I think those that cannot deal with others eating meat are going to be in for a bumpy ride. It isn't a pleasant thing to see or smell on a plate or in a shop but it is a part of life. Much as smelling cigarettes is not very pleasant for a non-smoker. The vast majority of people seem to accept vegetarianism as a an option in life, but there are certainly those who act very funny about it. Why it matters to them who knows but both Anna and I have been treated rather oddly be some on finding out. One couple even tried feeding our sons food behind our back while they were visiting their home to play with their children. (Adults repeatedly goding children (9 and 6 at the time) to try meat "they may like it" to us seemed rather shocking). Most people refer to us as "veggies" - "oh I forgot your veggies aren't you" is the type of thing. It doesn't matter one iota just a shortened way of talking. 

It is also interesting that some terms become more offensive in different cultures and climates and countries. Like nudism is considered by some as more linked to inappropriate behaviour and yet others are happier with the term nudism than naturism. Some words of insult in the UK never became poular in the US for example and vice versa. When I was a child in the UK the word "Trump" was commonly used for flatulence - I wonder what it means to people in the USA? 

Textiles made sense to me when I first read it and I took no meaning of it being offensive but just those people on the beach who used textiles while on the beach. As opposed to clothing wearers that we all are at most times. It seems a quick easy and rather pleasant term to me and not one that I though could ever cause offense. But we do have to tread a fine line today and if "textile" is seen as crossing that line then it must go I suppose. It is a little sad as I felt it was quite a rich word and not at all negative but just adding to the fabric of our vocabulary.

I think words can have more than one meaning and the pleasure of language is partly placing these meaning into different scenarios. I like the idea that the word gay won't ever lose it's older meaning. I use it infrequently but I do use it. A term we hear in many older films is the reference to "making love" being linked to flirting. "He is making love to me in the parlour" without a hint of even a kiss in the air. The words are what we make them. Wendy and Peter Pan's "Thimble" and "Kiss." Mention the American term for a belt with a storage compartment in an English school and shock and giggles will be the reaction of all. Use the English term "bum bag" and an American child may consider it the holdall of a down-and-out. What is the correct term for a homeless person? Being a Tramp used to be referring to the state of walking from place to place. Though now it is an insult to women. I used to think the word vagabond sounded rather romantic (another word that has narrowed its meaning). Hobo, vagrant, beggar. Like so many words we use to describe others we can connect negativity to them. Yet really we just are looking for a word. 

Words that were totally acceptable in the 1950's, 60's and 70's are now frowned upon. A charity for cerebral palsy  rebranded itself in 1994 because of negativity connected to the old name. Our vocab changes constantly.  

So where does that leave the word "Textile"? Is it in or out? Do we need a vote or do we take it that it is wrong. But if we refer to the bikini, swimsuit, thong, knee length shorts, string vests and handkerchief wearers of the beach what do we use instead? I think we need to accept by mentioning that people do not go naked on the beach and that there are different parts or groups on the beach that we are in no way suggesting they are wrong to be covered by acknowledging they exist. As long as they don't try and remove our right for nudity then why should we care whether some wear costumes or not?

Hi guys

I haven't been here for a week or two so have read this with interest.  The fundemental problem we face here is we need a word to group people who are non-naturists.  I personally do not view the word offensive it is merely a convenient (and descriptive one) for grouping non-naturists together for reference purposes.  It's not being subjective in any way.  Regardless of what term is picked some sensitive sole somewhere will get offended by it.

I mean you could pick anything, non-FKK, clothes imprisoned, elastic addicted, wollawangers, partial trogladites (troggies) doesn't matter much but as a group we need some way of addressing outsiders collectively.  Textiles seems to fill the role being descriptively encompassing without subjective overtones.

So because some probably despise us as a group, I imagine anything we select will cause offense to some one.  They see no reason to assign a label to themselves because as far as they are concerned we shoudn't exist and as such there is no need to have a collective term for them.

So for my 5c worth, I suggest the term in non derogatory and is useful for us to effective describe those who in our opinion remain unenlightened.
        

Grahame; kind of where I was going; but you put it much more succinctly.  I would add though, that I don't think most people think of us as a group. I don't think for the most part they think of us at all. They cannot comprehend nudity as a natural and desired state. Strange?  To our minds, yes. For the majority, there's covering for every situation and every portion of the day and unless forced to think about it, nakedness is what you cover up in polite society and that is all the thought it deserves.
As to the terminology however, I am in full agreement with you. Amongst ourselves, why not use the terminology that suits us for the sake of inter-communication? They are not aware; they do not care.

