People who've given up washing

[jbeegoode]

What do you wear on your walks? Could you down size the wardrobe, a kilt or smaller loose shorts? Get more of a naturist experience of it, without social, or legal hassles?

[BlueTrain]

Me, around here I wear long pants and some kind of shirt. I push through too much brush to wear shorts. In Shenandoah National Park and the nearby George Washington National Forest, I have worn, in moderate to hot temperatures, anything from long pants and shirt to nothing. Opportunities to hike nude up there are fairly good, particularly so on parts of some trails. I've made several trips on which I've hiked most of the time on the trail nude, including a few times when I met no one and there was no need to cover up. In fact, a couple of times my cover-up shorts were inside my pack. This includes trips to other, more distant places, too. On trips when I've planned to hike nude (most of them, except in the winter) I have only taken a pair of shorts and sometimes a t-shirt, too. The shorts are old-fashioned skimpy gym shorts. They have always been minimalist outings but I've never been dogmatic or a purist about it. The pack I use is an L.L. Bean "Stowaway" pack, the old model. It's perfect and weighs less than 14 ounces, although it won't do for cold weather trips when I take more stuff.

I actually prefer going to G.W. National Forest rather than SNP because it's closer (that is, the trailheads are closer), there is no entrance gate and there are nearly always fewer people around. But SNP is better for the views and good places to stop, even though the trails are no better. I can only think of one trail in SNP on which I would feel confident enough to leave my shorts inside my pack, only it's almost straight up and down and the up part is on the way back.

I have been "caught" nude on a few occasions with no trouble but I've always covered up with shorts anyway. I think that hiking nude is a very good thing to do when it is possible to do so without undue risk. And the only real risk is legal troubles of the worst kind.

I count all of my hikes winter and summer as naturist experiences and sometimes they are nudist experiences, too. I think I've mentioned somewhere already that I have fair skin and formerly red hair. But on all of these trips, the trails are about 95% in the shade and I don't have to worry about the sun. Trail conditions vary wildly, though, from nice and soft pine needle covered trails to boulder hopping. They're also mostly hilly, not quite mountainous by Colorado standards. A couple of my most memorable hikes have been when it was snowing.

[nuduke]

I count all of my hikes winter and summer as naturist experiences and sometimes they are nudist experiences, too.

Now, Blue Train, I have a question about your meaning here.  Is that usage of 'naturist' because you are always naked at some point on every hike or is this a nuance of meaning of 'naturist' e.g. naturalist i.e. a student and appreciator of nature?  Can you elucidate further?
With my best pedantry cap on...
John

[BlueTrain]

I take "naturist" to mean being out in the woods, hiking. I also use the term to include conservation but I don't do anything in that regard. It usually means an activity out of town, although when the big city and the big suburb includes as much wildlife as there are in the rural woods, I don't think that restriction holds any water. But nudist means without clothes, even though the term has been used in the distant past to include those who weren't totally nude that much but were otherwise no different from those who were sometimes. These different distinctions are all in the nature of recreation, in the sense of re-creating. All the same, I realize that the term 'naturist' has been co-opted by actual nudists as a politically correct term, the same way that German nudists began using "Free Body Culture" instead of "naked culture." However, I don't think one has to live nude all the time to be considered a nudist nor even to belong to any nudist organization, including this one. In the broadest sense, probably, a nudist just thinks that it's okay to be nude and sometimes even better.

There are also terms I dislike, as you probably already realize. To me, "body acceptance" means "let yourself go," because it's okay to be fat. Likewise, I don't care for the term "textile." If anything, textile is the norm. Finally, in spite of the fact that the name of this forum (that is, organization) is "Free Range Naturism," belittling nudist clubs and commercial resorts is not helpful.

That may have been more than you wanted to know.

You must also understand that none of these distinctions over words and means has ever made the slightest difference in my life.

[jbeegoode]

I think that it is best that we all attempt to speak the same language.

