Free Range Naturism

Naturism => Factory Farmed Naturism => Topic started by: Bob Knows on October 19, 2018, 04:27:53 PM

Title: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: Bob Knows on October 19, 2018, 04:27:53 PM
It does seem to be getting a little better. A couple of decades ago I read a story that the President of INF resigned because he found himself the only naked person at the annual convention. The INF board still seems to be clothing compulsive, but at least some of the members are naked in the meeting photo.

http://www.nakedwanderings.com/blog/2018/10/18/that-time-at-the-inf-world-congress/
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: nuduke on October 24, 2018, 07:37:52 PM

It does seem odd that so many inn the picture are clothed.  I only skimmed the article but did read that they has permission to be naked in the conference.  It seems odd that so many elected o remain clothed.  Maybe the aircon was set too high and it was chilly!
If it were me I'd be out of my clothes in no time and tempted to occupy other parts of the hotel as well if in a big posse ref. Norman's account of being in a pub and remaining clothed after a naked walk!
John
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: John P on October 25, 2018, 04:58:04 PM
At and after the last INF congress, there was a fight over an attempt to replace Sieglinde Ivo (from Austria) by Armand Jamier (from France) as INF President. Apparently that's all settled, but maybe there's some lingering resentment. Neither of the two American national organizations think it's worth the money to be affiliated with the INF.

Regarding clothes, I think there's a European attitude involving a sense of ritual. In 2014 I went on the Naked European Walking Tour  and I heard a conversation  between French people, which unfortunately I only partially understood. They were members of the French group APNEL, Association for the Promotion of Naturism In Freedom, which is an organization that's very attached to what we call free range naturism, rather than visiting resorts. They had gone to the French naturist convention, run by the FFN, the national organization. And apparently, there was a dispute about nudity there, where the hikers said "We are naturists, so let's be naked as much as possible". But the members of the FFN said "No, we're here to discuss serious issues, we can't be playing around naked". Apparently, there was a lot of noise. (My knowledge of French is limited and I may have missed a bit, but at least they weren't from Quebec.)

We also hear people who went to European naturist centers who said, "It was very nice, but everyone dressed for meals. There didn't seem to be a rule requiring clothes, but we were the only ones to dine naked. " I wonder if there is a European idea that nudity isn't always appropriate, even when it's possible.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: jbeegoode on October 25, 2018, 07:32:25 PM
When I lived in France mid-sixties, meals were ritual to sacred to fast food American me. Proper cutting of desert fruit, fork in which hand,  we Emily Post trained Americans were often frowned at, like being crude. On the side of the road, in the grass, lunch was served on a card table, white cloth, napkins, real silverware, etc. I suppose that coming from those days, much ritual is still influencing people. I can think of no other reason to dress for a meal. DF has a thing about eating at the table. Food taste better, bonding, making it a special occasion, showing gratitude to God for the meal, all ritual. Clothing dress up goes with that.

There are many who think that taking clothing off is just recreation and work is serious stuff requiring uniform and attitude, properly dressed for it supports work ethic. They are cultural dinosaurs to me. Work needs to be enjoyable, passionate, meaningful, an alive creative fully experienced act. The clothing in the way. Rolling up my sleeves isn't enough, rip the sleeves off and be aware. Balance of production and being in the moment healthy.

I suspect that these FFN were likely attached to resort industry values and not body freedom and social change.
Jbee
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on October 25, 2018, 08:24:39 PM
I'm probably one of the dinosaurs. I never saw work quite the way you put it, although I enjoyed the work I did for the most part. All the companies I worked for went through changes in ownership, however, and those were stressful times. In all cases, I eventually had to find another job. The last time, though, I was 71 and decided it was as good a time to retire as any.

People desire freedom so they may be slaves to their passions.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: jbeegoode on October 26, 2018, 06:19:06 PM
"People desire freedom so they may be slaves to their passions."
I like that. A good something to ponder.
I always used to say that nothing is worth doing without passion.
Jbee
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on October 26, 2018, 06:25:29 PM
I must give credit to Gerontissa Gabrielia, a Greek nun, who died in 1992, who wrote those words.