The thought I am having is maybe we can use any term we want, but the real issue is that even though we didn't mean it to be derogatory it doesn't mean others will not ever find it that way. It is not the words themselves that cause offense, but more thoughtlessness when using them. In particular grouping people and tarring them all with the same brush will cause offense to an individual of that group at some point.

For instance, in the past it was perfectly acceptable to call a dark-skinned man, Blackie, and a white skinned man Chalky. Most of the time this was not intended in any way other than identifying someone or a group of people by the colour of their skin. Even naming our pets was the same way, my mother’s cat is called “Blackie” for instance and she loves him more than any of her other pets. Looking at animal graveyards many dogs and cats were called things similar or what we would consider worse today.

 

Would I call my black cat “Blackie” because she is black? Today, no, actually she is called “Lucky” which is a different story altogether. It is only because we are evermore reminded that we should be more careful, that I would not consider the name my mother did. Did the owners of other pets mean to create a racial insult? The answer is almost certainly not, as universally we all love our pets throughout time and would not think of it in those terms. This is the point of my distrust of political correctness.

 

It is not calling someone by a particular name or title, it is the fact that we do it, as we are all individuals. It doesn't matter how many Muslims are fundamentalists, and it doesn't matter how many of those fundamentalists think it is acceptable to commit murder because they will get direct entry to heaven. It does not ever give anyone, even a president, an excuse to insinuate that in general Muslims or any other ethnic group are all bad people or terrorists, or murderers or rapists or anything else.

We here in this community are all individuals, and should accept each other’s individual traits and outlook as being valid. Even in this setting, we have to avoid accusations that just because someone doesn't want to share a picture of themselves naked, that they are not a true naturist. It certainly should not ever be suggested that even if someone that joins this site is just starting out on their journey in naturism, that they are not a true naturist, unless "x", "y" or even "z". Because my understanding is that the part about taking ones clothes off, is only part of what the movement is about, and certainly it is "less sexual". 

The only reason why I say it is "Less Sexual" is that we do not want to bring the more lurid parts of sex into the conversation. However, if we either enjoy looking at photos of naturists, or want to share photos of our naked bodies, or even admit that we enjoy sensuality, then we are really talking about sexuality. This is the acceptable side though because it is a little frisson, and smile, a glint in the eye, rather than an aggressive action.

 

We have to accept that despite any morally correct ways we came to the movement, that most people come to naturism via one of some form of sexuality. Normally through a channel that it is unusual and exciting sensually, maybe even a little arousing to take ones clothes off in unexpected situations. As such we really must avoid language that would push these people back because even Steve would admit, H&E magazine does have an element of glamour, even though it is certainly not x-rated. However it is that once this first step is taken we get the realization of the liberation that this mere act removing ones clothes brings. It is from that point that we can start thinking of it as being non-sexual as we realize it is not sexual at all, but still to the outside world it would seem to be.

Before I veer off into too much of a tangent, the point is that terms such as textile are groupings that really don't exist. Certainly, almost everyone on a naturist beach is in some way a naturist, either actively or at least accepting of our ideals, as we would chase off, as Steve has done, those with less than honorable intentions. We are not saying that people cannot indulge in that sort of thing anywhere, but a naturist beach is for every naturist’s enjoyment, rather than an adult only sexual playground. But we cannot say a "textile" beach is for the enjoyment of all “Textiles” or only for “Textiles”. 

Just because it is generally unacceptable to naked on a textile beach, it does not mean that all the people attending are not naturists or “textiles”. It also does not mean that some are not swingers, or perverts looking to pick up and enjoy themselves in a more "sheltered" location in the dunes. However because these sorts of beaches are more populated, it is far less likely to be tolerated and almost certainly would lead to some shaming on Facebook, or involvement of a local law enforcement officer.

So saying something along the lines "oh we went to the beach and unfortunately it was for textiles", is lazy and unaccommodating. It is always better to say, "We went to the beach and unfortunately it was not suitable for naturism". So, the point is that we really should not need to use a word for people or places that are not naturist per se. This I believe is the whole point of where we are heading now with inclusion in society. 

It is not that changing our words is good enough; it is that we have to change our thought processes as individuals and therefore as society. It's not that everyone that commits institutional gender bias or institutional racism, or institutional homophobia, or institutional anti-naturism is necessarily any of those things. However, to be inclusive we must stop generalising in a lazy manner, excusing ourselves by just saying "oh well that's just the way it is". The challenge I would put to you all, is to think of ways that any sentence where you would use something like “textile” can be rephrased to avoid the use of such words. Because ultimately it is not the word we chose that is the issue, it is that we find the need to use one at all.

