Making Naturism Viral - Grassroots Naturism

[jbeegoode]

How did gays make so much headway and is there a correlation? They surely faced the same population density and minority problems.

The solid core, although stats vary are about 6 to 7% of the population. Then, there are those in the grey areas of the spectrum of the solid core to the straight people. There are like 20% who might be part time gay. There are those that have had one gay experience. There are those that have primary relationships that switch sexes during a lifetime. There are bisexual. This runs into something like 50% of the population depending on who you reference. And that amounts to lots of sisters, brothers, family and friends.

This doesn't seem so much more a place of strength and social change than nude peoples. These things correlate percentage-wise, and the degree of how much you are in will vary.

How do gays meet and identify themselves. Well, how do nudist and naturist do that? Gays go to clubs and wear fashions that subtly, or overtly, give clues. They are motivated by sexual desires and like minded companionship. We nudes are not giving any social clues. We are not driven by sex as a prime motivator, unless we futility go to nude resorts to find mates. We are socially stunted when sex is in the equation, or we're swingers. Perhaps we need to wave our freak flag higher? Bumper stickers and clothing fashions?

One advantage is that everybody is a naturist, they just don't know it, yet. Everyone across the board would benefit, if they knew that there are benefits to naturist lifestyle. Everyone is oppressed by the obsession of clothing. There have been fashion accommodations to the rebellion of the discomfort. Examples, are worn jeans, even with holes. Much of the fashion in the malls is to be unfashionable looking and to buy old looking new clothing.

We are safe. We are not sexual in our goals. We are wholesome. We just get bad press, so to speak.

So, I suggest appealing to the fashion rebellion. Liberated women have liberated bodies. Naturism is very very green. Clothing needs to be demonized more, put in its actual place. Landfills of clothing and expense, and driven by fashion/clothing expense, sort of dropping out, are mellinial issues. Minimalism is an influential subculture. Women's rights and equality. I'm saying that we appeal to many other subcultures that mount up in numbers for support, IF they identify with us.

Could naturism again be cutting edge, edgy, cool?
Jbee

[Naturistplace]

How did gays make so much headway and is there a correlation? They surely faced the same population density and minority problems.

The solid core, although stats vary are about 6 to 7% of the population. Then, there are those in the grey areas of the spectrum of the solid core to the straight people. There are like 20% who might be part time gay. There are those that have had one gay experience. There are those that have primary relationships that switch sexes during a lifetime. There are bisexual. This runs into something like 50% of the population depending on who you reference. And that amounts to lots of sisters, brothers, family and friends.

I think there are several fairly obvious differences between the gay and naturist situations. You mention one in noting that it's easier for gays to identify each other. The major difference is that being gay is largely a biological thing. To some extent, sexual identity is flexible, as with transgender people. But mostly it's not. By the time of the mid-teens, most gay people (I think, not being gay myself) know they're "different". This just isn't the same with being naturist. Although I found being naked felt good when I was young, I was over 30 before I became seriously interested. Some people, apparently, don't develop an interest until much later. So it's much more of a volitional issue. 

This fact makes it a lot harder to estimate the number of "naturists" in the population. Although some surveys show that perhaps 20% or more of the U. S. population have tried skinny-dipping at some time or other, the number of "active" or "practicing" naturists (even in their own homes) is almost unknowable (so few scientific surveys), but I'd expect the number is under 1%, or 2% tops. If anyone is aware of more reliable figures, I'd love to know.

And this low percentage is the heart of the critical mass problem. Since being gay is mostly biological, the percentage has always been about the same (for many thousands of years). What's different in recent decades is that so many gays are now "out". That is something that's voluntary (sort of, though it's now much easier than it used to be). And I expect it's partly a result of person-to-person efforts among gays, beginning a few decades ago, to take that step. If my assumptions about critical mass are correct, it appears that 7% of the population is sufficient - while 1% or 2% isn't.