Your description of naturism looks more of a definition of naturalism. "Naturism" needs some naked body in there some place. Otherwise, you are just a naturalist who might take a dip in a swimming hole on a hot day, or participate in a naturist activity deep in the woods in a practical manner, once in a while. Those naturalists are generally less threat to us naturist. Naturist can have nude social engagements.

Textile is not the norm. It is the more usual. How can anyone who is threatened by a naked member of his own species "normal." Nude is the natural and original state. Clothing  and fashion is an addition to the baseline.

When resorts undermine body rights instead of protecting free range body rights, then they need to be belittled in defense. I enjoy a safe resort, but it is not and end. It is a temporary solution in an ongoing struggle. Free range and individual preference is closer to the end result. The social/government system creates the need for resorts by injustice.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

Without either threatening or being threatened, the "norm" (normal) is in fact, what is usual. I don't see how you can claim that wearing clothes is not normal when 99.99% of the world's population does so, all the time. And there you go, using "textile" again.

I specifically do not use the term naturist to mean naturalist. To me, as it us most often currently used, 'naturist' is a euphemism, in exactly the same way that the old "American Sunbathing Society" was a euphemistic name for an organization that was all about nudism. It was refreshing honesty for them to rename themselves as American Association for Nude Recreation. There should be no shame in using the term nudist. I realize that many here have problems with organizations, even the AANR.

There is no confusion in communication here. There are some differences in ideals (and not ideas). You'll just have to learn to tolerate the free thinkers. Either that or expel them from your group.

[jbeegoode]

There is no confusion in communication here. There are some differences in ideals (and not ideas). You'll just have to learn to tolerate the free thinkers. Either that or expel them from your group.

Sorry to know that you are feeling picked on. We generally are black sheep here.

[Peter S]

There it is again, the problem of labels. Naturist? Nudist? Even “naturalist” now? Yet each with potentially different meanings to confuse the unwary. My mantra is that I prefer to be naked, end of. While I think that has less ambiguity attached, even the simple “naked” has attracted various definitions. Who’d have thought the simplicity of being unclothed could get so complicated.

[BlueTrain]

I don't feel picked on. In fact, to be honest, I'm probably picking on you, which is not good. I've just been trying to get my point across.

It's only as complicated as we make it, although that isn't difficult. But let's take a hypothetical example.

Let's say you and a few of your 'naturist' friends are out for a ramble. Let's even say you're in the Alps (I'll let you pick the country), because we love the mountains. You're all totally nude, except for the odd person wearing shoes. You stop for some black bread and beer, perhaps to yodel and strum your guitar as you wander. Feeling refreshed and even a little exhilarated, your group moves on.

Within the hour, another small group files up the trail and pauses at the same place for a Kodak moment and to enjoy the view. On a clear day you can see, well, you can see better. Anyway, they also lunch on black bread and lager. Oh, my! They're wearing shorts. They can't be naturists. They must be naturalists or something. And my goodness, someone's shorts has a logo of some sort. Another slave to the corporate consumer world, undoubtedly. Then they up and move on, too.

[Greenbare Woods]

I don't see how you can claim that wearing clothes is not normal when 99.99% of the world's population does so, all the time.

Mass psychosis combined with herd mentality.

How can anyone claim that clothing is "normal" when 99.99% of species never do it? 

[BlueTrain]

Okay, then, which is normal: fur or feathers? The people in the far north wore fur. Today they are more likely using feathers. Which is normal? If an isolated tribe deep in the uplands of Borneo wore no clothes, except for what they do wear, why should I take that as the norm? The word "default" is not an appropriate word. And you think everyone in the world is suffering from mass psychosis? Are you basing that belief on people you actually know and are exhibiting the symptoms? It almost sounds like you believe that anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe is suffering from some kind of mental illness. Could be. But it's okay. They won't hurt you. Just speak softly and don't make any sudden movements and you'll be all right. I think the whole thing might be coming from Outer Space and the government is keeping it a secret. But don't lose hope. There is an underground community in Idaho and Montana who have plans to deal with this outbreak of conformity. They're just waiting for the right moment when their leader says so. At least that's what I heard.

