The Bare Body Freedom Movement via Change.org

[Greenbare Woods]

Perhaps the question should not be when and how did  nudity become legal but when and how did it become illegal

Perhaps in the "Victorian" era of the late 19th century.   Homes began having many small rooms, largely to to heating technology.  Plumbing moved indoors, into a closet, and chamber pots went away.  That which is not seen becomes unseeable.  The same era, soon called the "Progressive" era in the USA began local police forces where everything people once took for granted became illegal, or illegal without a license.  Bodies became illegal too. 

 

[jbeegoode]

Not to confuse the original progressive ear of 1890 through the 1920's with the more recent label of progressive.

Those progressive "reforms" were meddling in many ways. These laws against nature, the anti-nudity laws, I think were more of an incorporation of existing social norms into law and not actually part of the movement as defined generally. They reflected an already existent Victorian sensibility, the social disease created by an earlier meddler. I think that nudity regulation would happen on its own and has been continuous. These aren't all old laws. 

I'm always leery of labels because they are generalities and often given instead of claimed by those labeled. Historians like to label as much as opposition.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

I generally think the same thing about labels. But I don't think the shortcomings of labels are so much that they are generalities sometimes but rather because they are too specific;  too narrow in the wording. But on the other hand, they can be very accurate, that is, insofar as they go. You might not apply a certain label to yourself, yet it can still be accurate.

I've had other interests besides nudism over the years. One of those was my Land-Rover, which was a 1965 short wheelbase station wagon (estate car). I didn't do much hiking while I had it, either. An acquaintance that I started college with in 1964 also had one. Once, he introduced me to someone else as a "four-wheeler." I had never thought of myself as a four-wheeler, yet I probably did more off-road driving than anyone else in town. There might also be labels that you would deny, too, I suppose, accurate or not.

Laws are for the most part social norms codified. Increasing population and advances in technology account for most of the increase in the number of laws, changing social norms for the rest, probably. At a distance in time, we sometimes fail to recognize the real reasons for certain laws, irrespective of whether or not the law was (or is) "good." The prohibition movement, for example, did not exist because someone believed it was simply immoral to drink anything alcoholic. Some still believe that and Jesus turned water into grape juice, not wine. The real reason was that there were saloons on every corner and drunkenness was a social issue. It was the original drug war, you might say. I had a couple of neighbors when I was little who could have accurately been labelled drunks. Not alcoholics, drunks.

Those social norms, however, are not set by voting on election day. They are set by the crowd that lives on top of the hill for the benefit of the unwashed masses and maybe, when no ones looking, may not even follow them themselves. But now I'm getting cynical.

[jbeegoode]

…years of everyday use without too many problems

Perhaps the question should not be when and how did  nudity become legal but when and how did it become illegal

Yes, it was during that period that US population went from something like 90% rural to urban. Industrial standards and monopolies applied pressure on people and expanded control into the rest (Bluetrain's guys on the hill). Here, population was expanding with a great influx of foreigners mixed into the pot.  Chasing a buck was a life and death matter, producing conformity from above. There was a liaise fare chaos going on, so people looked for answers, rules and applied the norms that they knew to new laws.

The new industrialization created something which raised the bar for conformity and worker dehumanization and exploitation. All of these factors was a lot of steam, the pot was boiling over.

Social standing became a more intricate sophisticated game. With all of this, here comes Victoria's and Emily's social standards. These were something to grasp onto and exploit to out proper the next, to rise above with social competition. Look at the uptight clothing. People had to carry themselves and dress and act "proper", "respectable", to show "class". It was about social upwards mobility and getting ahead. Naked didn't meld into that.

What are now deemed as having been "progressive" movements to be blamed is incorrect, I believe. These movements were just results of an intricate, multifaceted, multi-directional society looking for a culture to cling to in the storm. The Progressive label is over simplification. It is being used as a scapegoat, a whipping boy by the opposition, the oligarchic wealth that participated in the grand scheme of things, just as much as the rest. These same influences still are happening, today.

There is a difference in the mix today. That is the think tank, owned and used to manipulate and astroturf control is nearly new, or should I say old ploys more sophisticated. They are quick to label and make their greedy agenda seem like a people's agenda, but when it ends up in congress, it is the same old influences trying to control and set human standards for monetary gain. Kill the voice of the union, control the schools to make workers not thinking, but ignorant citizens, make uniformity to control, make a buck. Think tanks get hundreds of millions to figure out ways to push agenda for profit. For example, schools are not for Social Studies and to make kids think for themselves, but to make workers these days. Who's idea was that? The answer is, who does that benefit? The laws in this state explicitly decree how each subject is to make kids think for themselves in the standards. This doesn't happen when it gets down to the kids in school. I've lost jobs teaching kids to think for themselves. Now, we have think tanks influencing state government to ban books, like "The People's History of the United States."

