Should using the term Textile as a short hand for referring to those people at a clothing optional or naturist friendly location be seen as confrontational or creating a barrier between those that take part in social nudity and those that don't? Is it just a simple way to differentiate between different tastes and choices or is it more troubling than that? 

I think we are all aware that most of the world and most of life involved the wearing of fabric so I don't think it is a term that is ever considered away from the naked or not naked situation and I have certain never heard any naturist use it towards a person wearing items of clothing, so can it really be classified as in anyway insulting or harmful?

What do you think? Is the word textile an unpleasant label or just a statement of fact. Some people on the beach did sport textiles. If it is offensive and recognising that there are times in writing and describing that we may need to point out that some wear partly covered and some were not what may be a better and more friendly term. The PC may say "Nudity Challenged", you cannot really described it as being dressed as usually the non-naked are not really dressed either, but wearing minimal amount of fabric. We could say Fabrics but that seems the same as Textiles. How about non-naked, non-naturist etc. Well to me using "non" suggest even more that those who are not social naked are the negative ones who are lacking. Many a "naturist" may question words like "naked" and "nude" anyway and others may not be happy with "naturist" or "nudist."

We tend to use words like Textile to just save a little time and not to brand people. On a beach I am a naturist, at a restaurant I am a vegetarian, on a mountainside I am an acrophobic. These words only define me slightly depending on my location and my situation. They only becoming offensive when they are used negatively. 

What do you think?

Typically, I wouldn't use the T word when describing people, but more when describing a place. Similarly, we might describe a restaurant as being the "Veggie" place rather than an animal protein challenged restaurant. In some ways we shouldn't use slang terminology, however as you say, it really is only a problem when used in a derogatory manner.

It is indeed true that we should not be creating more barriers between 'us and them' in any situation. When we consider things in those terms it is because we are trying to create or feel an air of superiority. Thus, it is ultimately us, ourselves that create division which does not necessarily need to exist. For sure the ultimate solution would be that we should have the right to choose everywhere, and there should not need to be places that were specifically naturist or "textile". As you were saying in your latest blog article, the one thing that would make Paloma park perfect after visiting the beach, would be not needing to dress to visit.

For sure we should try to not use words in a derogatory way, but it is sad how many words are becoming accused of being derogatory, so we have to find new clever ways of saying the same thing in a more PC compliant manner. However, 10 or 20 years later those terms are then considered derogatory. And to call anything "challenged" is derogatory. After all we would never consider calling somebody ethnically challenged, as that is 100% racially insensitive. So, to call a short person "height challenged" or someone wearing a bathing suit “nudity challenged” or an MP who made a series of mistakes “hard of thinking” is definitely derogatory, even if seemingly clever terminology.

As you point out, to say something is non-whatever is somewhat derogatory as it implies one is superior to the other. Again we would not term people as being coloured or non-coloured anymore. That is a ridiculous term anyway as Caucasian people (and that is the wrong term in itself, as we don't really look like people from the Caucasus) still have a colour, we aren't transparent!

Actually, in a lot of ways i get the feeling that the new PC way of saying things is even more divisive and derogatory than the original terminology. Most of the time terminology was not intended to be used in a derogatory manner, it is only the connotations that society has put on those terms over time. Surely, we are all people, all equal and have equal standing everywhere, clothed, unclothed, black, white, purple, or green.

Ultimately even a 'Textile' is still a 'naturist' or 'nudist' under their clothes :)

 

I think you make a lot of really good points and  I think the term of people being textiles is maybe a link on from the description of the area they use "the textile section". It is quite hard. To refer to them at all seems to create a "them and us" but to not refer to them makes it very hard to discuss different areas, different beaches, different attitudes etc.

In a situation where you may write "textiles are campaigning against naturism being allowed on the beach" you could replace the word textile with people or locals but maybe wish to enforce the idea that it isn't naturists that are campaigning and maybe do want to even create a them and us in that sort of situation. As on the whole the "us" are the victimised, minority and the "them" are not really representative of the human race but rather a bunch of people with an axe to grind and an overzealous concern about skin and clothing. It is quite hard to imagine the idea that some on the beach are "textiles" could lead them to feel in any way victimized as they represent the majority and tend to have the majority of the beach while naturist are shoved into a far corner or made to walk a mile to find their allocated 500 metres. Most people just couldn't care less about naturism as I think they tend to see it as rather harmless. After all it is reported in many surveys that the more people have been naked on a beach or skinny-dipped in a river or lake at some point in their lives than not.