Are you aware there was a female saint, Mary of Egypt, who lived her life without clothing after fleeing to the desert?
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: jbeegoode on October 26, 2018, 07:22:50 PM
Didn't know that one. Just did some internet reading. Naked aesthetic people, like sadhus are intriguing. My eyes rolled at the wikipedia pic where they had placed fur on her body like an animal.

Many saintly people have spent their time naked in nature. Buddha, and for many Indian high people, avatars, etc. they must spend time alone in the woods, just getting by. You know, living in a cave, etc. It is a very transcendental thing. This Mary certainly found herself in a rugged spot. Sorry to hear of someone suffering so much shame, but as the story goes, she found her path.
Jbee
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: eyesup on October 26, 2018, 08:32:16 PM
JohnP, was it the same no matter where?
I guess I can see that behavior if in a committee or bored room, but anywhere else that entertaining or fun activities are in motion one would think they would let their hair (et.al.) down.

There seems to always be a recalcitrant group looking for a way to segregate themselves. Factions, fractions and frictions are never completely removed.

Itís just human nature to try and be different. The problems arise when a group gets it into their tiny collective mind that that difference is significant and must be acknowledged.

Duane
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: John P on October 26, 2018, 09:07:11 PM
There was a fashion for ascetic hermit life in the first few centuries A.D., but back then nothing was being reliably recorded (plenty of miracles, so we hear) so who's to know what actually happened? Of course being female and naked, Mary of Egypt has the best-known legend. If there are still Jain monks in India, they're wandering around naked with the same idea. Later on, as an organized church dominated society, the hermits were mostly replaced with monks and nuns, withdrawing from normal life but being told how to do it. We still have them around, but they dress in somber clothes rather than growing fur.

In various religious traditions, being naked was seen as part of a life of renouncing worldly things. Maybe the Christian hermits were responding to the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus said not to worry about food or clothing: "And why take ye thought for rainment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." Words to live by, there.

Oh yeah, we were talking about the INF, weren't we. Duane, trying to boost my memory of what was said a few years ago that I understood maybe a quarter of, I think the meeting in France was as you're speculating--the conservative faction would have got their clothes off if there were some fun times after the day's business was dealt with, which seems to be what the INF board does too. But the radicals were saying that naturists wear clothes when they have to, and "have to" doesn't include some notion that discussing organizations or legal matters makes clothes necessary! I'm definitely with the radicals there, because I think that naturism means we drop the idea of clothing as necessary for any social purpose (dealing with weather conditions or hazardous situations is something else again). I want naturists to say that it's a positive good to be naked with other people as much as possible. I'm not saying that we'd all return to a state of innocence if we did that, but it would be a pleasant thing to hope for.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on October 26, 2018, 10:06:14 PM
I am pleased that you all are taking references to religion and nudity in a positive way (I think!). I do not know why or when I became interested in monasticism, hermits and solitaries (the when I can guess). But it is a curious thing that those things really only came into being when Christianity became legal, speaking only from the Christian perspective. I say that even though much of it is irrational and makes no sense to me. Yet it persists and sure enough, many of them have web sites.

For many, though hardly all, the object is, among other things, detachment from earthly desires and passions. In theory, nudism (and note that I'm not saying naturism) implies a detachment or perhaps rejection of at least some worldly things. In practice, that may not be the case and modern nudism, as always, has been fertile ground for organizations, committees, "special interest groups," clubs, off-shore vacations and so on--not forgetting blogs and forums like this one.

You're probably asking yourself right now, "Is he one of us?"
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: jbeegoode on October 28, 2018, 09:32:06 AM
Renunciates, I'm sure were happening in India before Christ. Some say Jesus went that way when he disappeared for a few years.