The point here is that if it makes a buck to squelch nudity, then there will be a squelch. If it makes a buck, or it helps to blow off steam, or is a distraction like a monty game, we’re safe. If it gets people in line and keeps people on top of the heap, if it is important enough, then we have anti-nudity laws and repression. Politicians like issues to get their base to rally behind. Wealth likes to use politicians and they will support them. 

We broke down many of these barriers to personal freedom starting with a burst in the late sixties, evolving and continuing, but there has always been the push back from the social/economic/cultural structures set in the Golden Age. When I see fat cats, or as they are popularly called "billionaires" making the changes that they do now, when I see oligarchy and continued the fascist melding of government and wealth, I feel threatened. But, culture now seems out of their control, particularly with the internet’s diversity. I see a soft spot. I see something that I can do. I see something that doesn’t end up playing into the game, something that is not astroturf. I see something that will benefit humanity. 
Jbee

[HillwalkerDundee]

One of the reasons why public nudity is legal in the UK is the weather. It is usually too cold and too wet that, although legal, it is rarely practised which means that it remains an activity of a tiny minority and therefore not a problem.

[MartinM]

Interesting theory, but I doubt there is much truth in it. One of the reasons Britons are thought to be less keen on naturism is the weather, contributing to it being unusual and less tolerated than some other European countries although, again, it is probably more complicated than that.

In countries where naturism is more popular, it tends, for fairly obvious reasons, to be more tolerated - but this does suggest a starting point where public or mixed sex nudity was seen as wrong in the past, the general situation in Europe.

Nudity is also legal in Spain, a much warmer country, Germany, Austria and Switzerland as well to my knowledge.

It would be interesting to see a summary of the legal situation in different European countries, but the European Convention on Human Rights protects the the right to freedom of expression, so without a clear reason to ban it, it is usually only illegal as a matter of public order. Effective work by NAG and BN is the reason why the guidance now says that the Public Order Act should not be used against simple nudity.

[John P]

French naturists frequently complain about the law there, because it's never certain when nudity will be prosecuted as "sexual exhibition". It's item 222-32 in the penal code. They're frustrated because naturists in the UK, Germany and Spain all have clearer laws and more benign enforcement.

Some years ago the canton of Appenzell in Switzerland banned public nudity, and the first case they prosecuted ended up going through several levels of appeal, but I think the defendant lost in the end. Anyway, if that canton had to pass a law, then presumably nudity is legal everywhere else in Switzerland.

I went on the Naked European Walking Tour in Austria in 2017, and at one point a man on a mountain bike pulled up beside us and delivered a long angry speech, of which I only caught the words "verboten" and "kinder" (that's "forbidden" and "children", so I think it's clear what his opinion was) but our leaders just told everyone not to worry. It was our last day, anyway.

[BlueTrain]

That sounds to me like a good example of how things are not the way we think they are. Much of our reasoning is more in the nature of wishful thinking and making unwarranted assumptions of what people are thinking. We have no idea of what people think; only of what they do and even then, only when we actually see them.

Here's another example. I was hiking nude on the Appalachian Trail somewhere between Pennsylvania and North Carolina, to narrow it down, when I encountered a man coming in the other direction. He did not get upset but he warned me that a family was behind him somewhere (there was). There were indeed children in the group (without which I guess it isn't a family). But I have no idea what the man was thinking and I didn't ask. Chances are, I wouldn't have wanted to know.

On another occasion, however, I was sitting on a rock ledge not far away from there on another trip, sunning myself, bleaching out more likely, when a woman came out of the bushes. She actually apologized and left. But I still don't know what she was thinking, only what she did.

[Greenbare Woods]

On another occasion, however, I was sitting on a rock ledge not far away from there on another trip, sunning myself, bleaching out more likely, when a woman came out of the bushes. She actually apologized and left. But I still don't know what she was thinking, only what she did.

That reminds me of one occasion when I was  hiking naked with my teen age sons on a trail through the Jemez Mountains in New Mexico.  We came around a corner and found a woman sitting on a large rock beside the trail.  She was maybe 30 years old.   As we neared her rock she said, "I wish I could do that."   