I don't consider the term textile as anything other than factual. The surfers, the textiles, the naturists, the sunbathers, the swimmers. Just like in a restaurant we used to have smokers and non-smokers. People sitting in non-smoking maybe do smoke, people sitting in smoking maybe want to sit with a smoking friend or by a window, or in the only seat available. I don't think the idea was ever to be derogatory to individuals but to give people options. Smoking or non-smoking, textile or naturist, paper or plastic? I have no issue with costume wearers on beaches and would love nothing more than to encourage healthy and happy coexistence. I think most beaches tend to have this and I don't think any naturist would consider referring to those in costumes as textiles unless wanting to find a word to use in writing a review of the beach. 

It would be interesting if anyone could come up with a simple word to use that conveys the non-naturist users of a beach yet doesn't create an idea of two factions. As it is of some worth for people visiting a beach to know what sort of naturist use it has and how that fits with the other users of the beach.

The issue is that we as a species we do love a division to differentiate us against them. We see it everywhere from local schools to sports teams to communities, and so on. Competition is natural in this universe, despite how much we try to shrug it off, so we do tend to enjoy language that divides. The fact is, that nudist beaches do tend to be 500m stuck behind the rocks over the cliff way on yonder, such as one of the first official nude beaches in the UK at the east end of Hastings. I know this well as I spent my first 10 years in Hastings, with the reasoning of "Oh well they can't do much harm there, as the blue rinse brigade will never see them".

If we want to go with a fun way of differentiating how users can appreciate the beach, perhaps we could use terminology such as "Sausage Beach" and "Bikini Bottom". Of course I am facetious, but I would still argue that perhaps we could try to position it that every beach can be nude friendly without having to resort to terminology such as textile and nudist. When we are on a clothed beach, we are wearing some clothes, and on a naturist beach we are nude, so what is wrong with sticking with those sorts of terms, whilst we are in the current situation in most of the world.

Interestingly I was watching an old BBC documentary on naturism on youtube a few days ago, and it seems this whole debate and many others we have been discussing, are more that 50 years old. The whole point of having to be "clothed" on a beach is relatively modern in human history. Maybe it is sometimes that the hidden nude beaches are that way because it is where those of us who shunned societies demands for "modesty" had always gathered, and they never became a "clothed" beach.

Despite any of this, I would still argue why do we need to differentiate nude beaches from clothed beaches, so why do we need a term such as "Textile" in a naturist setting. We only ever really use it when trying to defend our "faction" amongst ourselves. Consider a naturist saying, "Oh well I think that Textiles are a bit silly to insist on wearing clothes when it is so hot!", whilst seemingly factual it is still derogatory.

After all we don't call ourselves "textiles" because we simply put on clothes, indeed most of us would say we are dressed when required for comfort or to conform to society. Thus it is us as a "minority", which is bringing in the divisiveness, while arguing there should be none. After all, most of us here would argue that there is no need for name calling or bullying, we wish to simply have a society where being nude is normal and not fetishised. Thus we should not be name calling ourselves, remember our mothers old saying "Those in glass houses should not throw stones".

George what you say makes a lot of sense and it is very easy to agree with.

The problem Anna and I have is figuring out a simple way to refer to parts of a beach or some of the users of the beach in a simple short hand and non-derogatory fashion. If we were to say that women or families on the beach tend to be in a certain area then it wouldn't be seen as name calling. I don't believe I have ever seen the term textile written in a vicious or mean way. I have always seen it and never questioned it to just simply be the people on the beach that are wearing some sort of garment for modesty. A simple and inoffensive short hand. Not because there is a need to "create" and us and them situation but because sometimes there is a need to "describe" an us and them situation or not as the case may be" "Naturists" and "Textiles" mix together quite merrily. "

It seems that the main problem is whether using the word "textile" is name calling. If the term "Textile" does have negative connotations and appears to be name calling then what is the best solution?  I don't think any of us wish to act in a way that suggests naturists are better, more superior or that we have no wish co-exist. After all in most situations we wear clothes and most the people we know wear swimwear on beaches. Are we not in danger of acting overly suspicious of peoples motives? Could not the use of the term "textile" be purely innocent and harmless. Is any non-naturist really going to take any offense on coming across the word in a bit of naturist text or are they more likely to find it quite humorous or possibly even a little sweet or endearing. Let's face it - when have any of us ever read a nasty bit of text written by any naturist aimed at hating or even disliking those that wear clothes?

