Talk:Naturism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Comments moved from Talk:Nudism

- I have just read this page and feel that it gives the impression that all nudist activities occur within the confines of clubs and management? Beaches etc. don't generally have these rules. Nudists are people who like to have no clothes. Some choose to go to nudist places. They are nudists first. Also, there seems to be way too much going on in the article about erections - it's a non-issue, mention it in passing, but way too much in this article. Cached 10:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (Australia)

- Nudists often use sun protection lotions and will wear clothes if the weather demands it. For some reason, volleyball actually is played by some nudists.

vs.

+ Nudists often use sun protection lotions and will wear clothes if the weather demands it. Because it does not involve protective gear, nor does it involve much contact with the ground, volleyball is played by nudists.

Oh well... I was the author of the original tongue in cheek reference to volleyball. Because of bouncing body parts it is a favorite shot to include in naturist documentaries. In fact however, one can find it really played by some naturists. I believe that the dry technical reasoning that is now part of this article leaves out the humor and sense of mischief that infused this passage. Feel free to further adjust it. --Reigh 00:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did think it was funny. However, I figured some people would not get the joke about nudists and volleyball!

--GABaker, who by, the way, is a card-carrying nudist

Nudists carry cards? But they don't have pockets!

Rather POV

At the moment it reads like a leaflet from the FKK or something.

It doesn't matter how it reads so long as the message still remains.

New person: I disagree that an erection isn't an issue. Look on nusit message boards for starters, it is one oof the most worried about problems. And considering the absolute likelihood of a spontaneous accidental erection, I would certainly worry bout it and about the reactions to it, considering tha fact that many women don't seem to believe that there is actually such thing as an accidental erection that has nothing to do with any sexual stimulus (such as sexual thoughts).

The Quote

(added by User:Patrick) Quote: I really think that laws should simply be changed so that the entire world is a nudist resort 24/7".

It would probably be useful if the article said where this quote was from. (Also, does anyone have a better way of quoting italicised text?) Elektron 18:32, 2004 May 2 (UTC)

I have added the source, but someone deleted the quote anyway on the ground "Obscure reference from a board, hardly a reasonable source of information". As source of information I would agree, for a quote it may not be a problem.--Patrick 08:05, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I just don't see what this quote was trying to show. Of course you find opinions on everything on the net, and this one seems not in any way special. Unless it's from some sort of authority on the field, I simply doubt it provides any information. --Laca 17:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

"Major nudist organizations" and "External Links"

I think that since the list of "Major nudist organisations" consists of external links that some reorganisation with the "External Links" section would be good. For instance many of the external links point to organisations that are specific to one country or area. I was thinking that renaming "Major nudist organisations" to "Regional..." (I originally thought "national" but that would have excluded the worldwide region, if you could call it that) then floating some of the organisations from the external links up to that section so that it is easy for readers to determine the region. Then the links remaining in the "External links" section would just be miscellaneous items. Or should there be duplicates? Or should the External links just be tided up a little to organise them better?

Anyway, I just thought I'd flag this up to see what people thought before I rearranged anything. Let me know if you think this is a good idea or not or if you have a different idea... --Colin Angus Mackay 02:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not all of them seem to classify as 'organisations' though (judging by the link names). If you can figure out a way to organise them, feel free. The "external links" aren't organised at all, anyway. Elektron 18:53, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

is this picture necessary?

I find the picture featured in this article to be pointlessly explicit! everyone knows what nudity looks like! this photo should be removed. [unsigned]

I don't agree. Some people do believe it's about sex, or at least eroticism, or exhibitionism & voyeurism, or other nasty things, which is in fact lacking at nudist resorts, as it can be clearly seen in the attached picture.

--Adam78 09:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concur. I personally think most naturists go *too* far off the "no sex, please; we're nudists" cliff in an attempt to salvage what popular acceptance they can, myself -- and that this is almost as bad as the hangups textiles struggle with -- but I don't have any problem with the picture.

Baylink 04:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also concur. The illustration is explicit enough to represent what a naturist venue actually looks like, but is not exploitative. It demonstrates that mixed gender casual nude interactions are normal in every way, and shows people who are comfortably nude and apparently enjoying the experience - exactly the attraction and the point of naturism. The viewer sees that naturists activities are neither sexual encounters, coy or shameful, embarassing or furtive. Its message is quite different from most of the often pornographic or sexualized images of nudity that are inflicted on North Americans by the various media. It would be a shame for this article on naturistm to have to loose this illustration.