Let’s be honest, there are some members of the naturist community, just as in society in general, that do things that the rest of us find abhorrent. We have to accept there is some bad behaviour and that in turn causes bad behaviour from others who are not necessarily against us. They are just uneducated, but by using “textile”, even here can be turned around against us. We know from history those wishing to make political or social media points, will use this sort of negligence as proof that we are all bad people, where we are creating an “us and them” situation.

Honestly George I know where you are coming from with the creating an "us and them" situation. You are right any word used for negative effect on others is a problem. My issue is that I have never that I can recall seen it used in a negative context. We must be careful in this day and age to not see prejudice where it just doesn't exist. Is there a single naturist among us that has a hatred or even dislike for those on the beach that wear costumes. 

We have had all sorts of nasty messages via social media over the years. Verbal death threats, hopes of rape and abuse, extremist proclamations of us burning in hell for eternity... Not once have I thought these are "textiles." We read about protestors making vile claims and throwing stones at families - no one thinks of these people as "textiles." Whether they are thugs or sadistic, cruel or misinformed they are not "textiles." I never have seen the use of the word "textile" in an offensive situation. I have only ever seen it used in a purely non-accusing fashion. "The textiles tended to use te part of the beach closest to the car park." 

Maybe it is lazy and slang but I just don't see it as insulting. However, just in case it is seen in such a way we have started to steer clear of it's use towards people. The first level of credits on ANW is known as "Textile Torment" this refers to the fact that the character is still dressed and not that the character is not a naturist. 

I stand by the idea that context is everything. Saying that tall people kept banging their heads on the low doorway is in no way offensive towards taller people, but just factual. I find it hard to imagine that in the future people will look back at a beach description that claims naturists are few on this beach as it is mainly used by textiles" as in anyway making naturist appear as bad people. It is not really a term that is used in general life. "Naturists march through London to protest against textiles." It is not suggested that every non-naturist is a textile. Just that on some beaches there are textiles. People dressed on the street or in a park are never considered as textiles. 

I think that if it was used against a minority or suffering group or used in connection with negative implications then it could be seen as derogatory and those non-naturists who find their way to the word here or elsewhere may take offense. When I travelled I was referred to with terms like Pom and Limey it mattered little but is it offensive? British soldiers were known as "Tommy." We use shortened terms sometimes because it is easy. But depending on the way people use them they can become negative. References to skin colour would have no issue if racism wasn't such a problem. Just as being a blonde, red head or brunette does not have negative connotations when being used as a description of hair. However, "acting blonde" as a description of a person could be seen as an insult to all blondes and the idea that "gentlemen  prefer blondes" could be an insult to everyone else. Just as "men don't make passes at women in glasses"  could be seen as an insult to the optically challenged. 

We have to be weary that our creative language doesn't get bogged down with the fear of being politically correct. During the WWII "lose lips sunk ships." This wasn't some attack on people with large rubbery mouths lie Joe E Brown but a bit of fun rhyming to make something catchy. Just as the Coppertone advert was never intended as sexualising children. To me the word "textile" when I first came across it was a fun way of creatively differentiating between certain aspects of a beach. Harmless and a little bit poetic. Capturing in a good way the idea that there is a difference without being overly descriptive, concerned or judging. "Those that are long in the tooth may find the trip to this beach quite arduous" is that insulting to older people or is it just a way of being a little more creative? We all know that some people in their seventies are fitter than some people in their twenties.

We wrote basic descriptions for around 4000 beaches, locations etc. I am not sure how often we used "textile" but if we did it was never to be taken as in anyway insulting and not really producing a them and us situation - though maybe explaining that there is one. 

For the time being we are steering clear of the term "textile" just to be on the safe side, but really and truly I believe that sometimes we see insults that aren't there. It may be rather typical of naturists who I feel are a little more caring than the average person. We censor ourselves for using certain words and having certain ideas while a portion of the world inhabitants wish to censor our bodies.

A brief note about the glamour aspect of H&E. Not wishing to make a judgment either way on the rights and wrongs. I do however note that in non-naturist circles naturists are often considered to be all "past their prime" - it may not be a bad thing for H&E to present some youngsters. In this forum we have had discussions about the lack of youth involvement on ANW and within naturism. Maybe presenting some glamour is not a bad way of encouraging the "young and beautiful" to get involved. Promoting anything from cars to constipation tablets tends to use young and attractive people. Although we all know that our bodies are all fine no matter what age we are or what shape we are we shouldn't be afraid of not having a percentage of glamour. H&E also shows the likes of me within the pages. Personally I prefer to see "real" people portrayed in naturism within magazines and on websites but some may feel differently.