[MartinM]

Wearing clothes is the ‘norm’, even for naturists in winter, even though it is not as natural. Our clothes become less and less natural, from ones that could have been woven from locally available natural fibres for thousands of years to modern synthetic ones made from petrochemicals, incorporating anti-bacterial coatings and possibly now even smart technology. Less and less natural, but may become the new normal. ‘Normal’ just describes what is usual.

Labels are equally normal, and entirely natural, for a species that has developed language. Labels are useful, essential even, until they are over-interpreted and too many assumptions made, or prejudices attached to them. ‘Textile’ is not a particularly nice term but can be useful short - hand for non-naturist, or just someone wearing clothes who may or may not be naturist.

The nudist vs naturist debate is often raised, and why we use labels. Nudist is the most straight-forward term saying very little about the person other than they like to do ordinary things without clothes. ‘Naturist’ has become the more popular term because it suggests a less ‘one dimensional’ interest or simple hobby, but more a philosophy. To many people there is at least an element of connecting to nature, and that is certainly seems true for most on this site. It originated in France in reference to living a more natural, healthy life and so nudity naturally became part of the ethos but nudity was not the main or only focus which it often now seems. So ideas of not washing with artificial soaps and detergents fit in with the naturist ethos. Several of us walk barefoot, even when there is no opportunity to be naked because it is natural, healthy and we can better connect with the earth.

A naturalist is distinctly different, although there may well be overlap. A naturalist is someone who observes and studies nature in an objective way. A naturist’s experience is much more subjective, seeking not so much scientific knowledge, but spiritual, bodily, sensory connection at some level. At it’s most basic level, it is just because the feel good when they take their clothes off to feel the sun, breeze or water on naked skin. But that, for many of us, is just the entree.

[MartinM]

I don't see how you can claim that wearing clothes is not normal when 99.99% of the world's population does so, all the time.

Mass psychosis combined with herd mentality.

How can anyone claim that clothing is "normal" when 99.99% of species never do it?

It entirely depends on your point of reference. It is normal for people in the modern age - whether or not that’s the product of mass psychosis! Culture is one of the most prominent features of humanity, and wearing clothes is, for good or ill, part of a now near universal culture. As is exploiting the planet in a myriad of unsustainable ways. What is normal changes with all reference points - time, place, population.

[BlueTrain]

We've discussed labels before, though not to the point of death. The funny thing about labels is that you can be unaware of a label that fits you perfectly and which others may even use sometimes in describing you. Typically, they are accurate, though they can certainly be falsely applied. This is assuming there are things you'd rather not be labeled. But the bad thing is, they are too narrow, description-wise.

There are lots of discussions going on arguments about a number of terms, although no one is honestly confused by the different terms being argued over. In this context, nudist and naturist are generally used interchangeable, though naturist seems to be preferred of late by many people. I guess "nudist" is too in-your-face or something. And then there's "naked," which is guess is simply over the edge and too much for some folks. Nobody owns these terms.

There is something else that happens and that is the possible phenomenon of a person conforming to label and I'm sure that happens. It may be a case of someone identifying with something and doing their best to live up to the ideals of that thing. They conform. Group think. The works.

I don't know if self-identified naturists really try to connect with nature or not. I don't. How could I not be part of nature? But those who in their everyday life are most closely associated with the earth tend to be fairly conservative all the way around. I mean farmers and others in agriculture. Nobody but grave diggers get closer to the earth than farmers. Yet they would find all of the things that we've talked about to be pure nonsense. Maybe so. But we'll all return to the earth someday. It's a closed system.

[ric]

naturist , naturalist or nudist.... everyone can have their own take on it.

for me ill use my orchard ,   the grass under the trees is getting long , the naturalist would leave the mower in the shed and spend a few hours watching  the insects on the flowers and rotten fruit, the nudist would get out the petrol powered ride on mower , shed their clothes and mow the lot so it looks nice and tidy.  the naturist would get out the battery electric mower , charged up from solar, mow a few paths for easy access but leave the patches of flowers for the insects and butterflies, then wonder where hed left his shorts.