Reigh 19:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If everyone is pro-picture, where is it?

rmed by 4.224.237.171 yesterday, it would seem. Consensus seems to be to leave it in place? aec

In my opinion, this is an article where a photo of nude people can be appropriate and encyclopedic. The one we have on the article currently, however, has no information as to the source or copyright. (See Wikipedia:Images for info on Wikipedia's image use policy.) Perhaps someone could find a substitute with properly doccumented source, either public domain or licenced under GFDL? -- Infrogmation 16:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---i do not concur. this picture is all together too explicit for young researchers. perhaps have a link to the image on the page but not the image itself

thank you for your comment User:66.213.25.12, but at present there is no picture in the article, either linked or inline, so I honestly fail to see how it can be too explicit. Thryduulf 22:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---when it was there, it was there last time i looked

There's a new picture up but i don't think it's a very good one. This seems more like something found on an exhibitionism page than nudism. Perhaps one of the more common sports pictures could be used? -Superslash

---I've seen the picture (the one with the naked bearded man and the woman in a red shirt) distributed elsewhere and described as Bay to Breakers, San Francisco, May 2005. --concept14

--- Why is it so hard to find a decent picture? So far we've had child porn, anatomical drawings, goatse, exhibitionism, and now a playboy photoshoot. Somebody needs to just go to Voyeurweb and ask if they can borrow some of the "What I've Seen" section. --Superslash

Picture caption and NPOV

I don't understand how this change results in a more neutral point of view. It certains reduces readability. I feel we should change it back, so I will revert it for now to make it more readable and then wait to see how much support there might be for the new version.

(The caption used to read 'Naturism can be both enjoyable and relaxing' but has been changed to 'Naturists find the practice of going without clothing both enjoyable and relaxing'.) Chris Jefferies 20:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMO, the caption which attributes to naturists a position which they do in fact take in public is a more appropriate approach than the current(ly reverted) shorter version, which positions that opinion as that of the entry itself. I vote for "Naturists find..." Baylink 20:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's too long and awkward, how about "Naturists find going without clothing both enjoyable and relaxing"? I happen to agree with the naturist POV, but I understand that other people do find it unpleasant or awkward. The previous caption reads like a standard sales pitch after the legal department substitutes "can be" for "is"... a bit of phrasing which doesn't make your average TV commercial NPOV. It's just a sales pitch that won't get the advertiser sued. By attributing the opinion to someone, the longer version is a more objective statement of fact.

I like the new wording suggested above so I'll modify the caption to that in a mo'. Losing 'the practice of' makes it flow a lot better. Thanks guys! Chris Jefferies 12:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Goth nudist movement?

I have a problem with the inclusion of the paragraph on 'the goth nudist movement'. I have familiarity with the Goth scene from several cities, and this mention in wikipedia is the first I've ever heard of it. A google search for +goth +nudist turns up 140,000 pages, of which wikipedia is first. However, other than for a link for a goth nudist mailing list on a local city webpage, I come up with nothing pertinent to this growing moment in a casual reading of the first 30 or so links. Most of the links are just hitting on the search term fodder that sex-themed sites add to the bottom of every page. Ultravoices 22:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also had never heard of it, and was extremely excited. I live in San Francisco, and if there's a Goth Nudist movement, it'd surely have a large following here. A long, long Google search later, and I'm empty-handed. I think someone's just having a little fun with us here. PhiloVivero 09:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I admit there is showing of flesh in the Goth scene, but it is mostly do to revealing clothing, or crossovers with the S+M scene. It doesn't have anything to do with nudism as far as I know. As I stated, the best I can come up with is one link to one mailing list. Ultravoices 09:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Goth nudist paragraph now has a place of honor on Wikipedia:Oh, no! More bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. —tregoweth 18:27, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Retraction of my apologize

I thought I wrote the correction about Sandy Hook National Park not existing but apparently it was written by 141.150.107.19 so I want to retract my apology because I have nothing to apologize for because it wasn't my mistake. Misterrick 01:08, 08 December 2004 (UTC).

