This sign got me to thinking....

[HairlessNude]

Has anyone ever tried putting signs identifying an area as a naturist or clothing optional area, without it actually being classified as such? In other words, find a piece of land that is officially public land, but not well used or patrolled & put up naturist area signs. Then use the area as posted. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen with an area like that. Do you think the signs would just get taken down or maybe other people would start using the area as a naturist area?

It might be fun to try it. Put the signs up without being seen doing it. Then return to use the area as a naturist if the signs are still there. This might be a way to unofficially, slowly convert an area over to become a naturist area. It would at least be an excuse to anyone you ran into as to why you are naked! Lol

The sign could look something like this;

Naturist
Area
*************************************************
Warning: This is a clothing optional area
Nudity may be encountered beyond this point

Proceed beyond this sign only if you're not offended by nudity!

What do you think?

[Greenbare Woods]

I love that idea.   There is a place near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, USA, that has arrows directing people to "Nudist Area" spray painted on the rocks by non-government people.  When you get there its a nice beach on the Spokane River. 

The more, the better.     

[jbeegoode]

When we had The Southern Arizona Naturist Society (SANS), we would have camping events. We would confer with the Forest Service authorities as best that we could. We would notify them when and where, getting granted official approval for the event.

The signs that we used to notify passers were not quite so wordy. One said "Naturist Area" in large letters with small explanation. We were out at Ragged Top that day. A group of naturalist came by, checking out the flowers. Apparently they didn't know what naturist meant and thought that they were with peers. They walked through. We stood behind cars and watched and waited for them to pass.

Different agencies have different agendas. In the Santa Ritas closer to the border, we were in Gardener Canyon near the end of the road to discourage drive through with Forest Service okay. Late at night the border patrol came raging through camp, sirens and lights flashing. Supposedly to scare the smugglers, but I still think that it was to harass us. They would like to close the entire southern border area like a war zone to recreation of any kind just to make their jobs easier.

Our signs that evening may have attracted unwanted visitors, "Beyond this point, you may encounter nudity."
Jbee

[milfmog]

I quite like the concept, but do not like the idea of warning people that they may encounter nudity. Nudity is not dangerous, why do they need to be warned?

I think your sign would be greatly improved by rewording it to say something like "You are welcome to use this land with or without your clothes"

It still tells them they may meet naked people, but instead of the negativity of warning them off, the words are all about the reader and invite them to join in.

Have fun,


Ian.

[HairlessNude]

Thanks for the input. I made some changes. Which of these versions do you think is better?
I know it's still a bit "wordy," but I'd rather have people understand what a naturist area is.

Naturist
Area
*************************************************
Clothing is optional
Do not be offended by nudity!
You are welcome to enjoy this land with or without your clothes

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Naturist
Area
*************************************************
Clothing is optional
You are welcome to enjoy this land with or without your clothes

What do you think?

[Greenbare Woods]

(caution -- rant)

I like the idea of posting lots of areas as clothing optional.   However I'm becoming less comfortable calling ourselves "nudists" or "naturists."   Both of those terms describe a subgroup of people who are somehow different from regular people.  In a subtle way both terms tell "normal" people that its an are for "different" people, and labels us as some kind of different or abnormal people. "Naturist" is better than "nudist" but could be confusing and non-specific to people who haven't been involved.  "Naturist" sounds like its the same as "tree hugger."  (maybe it is.)   So I don't use either term.  I'm re-language my activity and discussion to imply normal human beings, just ordinary people with an ordinary choice of non clothing today. 

My own sign (above) says "clothing optional" meaning "naked" but not saying naked, giving people a choice to of not having clothes, but without categorizing people who go there as "others," or "not like us." 

Language is very important.  For a century "nudists" have described themselves as different, given themselves a name for their kind of otherness.  Hidden themselves away from regular people, a reserve for "special" other people. 

I want naked human beings to become mainstream, normal, everyday, common people, not some funny group out of sight and out of mind, that can be ignored. Not some "others" that people teach their children to shun.  We have to change our language and thinking to think about ourselves and talk about ourselves as ordinary.  I now often just call us "human beings" instead of "naked."  Our choice of non-clothing is "optional" (for everyone), not a place for some different kind of people.

My goal is to make the sight of a human being into an ordinary non-event.  That's going to take mainstreaming of bare flesh and and end to separation of "nudists" or "naturists" into hidden places away from normal society. 

(end rant)

You have a really good idea, HairlessNude, about posting public areas as clothing optional.  Lets find language to integrate the public rather than separating "naturists." 

