On Jul 19, 4:45 pm, "David Looser" <***@btinternet.com>
wrote:
There is no suitable place for me to do this so I hope you don't mind
David if I don't actually quote you directly. This has been a really
enjoyable stream to read with lots of interesting points being made
despite the odd digression (nature of the beast I suppose) and
intrusion (thank you Bertie), and thanks to Peter Checksfield for
trying to keep you all in order! Of course BN's role within a
community of people labeled as naturists or CO lifestylers or whatever
you want to be called, if anything is important but as was seen that
easily leads us astray onto an entirely different question. But I
still think we are skirting around the problem so let me rephrase the
question: How do we find common ground with everyone enjoying a
clothes-optional lifestyle?
If I'm boring you then I apologise, but I've been away for a week and
I just need to refocus. To sum up what has been said so far: those who
enjoy COL may not want to be spoken to because they don't or won't see
themselves as naturists and besides which, the methods used are not
necessarily applicable to most of them anyway, as they are not keyed
into anything to do with naturism/COL such as URN, NUFF etc. They know
a beach where they feel safe, or walk the footpaths in remote (or
perhaps not so remote) countryside in the knowledge that few people
use it, or have a secluded garden and that is where they enjoy being
naked, socially or not.
If you remember, BN did a survey in 2000, which in my mind wasn't
really exploited to its fullest extent, that suggested that there are
roughly 1 million people in this country who enjoy a CO lifestyle, or
something close to it. It would have been useful if they did the
survey again in 2005 to see if there was any difference, but maybe
they are considering doing it for 2010? If they don't then obviously
IMO they've wasted the members' money. Anyway, to get back to my
reason for mentioning the survey. One million people is a significant
section of the population, but still a minority and surely if interest
groups like RSPB, CAMRA, Ramblers' Association can attract similar
numbers, then they must have something to recommend them to their
members? A sense of community perhaps? Or as Simon said right at the
beginning; a tribe! In none of these organizations am I aware that the
members must be organised in some way other than what is necessary for
governance purposes.
I've read more than once that the word naturism has 'lots of
baggage' (I paraphrase) but I'm not sure what anyone means by this?
Yes, there is a dark past to naturism (its support for eugenics in the
1930s for instance) but that has largely been forgotten, just as that
many of the pioneers of naturism were also vegetarians. Answers on a
postcard please to...
I think there is a definite communication problem that needs
addressing and a change of image would be just one part to solving it.
If no body has guessed I quite like the term clothes optional
lifestyle (COL), but as I said, it isn't as catchy or succinct as
naturist or nudist. It does allow however for a wider audience to be
included. Would it make it "cool" though. Not sure. We certainly need
to do something along those lines though to bring in the younger
generations or those who are just younger in heart. Peter's idea, for
instance, of a MySpace area for individual campaigns like our one for
Botany Bay is a good one. A short vid perhaps with a female and/or
male presenter(s) explaining the attractions of the beach! Has anyone
seen ClothesFree.com? The BBC it isn't, but then it doesn't pretend to
be. California based, it does carry a fair bit of foreign (to them)
news of interest to a naturist, largely from the UK but from other
European countries too. Are there any serving or ex BBC/ITV producers/
directors out there who would care to comment?
Another answer to the question possibly lies in the question: what are
the limits of naturism/COL? Do we include swingers? (I can guess what
most of the answers would be here, but feel free to either confirm or
deny my suspicions.) Do we include Wiccans, who would fall into the
second category according to the OED and assuming that ceremonies
created in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are true to the
faith? Is there any category of community of people that naturism
should say "you're not naturists"?
A long post. I'm sorry (again) but we've seemed to have reached a rich
seam of thought about how to make naturism inclusive rather than
exclusive. Please note, little reference to BN although obviously as
the main (only!) naturist organisation in the UK it would obviously be
the lead in anything that comes out of this (fingers crossed).
Reg