As far as I am aware "topless" has never been seen as derogatory. Even though it is both creating a division between those that wear tops and those that don't and is also a term traditionally only aimed at women - so could it not be a little sexist? No one seems to consider it so. 

I think we worry far too much about appearing to be fair and correct and yet naturists are being called paedophiles in the UK and having protestors (not textiles and never described as textiles - these are not people in a naturist location choosing to be in swimwear) ruin family friendly events because of real prejudice and ignorance. I think what naturists want is acceptance and integration. We want naturism to be not tarred as sexual and not ruined by those that haven't chosen to understand it. Is there a danger that the innocent use of the term Textile is being exaggerated or is it really an insult? We don't shout "What are textiles trying to hide!" for example because we know that the people wearing garments on the beach are just like us but choose to cover their genitals. 

If it is a setting up of a them and us situation then the problem is what do we do now? Are we to never talk about the difference between "people who don't wear clothes under certain situations in certain places"  and "people who do wear clothes under certain situations in certain places" so we do not appear derogatory in differentiating. Or do we think of some other term that is not seen as offensive and hope by using it we are not creating a divide?

Surely we need to differentiate between beaches or other locations where nudity is allowed so people do not get arrested or offend others and so people know where they can go to be naturists. France for example has official naturist beaches - if you get naked on any others you can strictly speaking be arrested. English laws may in theory allow the practice of naturism on all beaches but theory and practice are two different things.

We could use the term "clothed" but it does seem to suggest more than a swimsuit and it also suggests everywhere and everything in life. Being clothed fits us all at some time or other, a separate word for clothing in a naturist setting such as "textile" creates the illusion of a specific place. We all arrived clothed then some of us went to the "textile" area while others went to the "naturist" area. There is a differentiation for descriptive purposes but no suggestion that one choice is right and one is wrong. To me that has only ever been the point of using the word "textile" it is not supposed to be more or less offensive than the term "naturist" but just a term to describe different aspects of the beach and its users. If textile is offensive in these circumstances then so is naturist". If saying "A textile is silly wearing clothes on the beach" is derogatory because of the word textile. Then surely saying "Naturists are rude exposing themselves on a beach " is equally offensive because of the word naturist. Both are points of view, both may make equal sense to the person saying it, it could be argued that the points of view are ill thought even but I do not see how either word is offensive and no malice is made in either. 

I think we have all been witness in our times to words linked with minorities of one form or another being used insultingly and it is offensive and foul. In the 1970's in the UK the school playground was much more backward towards aspects of society than it is now. But is this really the case with "textile" is it ever used to insult? Is it ever aimed at a minority group who are mistreated and abused? Is it really offensive in the slightest? I have never heard it used at people or heard it used in anything but a non-threatening, non-judging way. "There were more textiles than naturists", "the textiles and naturists mingled happily", "the textiles tended to stay by the entrance to the beach and the naturist headed to the far end".

I do not think that naturists have a dislike of the textiles on the beaches. I don't think there is anything abusive about recognising that some people on the beach wear costumes and others don't. If a ratio of women to men was made, or couples to singles would that be seen as creating a division or just pointing out facts? 

We shouldn't have to mention it, we should all just get on with it, but actually sometimes we need to describe how a beach or location works. I think "clothed" is too messy and too non-specific. Is the word textile really name calling and if it is really seen as a bad word what can we use instead? Or are we to just ignore the whole some are dressed and some aren't scenario? As a minority group, often unwanted and sometimes victimised do we really have the luxury of not trying to encourage the use of naturist locations by guiding those that may wish to be naturist to the right places and giving them helpful information and support.