I do not think that the success that gays have had "just happened" without lots of pressure among gays to decide to "come out". It wasn't because the general society, all by itself, became more tolerant or more aware of the fact that being gay isn't merely a choice. It was because enough gays persuaded others to publicly insist on their rights. And keep in mind that, in contrast to potential naturists, gay people - almost by definition - know at least one other who's gay, and often many more than one.

Likewise, for naturists, I don't think we'll get more tolerance and rights by waiting for society to come to its senses. We need to actively find others who are open-minded enough and able to appreciate the pleasures of social nudity and persuade them to become practicing naturists. Gays didn't need to be persuaded about their orientation. In the naturist case, I think some reasonable persuasion is necessary.

[jbeegoode]

Yup, some good points there.

I tend to disagree with your estimate of "1% or 2%" would be active naturists "(even in their own homes)." Active social situations on an ongoing basis maybe. People who don't wear clothes in their homes is going to be a varying degree of practice, but I do know, from talking around that a surprising number do. It is of course often to sometimes. I know that children have a tendency to put a damper on the practice.

By TNS polls, which are done very well, 30% plus have skinny-dipped in mixed company. This would imply that these same people would have a more comfortable attitude about their bodies and to some degree be naked in the home. Granted that there are some that don't see themselves as prudes, but think that public nudity is too much. Also, those same polls tell us that 80% at least accept designated places for social naturist activities.

Coming out was a big deal, a dangerous deal in the past. Of the 7% a smaller percent of the gay population were actively gay. Most were hiding and staying hidden, or repressing themselves, even fake marriages. I would think that the stats between the practice of nude and gay populations to be closer to similar. I would think that the potential would be similar.

What did the gays do to overcome the oppressive situations and what got them to come out? I think that it was more than compelling biology. I think that the sexual revolution just a few years before gay lib beginnings had a terrific coattail influence.  I remember when "rolling queers" on a Friday night was an acceptable practice condoned by the police. They have come a long way.

The gay population had to overcome a greater population that didn't identify with them, even disgusted by them. We would have people that identified with us in varying extents. We are easier to tolerate. We are less threatening, maybe.

I'd like to see a poll: Do you go nude about your home? How often? Do you have children living with you?
 

[Naturistplace]

I tend to disagree with your estimate of "1% or 2%" would be active naturists "(even in their own homes)." Active social situations on an ongoing basis maybe. People who don't wear clothes in their homes is going to be a varying degree of practice, but I do know, from talking around that a surprising number do. It is of course often to sometimes.

For concreteness, let's say that 7% of the (adult) U. S. population is gay. I don't know where the number comes from, but assume it for the sake of discussion. What does it actually mean? There are degrees of gayness. It wouldn't surprise me if 50% of the population has tried gay sex at some point or other. But that doesn't mean much. The actual distribution of gayness is bimodal. That means most of the population is at one end of the scale or the other. (Much less on the gay end, of course.) But if you figure the midpoint is where people have gay rather than hetero sex about half the time, I could believe that 7% is about the right number for the gay side. That's still a lot. It means about 17 million U. S. adults are on the gay side.

The situation with naturists is, I think, quite different. The distribution is unimodal, with a peak close to the non-naturist side, and a long declining tail on the naturist side. So exactly how does one measure the degree to which a person is naturist? That's a very interesting question I'll get to in a moment. I could easily believe that 30% of the population has skinny-dipped in mixed company at some time or other. But that doesn't make them naturists, and in particular, it doesn't mean they will support the naturist "cause" or recommend naturism to others. There could be 10 or 15% who go naked occasionally at home. But I still don't think that makes them naturists or likely to recommend naturism to others. If anything, most of those people probably wouldn't volunteer to tell others they go naked at home sometimes.

So we need to have some sort of numerical scale that measures the degree of naturist interest and activity. As it happens there is such a thing: the "N-scale". I wrote about it 20 years ago: http://www.naturistplace.com/wnl-0202.htm. It's not my idea, but I think it's useful.