So I stopped to chat briefly to inquire about just what "that" was she was wishing she could do.  "Hike naked" she said, "I wish I could hike naked, it looks so free and natural."   I suggested that she could be naked as well as me, and she said she would never have the courage to do it.  I wished her "good day" and hurried to catch up to my sons who had continued off down the trail.  No apologies needed or given on either side.  . 

Bob

[Peter S]

I seem to recall the Appenzell ban John P mentions related to a path regularly used, even promoted, for nude hiking, and the locals took exception. They had to enact a bye-law to ban the practice as Swiss law neither allowed nor banned it and hikers were using the lack of a ban to say it was legal. Or something like that.

[jbeegoode]

French naturists frequently complain about the law there, because it's never certain when nudity will be prosecuted as "sexual exhibition". It's item 222-32 in the penal code. They're frustrated because naturists in the UK, Germany and Spain all have clearer laws and more benign enforcement.

Some years ago the canton of Appenzell in Switzerland banned public nudity, and the first case they prosecuted ended up going through several levels of appeal, but I think the defendant lost in the end. Anyway, if that canton had to pass a law, then presumably nudity is legal everywhere else in Switzerland.

I went on the Naked European Walking Tour in Austria in 2017, and at one point a man on a mountain bike pulled up beside us and delivered a long angry speech, of which I only caught the words "verboten" and "kinder" (that's "forbidden" and "children", so I think it's clear what his opinion was) but our leaders just told everyone not to worry. It was our last day, anyway.

I've been a long way from France for a long time, but while living there around 1965, I, as a 12 or 13 year old boy was accused of a crime, that I had no knowledge of. I had an interrogation with both an American military CID officer and a gendarme. It was like night and day. In France I was guilty until porven innocent. Assuming that French law is still like that, then vague statutes must be very intimidating.
Jbee

[John P]

JBG, I can imagine that the American investigator was very eager to prove that an American military dependent couldn't possibly have committed a crime in France. He didn't need to like you in order to do this! (In fact he probably thought you were a pest who was complicating his life.) The French officer might have had some anti-American politics driving him--wasn't it around then that France quit NATO? It's all about la gloire.

[BlueTrain]

There seems to be the general assumption over here, stateside, that anyone arrested 'must' be guilty. But it's worse than that. All that is necessary for guilt to be assumed is to be accused. Or as the French would say, "J'accuse!"

The Swiss are quite local about things. It is a confederation and the cantons have more control over their own affairs, or so I understand. Each canton even has established official languages. There seems to be an absence of national government trying to standardize things as there are in other federally organized countries. So if enough people wanted to ban public nudity, there's nothing to stop them. That's democracy for you.

[jmf]

So if enough people wanted to ban public nudity, there's nothing to stop them. That's democracy for you.

It happened in a swiss canton:

"Hiking naked in Switzerland in the canton of Appenzell Rhodes-Intéreure will now be punishable by a fine of 200 chfr (132€ approximately).

On Sunday 26 April 2009, the citizens of the Eastern Switzerland Canton voted overwhelmingly in favour of making "hiking" an offence punishable ex officio. These mountains were in fact increasingly popular with German hikers."

[jbeegoode]

The "crime" was spray painting something derogatory on the street outside a local busybodies window. I saw it and was reading it, "Ben Tarnel Suc..." It was incomplete. Then I find Ben yelling at me like it was my doing. He was an officer of some rank. It was in an American Military complex, a housing area where we lived.   

The bad cop French was in my face, but was a cooperative effort with the CID. Yes, De Gaul kicked NATO out soon after that, but I don't think that that mattered in this instance.

The military CID cop new that a disruptive child could look very bad on an officers record and that this could get me deported by my own government. He literally took the guy gently by the shoulders and told him to tone it down, stating that I was innocent until proven guilty. There were jurisdiction matters.

I was amazed how a kid prank was treated as a serious crime. I was amazed that I was questioned. I knew nothing.

The contrast made a big impression on me. I value that innocent until proven guilty dearly. It deeply troubles me to have had to watch this principle eroded in this country over the decades since. Conspiracy law, cop attitudes, search and seizure abuses, among others, have all but destroyed innocent until proven guilty.

So, as far as I know, French law is still like this in criminal matters. It was the assumed place for the French gendarme to come at me like that. I don't think that he was rogue, or loose. He was chosen to be a representative of the French government and act accordingly respectful and appropriately in the law. There is diplomacy and concern for international incidents between governments. You don't rock the boat if it might make a higher up uncomfortable. French and American matters were delicate back then. To the gendarme it was okay to treat suspects like that, let alone 12 year old kids.

I don't know if French law has changed for the better, but that was what was.

Maybe JMF can shed some light on this aspect of French law.
Jbee