Removed material

I objected to the early introduction of mention of pedophilia and sexual concerns, so I moved them further down and reworded the base article. The eye-level comment is just wrong, as is the men vs women conversation with a minor "rule".

Most nudists automatically avoid looking at each other beyond breast height except in passing. And due to fears of pedophiles, most US family-oriented clubs have very strict rules against any adult male talking to any child that isn't their own for anything but a very short verbal exchange. This rule, though, normally doesn't apply to adult women.

70.25.236.234 Sorry, wasn't logged in. I am Reigh

The Pic...

One thing about the pic...if it's to make a more realistic impression about nudism, perhaps it should be something that doesn't resemble yet another nude beach pic, where even non-nudists go once in a while. How about a pic showing people going about their everyday life (in a non-private setting) nude? Kaz 17:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Something like a photo of Cap D'agde then? Thryduulf 17:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A new photo was just added by User:Dp2005, Image:- 12nohair.jpg. As the image has no source nor copyright information, and the subject appears to be under age, I removed it from the article pending information on the source and feedback on the appropriateness of using this image. -- Infrogmation 06:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

imho this image is not suitable as it doesn't really illustrate the social aspect of nudism, which imho is a key thing to show. Also, while I don't have a problem with the apropriateness in another context and it is completely legal (as I understand the relevant laws), given the current political climate regarding paedophilia we really ought not have an image that some overzealous member of the "moral majority" could misinterpret in that way. (Note that I don't think there is anything wrong with the image, but when parents have been questioned for many hours for taking photos of their children in the bath, its best (imho) to be extraordinarily cautious). If theres consensus I'm tempted to slip it quietly through IfD as OR UE to try and avoid the furory (sp?) that has surrounded an image that shows one of Kate Winslett's breasts slightly out of focus in the context of a much larger image. Thryduulf 09:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Infrogmation, and removed the pic again after an anon put it back. But I think there should be some picture here. Shanes 10:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree there should be a picture here, but not this one. I've been keeping an eye out, but on the one occasion so far I've seen something suitable the copyright holder never got back to me :(. Thryduulf 12:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just come accross a site that claims to have over 7,900 naturist photos [1] and so I have emailed the webmaster asking for permission to use a suitable image. Thryduulf 13:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too many external links?

I've just gone through and alphebetised all the external links on the article, but there are a very large number. I think that it would be worthwile going through and removing all of those that aren't notable. As it is I think its in danger of becomming a link farm. Thryduulf 10:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV issues and Nudism is not sex section

Older (now current) revision of "Nudism is not sex" section reads like nudist marketing (very clearly nudist POV). Edit summary for revert says opinion was described as fact and one POV was replaced with another. However, the only thing I can see that suggests such a thing is "Many non-nudists consider it an obvious fact" -- if this is the statement in question, then I would argue that the statement as such is a fact. Many non-nudists do think it is an obvious fact. Perhaps better than "consider it an obvious fact" is simply "believe," but the meaning is roughly the same. I'm comfortable with a change to "believe." The rest of my wording I believe was unquestionably NPOV, though please elaborate if you disagree -- helps me in the future :) --Gk1256 03:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the change. I can see how the previous wording could give the appearance of a non-NPOV. I also think these revisions remove some excess baggage and read better. --Gk1256 05:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Organization of text

Portions of the discussion about erections I thought were more appropriate for the "Manners" section, since they were clearly describing matters of etiquette (should "Manners" section be retitled "Etiquette"?). I moved the bulk of this text to that section. However, since erections do also relate to the "Association with sex" section, I think some of the discussion does still belong there. The question is how much. I left some of it there, but I still do not think it is all appropriate for that section.

There are also somewhat irrelevant issues in the "Manners" section such as the statement about nudists wearing clothing when weather demands it. While certainly worthy of mention, that doesn't seem to be a matter of etiquette but rather a matter of practicality -- perhaps better suited for the "General" section. Also, the text has a few tricky NPOV issues that may require the sentences to be completely rewritten, specifically statements such as "nudists are generally accepting people..." In an earlier revision, I rewrote one of these to say something along the lines of, "Nudists describe themselves as accepting...", but I do not consider that very good wording. I'm not going to say that the statement as such is not fact, but they sound like nudist POV opinion. --Gk1256 18:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nudism history