However, I don't think it's fine-grained enough. More detail is needed at levels of 5 and above. That's the point where a person might engage in naturist activities, although somewhat secretively. Things such as naked hiking where not likely to be seen, or visiting a nude beach occasionally (where nudity is the norm). So I expanded the N-scale to include more detail, and I wrote about that: http://www.naturistplace.com/wnl-0203.htm. I think that 5.8 might be the point where one might be considered a "real" naturist. (You'll need to read the article for more details.) This is the level of naturist activity that I am guessing corresponds to my 1 or 2% estimate of the number of naturists. It's also the point at which I think a person might admit of an interest in naturism to open-minded friends and even suggest they consider it themselves. Such people can actually be helpful in promoting naturism. That's still about 5 million people (based on the 2% number), though that may be too optimistic.

Why too optimistic? Consider some other numbers. There are somewhat more than 1 million members of the Sierra Club. That's a very mainstream organization, and there are probably tens of millions of people in the U. S. who sympathize with the organization's goals. But people these days just aren't joiners. Consider members of the two U. S. naturist organizations, TNS and AANR. Both are somewhat secretive about how many members they have, but based on past information, 20,000 is about tops for TNS and 50,000 for AANR. Even taken together, that's only a bit more than 1% of the 5 million who might be "real" naturists. People aren't joiners, but even so it might be a stretch to guess that there are even 2.5 million "real" naturists. That would be around 15% of the number of gay people and about 1% of the adult population.

Getting to higher percentages means lowering the bar for who is considered a naturist. That extra 1% might well be the best people to target first for persuasion to become more active naturists. If we could identify them. There may be ways to do that. In principle, it could be done by sending surveys to people who might be open-minded enough to consider naturism seriously. The surveys would ask them about things like being naked at home. Responses would be anonymous, of course, in the research phase. From that better estimates could be made. (There would also be questions that indicate open-mindedness.) However, this is all blue-sky stuff. What organizations would attempt this sort of thing? There are market research firms that do this sort of thing, but I doubt they're inexpensive. Actually, as long as this is just speculating, I guess Facebook data could be usefully mined. But that's controversial, and not inexpensive either.

So, this is all mostly guesswork. There simply are far too few studies that are designed to quantify naturist numbers - let alone to use some scale like the N-scale to make it possible to get some idea of the distribution of interest levels in naturist activities. We're really in the dark at this point. And that's not a good thing, because that fact in itself deters people from having an interest in naturism, because they have no way of knowing how popular or unpopular it actually is. And people are reluctant to associate with things that seem "unpopular".

[jbeegoode]

I couldn't agree with you more, that we are in the dark, as the details are shoddy. We only have educated guesses. Still we can use ballpark and low-ball, to get some idea of our potential.

In any social movement for change, it doesn't take the entire population to make the change. For example during the civil rights era of the early sixties, there were something like 20 million black Americans. We know that only a relatively few participated enough, to make the significant news and actions. The marches were not millions, but thousands, the core was fewer and many of those were other races.

All of those hippies and hoopla started with one guy being fed some LSD. He and friends gathered with a bucket of the stuff, things snowball. Who could have known what change was beginning.

If our low ball figures are anything close, we have great potential.

So, how can that be harnessed and organized and what activities would be most effective and when?

What would inspire people enough to at least take notice and listen, or to identify, to see harmlessness, to see injustice, to get curious? What would make it cool enough to stand up and say, we need to get off of other people's backs, its just a harmless naked body, fun and any or all of the other positives naturism gives us?

What would get young people to talk about it? DF and I have discussed standing in nude body suits with strategic black bars and handing out informative flyers at the U of A. If the flyer sparks a cause and it directs poeple to a cool website, which demonstates nudity fun, it would only need to catch a few people. These few begin to talk social media networking. It goes viral. Okay, the idea is still in the rough.

Another way to get action has been legal challenges. The first amendmant spitiuality of naturism hasn't come up, yet. It needs someone who genually fits the bill and is willing to be the one to stand up. It needs pro bono lawyers and money to challenge laws. I think that it is doable. I have an article submitted to "N" magazine, now, that deals with this. I'm waiting for approval, which would present the notion to 30,000 naturist readers, some of which might get fired up. If that doesn't happen, then I go ahead and publish on my website, expecting a few pingbacks. I'll see where it goes and how it floats. I'm fishing.

