I didn't know to put this here, or in the "no backup" thread, but now, here it is.
So, I am experimenting with Bob’s more blatant practice of greeting people and not covering up. I need to verify his wisdom for myself. I need to know how I feel about it. I want to explore my perceptions of what is actually going on around me.
This backpacking experience had encounters when I was the lone male naked hiker, opposed to the Jbee and DF set. There is a difference in my comfort alone, rather than with somebody. It is easier to project onto one male, opposed to two, or more. With a female, it is different again. The odds of coming into a negative reaction increased when hiking alone.
I was left with the initial moment where, I don’t know what to expect when meeting people, I have this set of possibilities to reference to, and then I just have to see how it goes. I have to see if the situation stays in that referenced framework. It is not unlike any first encounter with someone in any situation on a street, or at a party. I had to tell myself that objections to a naturist hiker are unusual and unreasonable fears. It isn’t just a simple case of this is two people, or more, hiking. There is in these encounters a, “Hey, you’re naked.” This is like, “Hey, you have a gun there and you look like you are aggressive because you are ready for a war.” One has to make a judgement of, “Can I trust you?” I have to wonder, which of these two types of encounters would a reasonable person be least alarmed by. One of these situations in generally illegal, the other is not.
There are other references that may go through one’s mind, these thoughts occur depending on what triggers them. Here are some examples to clarify my points.
Some people get angry about having to meet their shadows. They are angry that they are bothered by something. They are angry that they are not just left alone in their sense of normal. No one has the right to expect a mundane life and conformity. No one can expect control or expectation of others at the others expense.
Some people are angered by their preconceived notions of propriety. They give little thought to the social mores that drive their perceptions. They don’t question. They assume truths that are not truths. No one has the right to expect their assumptions to be universal rules of life. Any religious perspective, and scientific fact, any social standards are up for contradictions. It is a bad strategy to not have an open mind.
Some people become jealous when their mates see another revealed. I am not responsible for the unjustified negative feelings of others. Otherwise, we would need burkas for everyone.
So, it is natural for anyone to find concern for negativity. It is natural to have some apprehension. These thoughts are of the ilk that anyone naturally uses to safeguard themselves from dangers. Like any defensive driving, for example. Sometime they are correct, and sometimes incorrect.
I found myself encountering similar types of thought with each encounter on this trail. It is natural, it is perceptual, but to what degree does it show my distrust and my fears. Walking in a city street can be overwhelming and uncomfortable at first for a country person. One doesn’t know what to expect. Eventually a degree of comfort arrives. A vigilant distrust changes to an ease with the fact that trouble Is unusual. More trust comes. There are signs of potential trouble. One alerts to these in a lesser degree and walking in the concrete jungle becomes generally relaxed and usual.
So, this occurs on the trail as well. Bushes can harbor snakes, one hears noises, but it is rarely a bear, or more rarely a vicious bear. This occurs for everybody.
One strategy that people in concrete jungles use is costuming to gain advantage or hide vulnerability. On the trail, we are all naked, unless we put on aggressive outfits and display weapons. There is no social advantage to hiking garb. There is some vulnerability in being physically naked. Costuming doesn’t matter if we are interacting with strangers in casual encounters on the trail.
So, we have been taught that a naked person, particularly a lone male is some danger, some perversion, something nasty and not for children. This is clearly not the fact. It can be that that person naked on the trail is an exhibitionist, but that is unlikely. Why would an exhibitionist go where there are no people to expose themselves to? They are not likely to travel in pairs, nor be of any danger. They may be disgusting, sexually explicit, something one would rather not see, but that is not a harmless naked human body at that point. There is a generally clear delineation between exposing the instrument that one pees with and the instrument that one has sex with. These are two obviously different states entirely, one aroused and one minding its own business.
So, I discovered a concern for others comfort and my own. There is a natural awareness in play and there are preconceived notions that are often false and mostly a waste of energy in both sides of encounters. People do stop to think and to justify fears. I need to watch out for a nutjob freaking out and getting ugly, and they have to evaluate and justify their fears, too.
The red haired putz’s declaration had to be evaluated. His pools were empty. My pools were not. Naked people harm children…no, they do not. A protective parent’s reaction creates fear of naked and that harms them.
So, this experiment tells me, as I had figured, that I will become more comfortable nude on the trail, just like I would become more comfortable in the concrete jungle. It will take some time to learn to relax more. There will be an adjustment to the reality of the situation. I can play with stealth at anytime. It isn’t completely lost, and it is necessary out of the forest.
Now, what dangers are there, what consequences and what potentials? There can be a complaint. This may not be directly a consequence to me, but enough complaints can cause change in policy, they can stir things up and make trouble for all of us. They talk to their friends and create negatives. So, at this point, I would like to mitigate. In the concrete jungle, I stay away from certain parts of town, at certain times, dressed in certain ways. The odds of safety are diminished. Adults, teens and the usual are very low risk for negative reactions. Protective parents are a higher risk. Should I stay away from the part of the forest with these kinds of people when nude? Any authority should plainly see if a law is being broken, and that is all that they have to work with. In this state and most, this means, “have genitals been seen?” People need to see that nude is harmless. It would seem prudent that they know that there is activity nude, and a personal choice. The compromise would be to become legal and cover just the genitals with an opaque something. They will learn that way, and learn that the law covers only that. I don’t see any other problems out there, except the very oddball that goes off aggressively. People in nature usually lose the anger somewhere after the trailhead. I’ll continue to walk I the green jungle and learn and unlearn there.
What do you think? Reasonable? Do you have a different take on any of this? Something to add?
Jbee