I believe the history section, although accurate as far as I am aware, is not complete. It seems to be something missing in between the Roman and Greek attitude towards nudity and the 20th century when the organized movement was sort of created. There are several examples of nude activities taking place in between these two periods (like nude swimming in UK, mixed genre groups saunas and bathings in scandinavian countries, etc.). Also, it seems that oriental forms of dealing with public nudity are not included (like japanese public baths). In this case, I believe it should be pointed that although nudity is usual and accepted in western societies on genre segregated locker rooms, the act of public bathing in the nude is not accepted even at genre segregated pools in the west. Vitor Cunha

From the ankle up

In images of naturism I've seen, it seems that a lot of them wear nothing but shoes. To me, that doesn't properly constitute being nude. So why is it so common? It would seem logical if a lot of nudists are barefooters as part of it. If I ever came out, I know which sort I'd choose to be.... -- ClosetNaturist 12:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sand gets hot, rocks are everywhere, and lots of people don't have tough feet. I do admit we had a great time at Avalon in West Virginia when we discarded the shoes, but I wouldn't do it everywhere. We wear sandals. GABaker

True up to a point. But sometimes it seems pointless, e.g. keeping the shoes on indoors (like in the image that used to be here). Moreover, while some may choose to start by going nude except for the feet, I'd think most would soon develop into full-fledged nudists, and so nudity from head to foot would be the 'usual' form in which nudism is practised. -- ClosetNaturist 17:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The Nudist Man is an Exhibitionist

As illustrated on the main Wikipedia page for "nudism" imho the nudist man is an exhibitionist. Is this the best the nudists can do for a graphic? To show a man by himself with be taken as Gay and to put a woman will be sexual exploitation because the movement is predominately white men? But can't you do better than this?

There are lots of much better images of nudism than we have here; however all the ones I have seen have been copyrighted. I have asked several webmasters to release a picture under an apropriate liscence and only one has responded (they said that they were not the copyright holder and could not therefore release the image under a different liscence, and did not now how to contact the person who does hold the copyright). I will keep trying, and encourage others to do so as well. Thryduulf 13:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Would like to suggest as an intermediate solution the Voyager picture

nude people

-- Test-tools 11:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do with nudism? And what "nudist man" are we talking about? Powers 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When can non-sexual full nudity be considered nudism?

Is nudism simply "non-sexual full nudity" or does it have to be associated with a certain industry, club membership or nationality? Below are some fully nude non-sexual activities. Which of them can be considered nudism?

massage therapy (patient covered by a towel, but nude underneath)
male-only YMCA swimming pools, back when nudity was required
changing clothes, using the bathroom, or taking a shower in a lockerroom
showering at home
at home, surfing the web / trimming the lawn in the nude
nude tribes, past and present, that lives / have lived in a tropical or subtropical region
skinny dipping in a secluded pond
gender segregated public baths in Ancient Greece or the Roman Empire
gender segregated public baths in present day Korea
mixed gender public baths in rural Japan
other Japanese public baths with required nudity (onsen, sento, outdoor, indoor, mixed or segregated genders)
Scandinavian saunas

Maybe creating Category:Nudism would be a good idea? —MangoCurry 03:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Picture discussions

I propose people mention the image's name, so we know which image we were talking about even after the image is swapped with another one. This might be less confusing than referring to an image as "the image" when the article keeps changing images.

For reference, see Child pornography and US code title 18: part I: ch. 110: § 2256 --MangoCurry 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nudists37.JPG

(Introduced: 11:50, 25 October 2004. image link)

07:00, 25 February 2005 Infrogmation deleted "Image:Nudists37.JPG" (WP:PUI listed and tagged for deletion 30 + days)

Image:Nudist-aerobik1.jpg

(Introduced: 20:33, 23 March 2005. image link)

23:24, 23 March 2005 Thue deleted "Image:Nudist-aerobik1.jpg" (image uploaded by vandal)

Image: - 12nohair.jpg

(Introduced: 20:18, 16 April 2005. image link)

16:25, 17. Apr 2005 Petaholmes "Image:- 12nohair.jpg" deleted (Image may be considered child pornography in some jurisdictions)

Imho this image wasn't pornogrpahic, but because it was a full-frontal picture of a naked human female under the age of 18 (presumably 12, based on the image name) it was highly likely to come under the definition of "Child Pornography" in some jurisdictions.