Jbee

[Naturistplace]

In any social movement for change, it doesn't take the entire population to make the change. For example during the civil rights era of the early sixties, there were something like 20 million black Americans. We know that only a relatively few participated enough, to make the significant news and actions. The marches were not millions, but thousands, the core was fewer and many of those were other races.

[deletions]

So, how can that be harnessed and organized and what activities would be most effective and when?

Actually, there was the Million Man March in 1965, which involved mostly black men.

MLK's "I have a dream" speech was at a 1963 march that had "only" about 250,000 people.

Unfortunately, the naturist movement doesn't have (and never had) leaders with MLK's eloquence and charisma. The environmental movement of the 50s and 60s had David Brower (of the Sierra Club and similar organizations). He was a very prominent leader at the time. Naturists could really use someone like him.

Let's not forget, too, that many people died - both white and black - in the Civil Rights struggle of the 60s. Later that decade there was Kent State, which was a different sort of turning point. We don't need a repeat of that.

The naturist "cause" isn't quite analogous. There isn't, to be honest, quite as much at stake. We probably need a different approach from either the Civil Rights or the Gay Rights movement.

I wish I knew "what activities would be most effective and when". So far the best I've come up with is the incremental "build critical mass" approach. 17 million gays and 20 million blacks got attention. The number of naturists now isn't in the same ballpark.

But note that the incremental approach yields benefits right away: Find more naturists in your local area, and you have more people to share social nudity with. That's at least something.

[Naturistplace]

Here's something else to think about. The couple responsible for what's probably the most popular naturist blog (Naked Wanderings) just found out that their Instagram account was removed. (https://www.nakedwanderings.com/naked-wanderings-banned-from-instagram/) Instagram, like its owner Facebook, has very anti-naturist policies (no visible genitals or female nipples) found Nick and Lin's Instagram account in violation. The couple claims they tried very hard to observe the rules. To no avail.

This is not how the Internet was supposed (initially) to work. It was for the unrestricted exchange of information (unless it's actually illegal). We can forget about that now, since the Internet is mostly controlled by about half a dozen huge monopolies. And those genitals and nipples are a problem, because advertisers - who have the final say - think they hurt business. That's what happened to Tumblr just 2 months ago. Business comes first on the Internet these days. To heck with sharing honest information. (Bot armies that circulate all sorts of lies and conspiracy theories are OK, though.)

Naturists are badly hurt by these policies (just ask Nick and Lins). Because exposed genitals and nipples are somehow no different from pure porn. How are people supposed to be able to see the difference between nonsexual nudity and porn if they aren't allowed to see either? People can't really understand naturist lifestyles, because actually showing how naturists live their lives is, somehow, dangerous to children and the moral fiber of the nation. That's a big loss for us, since a picture is worth a thousand words - but only if it's allowed to be seen.

I don't know what naturists can do about this problem either. About 60 years ago we got some relief when it was decided (by the country's highest courts) that nudist magazines and books could legally be sent through the mails. The First Amendment guaranteed that. Unfortunately, private entities (like Facebook) aren't bound to observe the 1st Am. And these private entities now control the primary information channels these days.

Even worse than being excluded from the predominant information channels is the fact that this exclusion, by itself, leads people to think that the excluded material should be excluded, because it's "bad".

We still have direct person-to-person communication to rely on, which is what I've been emphasizing. It's a slow process, and like trying to defend oneself with both hands tied. But what choice do we have?

[Safebare]

I agree. Making the cause personal seems like the best path forward. Small wins will lead the way, who knows which will grow legs.
Nick & Lins, Jbee & DF, and others are leading the march into the 21st century of naturism. Thanks! BTW.
I am not in a good position to take a seat in that saddle, but would welcome the opportunity. I would continue my legal fight as long as light appears in the tunnel. But it must be a promising tunnel.
Participating in body positive events and sharing them with others is my latest tack. It's not equal to sitting in a forbidden seat, but close enough for me.
The discussions here make a difference. Keep up the chatter.