We politely have a tradition in this forum to stay away from religion and politics, so as to avoid contention about something that ain't naturism. I'm treading lightly.
Jbee
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on October 28, 2018, 11:53:17 AM
Nudism is something of a religion, isn't it?
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: nuduke on October 28, 2018, 11:15:51 PM
Nudism is something of a religion, isn't it?

I occasionally have a moment of concern about this.  Is my need to be naked a lot simply a matter of personal comfort and freedom from the limitations of wearing clothes or is it some sort of ritual that stimulates somewhere in my psyche a need for some sort of religion i.e. faith, requiring devotion to nudity?  I usually shrug such feeling off with the argument that there is no element of worship involved, no higher power at work and no structure to my observance therefore it can't be an accidental religion.  However, many nudists' collective need to get together in landed clubs, go on bike rides in cities and do mass skinny dips amongst other activities which are some sort of parallel with religious observance, in that, congregating together for some sort of higher purpose (social or political) has some of the hallmarks of religion.  Looked at another way, those examples of congregations are simply because they offer mutual protection when being nude in societies that do not routinely tolerate nudity in public. The naked bike riders might be said to be obliged to compromise and cycle in those events because it gives them the opportunity to do what they love - naked cycling - which they can't do at nearly all other times and places.
The Oxford Dictionary gives 3 definitions for the word religion:Well, I don't think the first has any currency for nudism.  Whilst the likes of Jbee and myself might talk about feeling the earth forces in nice deserted places when we are out and about, this is very much an internal thought and anthropomorphism of those pleasurable feelings and sensations auto suggested by, for example, the beauty, sounds or mystery of the locale.  So not really a system of belief or worship.  The second definition is equally invalid for the same reasons.
But the third?  Well I think that definitely covers what we do and think!  Naturism/nudism is a pursuit and if the evidence of many years correspondence on our forums is anything to go by, it is followed with devotion by many of us.  So nudism appears to be a religion by the third definition.  However, whilst we think of religions as being imbued with congregations, buildings, ritual and scripture, nudism isn't any of those things so I would define it as a religion merely in the practice of it.  Bob religiously wears a hat and Jbee religiously finds ever lighter ways to make his hiking pack, JOhnGW religiously makes corissants at the weekend, JMF religiously climbs mountains.  There are religions everywhere but they don't need churches, incense, costumes and bibles!
So, yes, Blue Train, I tend to agree with you!
John
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: Peter S on October 29, 2018, 06:25:31 AM
John, surely you know that in the UK the only true religion is the NHS - do not bow down to false prophets!
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on October 29, 2018, 10:26:12 AM
I think there is a certain value in nudity, at least sometimes, and worship means assigning worth to something. But I try not to overthink these things.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: Peter S on October 29, 2018, 12:07:13 PM
While the naked lifestyle can, like many other activities, be pursued with a religious-like fervour, I don't think such things qualify as a religion in their own right. Though I suppose if we think of naturists as "sun worshippers" the religious definition can be applied, even expanded to be part of Atenism (the ancient Egyptian term for sun worship, a bona fide religion back then, apparently).

Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on October 29, 2018, 05:07:16 PM
In my definitions, naturists are nature worshipers; the nudists are, or were, sun worshipers. The national organization was even called the American Sunbathing Society. But I hesitate to use the term "lifestyle" as applied to my life.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: jbeegoode on October 30, 2018, 12:08:47 AM
Naturism may not be a good label for my religion, but it is most certainly an important meaningful, integral piece of my spirituality. My spirituality has all of the importance of religion.

Mindfulness is key in many a practice, like some Hindu and certainly Buddhist teachings. For me, I know of no other better practice of mindfulness than nudity and then in nature, exploring myself as a nature being. It cues me up to the practices that lead to a higher consciousness. If the goal is to get closer to say God, to identify, to know oneself as a piece of God, as many do, then what better way to practice being in the moment, being here in the now. How better, in my sense, to understand what is God and draw closer and to know better devotion and belief. 

So, the subjugation of my naturism, by law, by dominate social mores, is the repression of my religious expression in a very  fundamental way.