Tagishsimon cited "image title & content lead to suspicion that we are carrying what in many jurisdictions would be considered child pornography" as a reason to speedy-delete the image.

Petaholmes evidently agreed and deleted the image. The image also had no information on its source, which would now make it a speedy-deletion criteria, regardless of content, but this was not the case when it was uploaded. Thryduulf 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nudist man.jpg

(Introduced: 23:25, 29 June 2005. image link)

One unsigned user decided that he was an "exhibitionist." No explanation given to support his/her claim, doesn't sign his posts. --MangoCurry 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Human.png

(Introduced: 07:52, 18 August 2005. image link)

The image based on the Pioneer 11 plaque is less interesting since it is black and white, non-photograph and looks more like a diagram from a medical textbook rather than individuals enjoying nudist activities. --MangoCurry 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is so, and maybe intentional so, if so. In absence of a better a better illustration, I have added this again -- Test-tools 10:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Z140.jpg

(Introduced: 01:30, 17 September 2005. image link)

04:20, 19. Sep 2005 Zscout370 "Image:Z140.jpg" deleted (as per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=23398569)

In my opinion, the nude image does not depict sexually explicit conduct as defined by US code: Title 18 Sect. 2256, hence it does not violate US child pornography law. IANAL--MangoCurry 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, although imho it also doesn't illustrate nudism brilliantly. Thryduulf 23:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

There's a curious statement in the article: "In ancient Egypt under Pharaoh Akhen-Aton (1385-1353 BCE) public nudity was not at all uncommon". I wonder what is the source for this. And should we conclude from this one reign being singled out that nudity was uncommon in the rest of the very long history of ancient Egypt? --rossb 07:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing that single sentence add-on. That sentence would be useful perhaps when describing Egyptian historical art and lifestyle, perhaps, but doesn't serve much of a purpose in the current article, and there's also the question of verifiability. It's also very vague as to what it means by nudity.--MangoCurry 08:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question. --rossb 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Defining nudism

Oxford American Dictionaries, which is a Mac OS X widget, defines a nudist as follows: "a person who engages in the practice of going naked wherever possible." I sort of like this definition the most. To the earlier question I posed of whether locker room showers is nudism, the answer would be that a naked activity is a nudist activity to a nudist and not to a non-nudist. So it's more of a state of mind. I think this is a more successful definition rather than coming up with criterias such as "must be mixed gender," or it must be "for reasons of health," "originating in so-and-so movement," etc. What do others think? --MangoCurry 08:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding a link to the "issues in Social Nudism" page from the iniitial definitions section, because some users may arrive trying to find the difference between naturism and nudism, and all that's said here is "they're the same", whereas the other page gets into an attempt at defining them separately. That might be best if it actually were on Naturism, but I'm not going to try a change of that magnitude. Moilforgold 13:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of nudism

The link for The Nudist Hall of Shame has been repeatedly deleted from the external links area. I would like to know how to prevent this censorship of criticism, please? Nikkicraft 17:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that link is relevant to the article. In the short term, just keep adding it back. I've added this page to my Watchlist so I can keep an eye on it too. You can also file an RfC (Request for Comment) to invite other Wikipedians to weigh in on whether the link should be there. See the Help link in the left-hand sidebar of any page for more. -MichaelBluejay 06:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not deleting the link, though I don't think it belongs. It's not NPOV. The reason why it's not NPOV is that the pedo problem isn't unique to naturists. The "hall of shame" moniker could also apply to the Boy Scouts, kid’s sports coaches (like Little League), and school teachers. I haven’t checked, but I doubt those articles are subject to a “Hall of Shame” type link that lists child-sex predators that have been affiliated with those organizations. As a result, singling out naturists exhibits an unfair bias. Readers might incorrectly observe that only naturists and not other adult-child organizations have these problems and incorrectly conclude that there is something basically wrong with running about undressed. I would withdraw my objection to this link if folks would add similar links to the aforementioned organizations. However, I think anyone who tried would find their links expediently deleted. As a result, I think it’s equally fair not to include such links in this article as well. Rklawton 00:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge/move suggestion

I would like to propose to move common sections of naturism and nudism as well as related issues to a new page called Clothes free movement. Dandelion1 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Implenting above. For discussion please see Talk:Clothes_free_movement. Dandelion1 08:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)