~Safebare

[jbeegoode]

In any social movement for change, it doesn't take the entire population to make the change. For example during the civil rights era of the early sixties, there were something like 20 million black Americans. We know that only a relatively few participated enough, to make the significant news and actions. The marches were not millions, but thousands, the core was fewer and many of those were other races.

[deletions]

So, how can that be harnessed and organized and what activities would be most effective and when?

Actually, there was the Million Man March in 1965, which involved mostly black men.

MLK's "I have a dream" speech was at a 1963 march that had "only" about 250,000 people.

Unfortunately, the naturist movement doesn't have (and never had) leaders with MLK's eloquence and charisma. The environmental movement of the 50s and 60s had David Brower (of the Sierra Club and similar organizations). He was a very prominent leader at the time. Naturists could really use someone like him.

Let's not forget, too, that many people died - both white and black - in the Civil Rights struggle of the 60s. Later that decade there was Kent State, which was a different sort of turning point. We don't need a repeat of that.

The naturist "cause" isn't quite analogous. There isn't, to be honest, quite as much at stake. We probably need a different approach from either the Civil Rights or the Gay Rights movement.

I wish I knew "what activities would be most effective and when". So far the best I've come up with is the incremental "build critical mass" approach. 17 million gays and 20 million blacks got attention. The number of naturists now isn't in the same ballpark.

But note that the incremental approach yields benefits right away: Find more naturists in your local area, and you have more people to share social nudity with. That's at least something.

My point here is that it only took a relatively few activist to spawn those movements. Those movements didn't start with huge marches. They started with some people eating at a counter and riding a bus. The generated numbers and support where simulated by the actions of a few.

I add again that we are more than 20 million bodies. Everybody has a body, every body. At varying degrees, not just practicing naturists. We are not looking for huge sweeping reform, economic reforms, desegregation, etc.. We are looking at everyone's humanity, and it is not a threat to dismantling institutions and power. We're looking for a simple change. Stop arresting me for my natural act, experiencing my body, a human right. The laws are the crime, not the experience of life.

The various movements are not the same, but what tactics can be employed, what lessons were learned? A quarter million people walking down the streets of Washington nude and proud demanding civil rights will not happen, doesn't need to happen. A simple message and awareness of a practical common sense human issue will suffice. "Seeing a body naked is harmless, healthy and natural, NOT criminal." Such an occurrence as having ones body seen, or seeing other's bodies is not something that should cause kids to kill themselves, emotional trauma to the innocent, choke the planet, imprison and destroy social standing, strike fear, or even provoke disgust. It is an important correction, not a complete restructuring of the social and economic order. 

The question to ask here is what tools were employed that can be used to create change. There was a common thread in the tipping point of the aforementioned social changes. People saw that their thinking was incorrect when it was brought to their attention and they responded with compassion when they saw that it was hurting other people. The dominate society saw civil rights, all men are created equal. They saw that color in people's skin is not an indication of inferiority. They can use the same facilities with no health issues. They can be moral, very moral. Their presence is not harmful. Their differences will not destroy the fabric of the nation. They are not over sexed compulsive rapists. The text is the same inside, no matter what the cover of the book, or if it even has a cover. It is wrong to preserve, or conserve the way things have been, just because it is the status quo, things must be questioned from time to time and changed, in order to form a more perfect union. Oppression is wrong. The list goes on. All of these things have been laid on the nudist population, too.

Whether gay, color, or socio-cultural, or body freedom, a significant majority has to be made aware of injustice and change opinion. People want to do the right thing.

People die everyday, inside and their potential dies, their self esteem. People physically die from social pressures. Mob rule on facebook can kill a kid, just as sure as a hanging.
Jbee

P.S. Over a third of Americans have tried skinny-dipping or nude sunbathing with others. And over a quarter of Americans would consider trying it in the future.