My family roots are people who came here to escape religious oppression. Here I sit in religious/spiritual oppression with a constitution installed that is supposed to protect, but doing so, my religion, my spirituality, my sense and devotion.
Jbee

Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: Bob Knows on October 30, 2018, 05:35:11 PM
My family roots are people who came here to escape religious oppression. Here I sit in religious/spiritual oppression with a constitution installed that is supposed to protect, but doing so, my religion, my spirituality, my sense and devotion.
Jbee

I have that problem too.   I fear going naked in town even though it is "technically" legal to do so because oppression is omnipresent. 

Bob
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: eyesup on October 30, 2018, 08:48:30 PM
I have often pondered the same scripture John. The scripture speaks of a simpler life that is appealing. Iíve have wondered what He would think of our activities. The council about not worrying is relevant still, yet it permeates every aspect of our life.

The top down structure in organized religion is still active and can be just as oppressive.
Old habits die hard.  :-\

Duane
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on October 31, 2018, 11:57:08 AM
I agree. It's really, really hard to love your neighbor, not to steal, not to lie, not to kill and so on.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: nuduke on November 03, 2018, 09:36:33 PM

Quote from: jbee
[font=]Naturism may not be a good label for my religion, but it is most certainly an important meaningful, integral piece of my spirituality. My spirituality has all of the importance of religion.[/font]


Now that's the distinction.  Spirituality. 
Spirituality does not have to be a religious thing (but religion has to be spiritual).  Naturism is just one of the spiritual things. 
Explain your last sentence of the quote, please, Jbee. 


Anticipating your reply, I think it is right to say that the positive feedback we get spiritually from being naked, particularly in nature, leads us to a virtuous cycle of reinforcement whilst naked and therefore seeking out to be naked ever more often to uplift (or whatever) the spirit.  Thus the repeated seeking to be naked I guess could be analogous to a religion.


I repotted some plants in our backyard yesterday and although it is full-on autumn in the UK, the sun was out and the air was dry, cool and crisp so I doffed my overalls and garden clogs and did the job naked.  Not having had a prolonged time naked outdoors in a few weeks, I felt my spirits rise and I felt good I was able to do that job naked.  After I went in the house and had to wear something for wifey, I was kept spiritually warm by the afterglow of my time naked.  Mind you, as time went on outside at only about 45 deg F I was getting a tad uncomfortable.  So I put my shoes on! :)  That does help maintain the chill endurance I find.   


John
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: jbeegoode on November 06, 2018, 01:58:05 AM

Quote from: jbee
[font=]Naturism may not be a good label for my religion, but it is most certainly an important meaningful, integral piece of my spirituality. My spirituality has all of the importance of religion.[/font]

Now that's the distinction.  Spirituality. 
Spirituality does not have to be a religious thing (but religion has to be spiritual).  Naturism is just one of the spiritual things. 
Explain your last sentence of the quote, please, Jbee....

John
I went on to explain the sentence in teh next paragraph,"Mindfulness is key in many a practice, like some Hindu and certainly Buddhist teachings. For me, I know of no other better practice of mindfulness than nudity and then in nature, exploring myself as a nature being. It cues me up to the practices that lead to a higher consciousness. If the goal is to get closer to say God, to identify, to know oneself as a piece of God, as many do, then what better way to practice being in the moment, being here in the now. How better, in my sense, to understand what is God and draw closer and to know better devotion and belief.

So, the subjugation of my naturism, by law, by dominate social mores, is the repression of my religious expression in a very  fundamental way."

