Just what it is that objectors object to?
June 1997
Our first letter comes from Eclectic Eric, a recently joined member who lives
in the wilds of Hertfordshire:
Dear Sun,
The objections to nudists at Studland described in Update 3 (Dec 1996) were
puzzling. Perhaps a good tactic would be to ask objectors just what it is they
object to? What harm are nude people doing if they are merely nude? Clothed
people can do harm in many ways without removing their clothes. Do objectors
ever see nudes in paintings and statues? Do they think there is something
objectionable about that very common age-old artistic practice? They are free to
turn away if they wish but they should not expect the pictures or statues to be
removed and hidden. This problem has worried me for years. Magistrates often
fine people who are seen naked by objectors, but no harm has been done except to
the clothes industry. The magistrates should be asked to explain the reason why
they prosecute and if they are unable to say exactly what harm, if any, has been
done, the charge should fail and should never have been brought.
One could also point out that the attitude in other countries which permit
nudity on beaches and in designated areas does not cause any harm and is in fact
beneficial to health if excessive exposure to the sun is avoided. Objectors may
think that nudity is sexually exciting, but it is well known that certain types
of clothing, commonly worn in public, are intended to be much more exciting. Any
attempt to prosecute the wearers of these titillating garments would be treated
as a joke. If nudists acting 'normally' are seen by children and people who are
inhibited about removing their clothes, it would be educational and might
encourage the observers to live a healthier life. I would like to see events
where nudists invite textiles as spectators in swimming pools and other outdoor
activities, so that they might get used to the idea and would perhaps want to
join in.
Too many nudist groups think that they should hide away from textile
observers behind screens of peep-proof materials, tending to confirm the common
idea that there is something wrong and unnatural about nudity.
Eclectic Eric, Broxbourne
This is just the sort of contribution that is meat and drink
to newsletter editors - about 350 words, thought-provoking, and topical. Our
thanks to Eric, and keep 'em coming! The comment about "children and people
who are inhibited about removing their clothes" set me off on a train of
thought. I'm sure we've all seen on textile beaches - well, we usually have to
trudge along them to get to 'our' bit, don't we? - that small children are not
usually in the least inhibited about ditching their clothes and running about
starkers, but how many times have you heard the parents shrieking "Johnny!
Come here and put your clothes on! That's DIRTY!!"? Inhibitions are
therefore instilled by their parents into children behaving naturally, who then
grow up to instil the same inhibitions into their own offspring. That's the
vicious circle we have to break, if we are ever to get a complete generation who
don't see nudity as something "wrong and unnatural". Anyone else out
there got any ideas? You've got plenty of time to set them out! (Ed.)
Back | Up | Next |
|