NEF’s Question 10: “Have you, personally, ever gone skinny-dipping or nude sunbathing with others?”

35% answered “Yes” and 63% said “No.”

This question has been included in each poll since 1983, when 15% of respondents said “Yes.” In 2000, it went up to 25% and remained at this percentage in 2006.

[Greenbare Woods]

We don't care if the whole population adopts social nudity.  We only care if the whole population becomes TOLERANT of social nudity.  Let them have their clothes.  They need to let us live without ours. 

[JOhnGw]

We don't care if the whole population adopts social nudity.  We only care if the whole population becomes TOLERANT of social nudity.  Let them have their clothes.  They need to let us live without ours.

The best post of the lot.

[jbeegoode]

Exactly. No one is going to get every body naked. Just give us our rights back. Something like BN in British law right now. This should be no big deal, time will tell what others do. But, for now they need to know to back off of each others bodies. Drop the law and society is free to take its own course, to correct itself, or convince society and then the law gets dropped. It doesn't matter, just so we end up free.
Jbee

[Naturistplace]

The way the political process works is not that laws get changed because "it's the right thing to do". In most jurisdictions, public nudity (in a local park or even in your own yard) just isn't legal. There are either specific statutes about this (state or local), or public nudity is automatically considered "indecent exposure". So in almost all cases it's necessary either to change existing laws, or else get a new law that clarifies the legality of public nudity.

And getting any political action of this kind requires convincing anything from a local council to the state legislature to do something that probably won't be politically popular. There are almost certain to be people who object to such a change. They may even be few in number but they will do their best to stop any changes that make nudity more tolerated. Guaranteed.

It's just dreaming to think that things will get better for naturism without a lot of effort of some kind or other. Didn't happen with civil rights or gay rights or women's rights or labor rights or almost any other sort of rights you can think of. And it won't happen any more easily for naturist rights either.

Even in the few places that are already tolerant of nudity, people can come along and make it harder. That happened in San Francisco in 2012. Why? Simply because some naturists were exercising their rights - and people who didn't like that came along and got the law changed. And it's not just naturist rights that get taken away. Labor rights have been under attack for years. Women's rights (abortion and contraception in particular) are constantly under attack.

Freedom is not free.

[Greenbare Woods]

Even in the few places that are already tolerant of nudity, people can come along and make it harder. That happened in San Francisco in 2012. Why? Simply because some naturists were exercising their rights - and people who didn't like that came along and got the law changed. And it's not just naturist rights that get taken away. Labor rights have been under attack for years. Women's rights (abortion and contraception in particular) are constantly under attack.

Freedom is not free.

As my father used to say,  "Can't never did anything."

[John P]

Even in the few places that are already tolerant of nudity, people can come along and make it harder. That happened in San Francisco in 2012. Why? Simply because some naturists were exercising their rights - and people who didn't like that came along and got the law changed. And it's not just naturist rights that get taken away. Labor rights have been under attack for years. Women's rights (abortion and contraception in particular) are constantly under attack.

Freedom is not free.

As my father used to say,  "Can't never did anything."

We aren't going to get anywhere if we feed each other propaganda and accept it without question, then act as if we're in possession of  complete facts. We did NOT lose our rights in San Francisco because "naturists exercised their rights"! That debacle occurred because men were gathering in a particular location in San Francisco and making sexual displays--I'm referring to penis rings designed to stimulate or simulate an erection. Naturists, at least the Naturist Action Committee, said that this should be dealt with by enforcement of state law against public lewdness. But the local police said they weren't willing to try to make the distinction between lewd nudity and the innocent kind. So the city passed a law againt nudity, and that dealt with the problem. We had a chance to denounce the people who were our enemies in this case, and we failed to do it. Now some of us are falsifying the situation after the event.

Time after time, we've lost naturist venues when they were used for sexual activity. We seem to be very reluctant to make an honest assement of what's occuring, and clearly identify the people who are costing us our rights. It's got to change.