There is in this country for many to think that organized religion, religion recognized by the tax codes, are what is solely protected by law and the only legitimate. The founders were often not of that ilk, particularly the ones who wrote, defended and inserted the 1st Amendment into the Bill of Rights to protect us from democratic abuses. Spirituality is protected just as much as religions. They are therefore described as just as important. Also many recognized religions share my sense of it all, ie. my spirituality.
Jbee
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on November 06, 2018, 12:10:50 PM
I'm not so sure about that. But you first have to put yourself in an 18th century context, not so easy to do. Religious groups who came here explicitly for religious freedom, chief among other reasons, relished the opportunity to establish the own community with their own rules, which included one and only one (the one true) church. That's the way it was where they had come from but they were dissenters there. Other colonies less religiously oriented were still the same, as far as things could be controlled. That was essentially the state of things until after the constitution was ratified. After that, churches, that is, organized churches, were no longer what might be called a branch of the government. Churches were at loose ends for several years and had to find themselves, in a manner of speaking.

In some places that had more significance than it did in others. In fact, in some newly settled regions, there was a lack of ordained clergy and congregations were sometimes organized well before they could find a pastor. But one should not overstate the power of religion in colonial America or in the new United States. The real power in any community was with a small number of relatively wealthy individuals, mostly the same as now, and they belonged to the right church (there probably being only one anyway), paid most of the taxes themselves and ran things both before and after the revolution. But there might have been an even more important reason for the establishment clause.

The 17th century had been a time of religious wars in Europe and Britain and they had been very destructive. Some migrations to the New World, at least in North America, had been in response to the continual wars at home. That was the case with some of my ancestors who arrived in the mid-17th century, though there were other good reasons, too. Those who wrote the constitution were familiar with recent history and they didn't want this country to go through that.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: jbeegoode on November 07, 2018, 04:36:01 PM
I know that I've got paperwork for an excommunication of seven brothers and sisters of my family tree who married outside of the church in the 17th century and this was a group of some kind of Quakers escaping persecution in Europe. Yes, many did establish religious realms and fell into intolerance after escaping that shadow in Europe. The Puritans are notable examples of this in literature. Some of the northern colonies were out to "establish" the whole colony. One of the Adam's was adamant about Mass in Massachusetts.

The key people who wrote and promoted that Bill of Rights were Deist, and in a frame of mind to be less structured and more individual in the quest for a Godly understanding and practice.

The Supreme Court has established that was the intent, most radically the right to not believe. So we are geared to be secular in government practice. Back in the 18th century, we were in principle looking for the pursuit of happiness and that is grounds for letting spiritual  diversity do what it needs to do.

So, whether I'm walking around naked as a sadhu renunciate for Shiva, or sitting in a cave naked in simplicity, or training myself in the practice of awareness to understand the moment and the nature of God, or just standing naked in the bliss of infinity and the miracle, or skyclad in ritual, I should be legal. I'm not hurting anyone.
Jbee

Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: Peter S on November 07, 2018, 05:36:41 PM
Amen to that, brother
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: rrfalcon on November 12, 2018, 05:02:09 AM
The First Amendment's phrasing regarding religion is a bit odd until you look at the situation the Founding Fathers found themselves in.  The wording is "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" and not something simpler like "Congress shall not establish a national religion". That obviously prevents Congress from establishing a national religion, but it also prevents Congress from outlawing any religion, or disestablishing an existing established religion.  It was phrased this way because several states did have official state religions, with all state residents taxed to support that religion. Those states wouldn't have supported the Constitution if there was a possibility that the majority of states without established religions could outlaw it for the states that did.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: BlueTrain on November 12, 2018, 01:06:41 PM
Some European countries still have established churches. In reality, it is churches that are or are not established, not the religion. Most religious wars have been between people of the same religion but of different sects. And some religious wars were not about religion anyway. So it could be said that true religious freedom, like privacy, is a modern day concept. But the constitution was ratified without the amendments.

There were elements of the newly established republic that to our enlightened minds, seem strange, slavery being the one most noted these days. By the time of the Civil War, a few states had a majority slave population. There were those who apparently could not bear criticism and even made it illegal to criticize the federal government. Well, maybe those things don't seem that strange to a lot of people today after all.
Title: Re: INF is a little better, but the Board is fully clothed in the photo.
Post by: jbeegoode on November 12, 2018, 08:04:07 PM
We must look at the full picture, not just the establishment clause, something that I found the last time I researched and pondered this issue.
Jbee