Clothing Optional Area
Human beings may be observed beyond this sign.
You are welcome to enjoy this land with or without your covering

OR

Body Freedom Area
Human beings may be observed beyond this sign.
You are welcome to enjoy this land with or without your covering

Bob
 

[JOhnGw]

I would prefer to use the expression:
"You are welcome to use the area with or without clothing."

I feel it would be less ambiguous.

[Greenbare Woods]

I would prefer to use the expression:
"You are welcome to use the area with or without clothing."
I feel it would be less ambiguous.

Good thought John.  without clothing.

Bob

[jbeegoode]

Nice "Rant" Bob.

Creating an invitation rather than a demarcation, makes terrific sense.

Ignoring the arbitrary social boundaries, the labels and the them and us, does create a vision, in the present. In this case, the signage does set the stage for a right healthy attitude, which is a lesson in itself.

There are those out there who still tend to divvy us up and want to judge, jury and executioner, in their own set of perspectives. They will still label and categorize everything. Most of us think that way to an extent to relate to the world, that's language. You kind of wipe the slate clean and bring us to basics here, "Covering is an option, I welcome you as you are."

Sure beats, "Hey, textiles. Screw off." "In your face frumpy goof, clothes suck!" 'Warning, Nekkid people! If you're obsessed with your rags, then do it someplace else"

The longer version, "I just really have a right to my choice and don't wish to impose my choices on others. I accept the fact that coverings can be practical in adversity, festive and fun. Now, can we move on to something else? Otherwise, I'm gonna lay on this rock and catch some nice rays, natural like."
Jbee

 
 

[Peter S]

It's unusual to come across a naturist/nudist/nakedist forum without finding, somewhere, a discussion of "are you a naturist or a nudist", and lots of definitions and counter-definitions of each. I prefer not to be a naturist or a nudist, just naked. Or as Bob would say, human. I'm quite coming round to the idea of dropping naturist or nudist in favour of clothing optional (though Clothing Optional Free Ranging doesn't have much of a ring to it ...).

CO already seems to be getting a lot of traction out there. Homosexuals managed to relabel themselves Gay, why shouldn't we find a less labelling name as Clothes Optional?

peter

[HairlessNude]

Lot's of great input here!
It's definitely a work in progress.
I'm making adjustments & looking for opinions again.

Clothing Optional Area
************************************************************************************
Human beings may be observed beyond this sign enjoying this land with or without clothes

You are also welcome to do the same

What do you think?

[Greenbare Woods]

Clothing Optional Area
************************************************************************************
Human beings may be observed beyond this sign enjoying this land with or without clothes

You are also welcome to do the same

What do you think?

Go for it bro.  Put them up all over in public spaces. 

Bob

[Greenbare Woods]

If you look behind this sign you can see a pair of wheel ruts that my neighbor was creating by driving across my land.   The rope and the sign was primarily intended to stop him from creating a road on my land where I often walk naked.  I added the "Clothing Optional" as kind of an afterthought, but it does give fair warning that human bodies might be seen wandering about. 

It also doesn't say "No Trespassing" as does almost all of the other land in these parts.   I don't care if someone walks about, but the wheel ruts were a bit much. 

Bob

[Davie]

When I started reading this thread the word "warning" worried me then I saw Ian's comment.

Keep it simple and straight forward so my suggestion is:

Clothes Optional Area

People may be seen naked beyond this point
Go naked too - if you wish

Human beings seems too PC to me. People is a simple term everyone should be comfortable with. I think the third line is more open to debate as to an invitation to others to join in, or whether there should or even needs to be a comment about it being legal (probably not)

Good idea and the reverse happened if I recall near a naturist beach in Cornwall. It was clearly a made up sign telling people not to be naked. It ended up halfway down a cliff. Was it Vault beach?

Davie 

[Greenbare Woods]

Good idea and the reverse happened if I recall near a naturist beach in Cornwall. It was clearly a made up sign telling people not to be naked. It ended up halfway down a cliff. Was it Vault beach?
Davie 

When I lived in New Mexico, USA, the hot springs in the Santa Fe National Forest had been traditionally clothing optional forever.  Every couple of years the government would have another go at putting clothes on the bathers.   They would come in with signs and send police out to threaten people with arrest.   The signs didn't last very long and their police quickly got tired of hiking up a hill away from their cars. 

One time the government put up a really ugly and obnoxious red sign at Spence Springs.  It was made of heavy gage steel and mounted securely on a heavy steel post.  The sign lasted about two weeks and the heavy steel post was gone in two months. 

I suspect that the government would sometimes take down the people's signs giving permission for clothing freedom, so we need to be prepared to put up new ones when they disappear. 

I also wonder how the legal situation would change for a naked walker if the area is "posted" as clothing optional?   It would at least be evidence that the person did not "intend to offend" anyone.

Bob