usually 2 - 6 boarders. The textile section was touched. The naturist section and the many people that use it (more than textile out of season) was instead moved along by 400 metres away from the carpark. The boarders are given bouys in the sea to stay within but actually ignore this on the naturist side which is both a worry for swimmers and children on the shore as the boards actually blow onto the shore on occasions too. So why weren't these minority of boarders who didn't exist until a couple of years back asked to walk past the existing naturist section and set up in the quiet space beyond? Bare in mind that the boarders are a handful of healthy young men and women without parasols, windbreaks, picnics etc. The naturists are a mix of people including the elderly, families with young children and babies, as well as people with various handicaps.  

Thanks for the response Steve and I will put more thoughts up later - but briefly. 

Yes I agree the world has overstepped the mark on being PC, every one should be accommodated equally. I personally am not vegetarian, however I do care that animals are kept in humane conditions and looked after properly.  That said I will always provide ood options that most people can eat and I am not going to be offended by someone who chooses not to eat meat nor demand that they do.

I cannot see how us not being clothed should remotely affect anyone else.  I remain therefore puzzled. 

Thinking about that example used of being vegetarian.  If you were to visit me and I knew you were vegetarian I would provide some food option to suit that belief and not expect you to eat meat purely because i choose to be omnivirous. If i visited you I would happily consure vegetarian food. 

If we were to apply the clothng model to this situation  You choose naturism as a lifestyle, I do too but ignore that for the moment. 

1. You visit me and are expected to dress because I am a textile.  Applied to food means you eat meat because you are visiting me.

2. I visit you, you now are expected to dress because I an a textile.  Applied to food, means you are expect to serve meat because I eat meat.

Just where the logic is in this 100% escapes me.  

So to your leap of faith (possibly).  Maybe everyone is a naturist but most people are so so scared to admit it they take to ridiculous extremes to hid what is a blatent truth. The preferential treatment is to protect them from what is actually reality and prevent complete meltdowns when they realise what he truth is.

Or possibly.

Totally unable to seperate being nude from sex means that they are scared stupid that they will be unable to control themselves in a world where nudity is the norm.


So back to my ideal.  If I'm invited for dinner or I invite someone for dinner.  A normal question is are you a vegetarian, pescarian or whatever.  And quite rightly so, then hosts will normally make sure appropriate dishes are available.

No one ever asks me are you a naturist (and admitedly I don't think I've asked that question often), then provided a pile of towel by the front door for guests use.

Now that would be a nice world.  I can dream can't I