A lot in there to digest, but one point to raise/highlight is that interest or otherwise in a subject is not defined by the number or population of clubs devoted to the subject - obviously naturism, as that’s our topic, but most other things too. Certainly in the UK the membership of formal and organised groups has fallen, but that doesn’t mean interest or participation has followed it.
Anecdotally I’d put this down to people having more choice of things to do and not wanting to commit to one particular thing to the degree required by club membership; following club rules can be another deterrent. And let’s be honest, club organisers (whatever the subject) can get quite demanding over the rule book! Just doing your own thing in your own way in your own time is more attractive.
As an example, we’re told that since covid, lockdowns and home-working more people have dispensed with clothes more of the time. But of course that same environment and social distancing means people are less likely to explore naked living via the club route.
You're right, Peter. Club membership is an indicator of participation, but not anywhere close to total participation. The two things are usually correlated yet quite different. Also, many naturists visit clubs and resorts without ever becoming members. But there are many way to enjoy social nudity without visiting clubs. Of course, in the UK, membership in the BN organization is way up in the past two years. (At least, that's what they claim.)
At least in California, I could see it starting to decline in the late 1980s. Part of it was more conservative governments closing down free beaches with more restrictive park policies, both on the state and city level.
But I also think the ultimate cause was that the 20 somethings of the 60s turned into 40 somethings in the late 80s and 90s and eschewed the ideals of their youth..
This story has many moving parts, but no single leading cause. (And that makes dealing with it tough.) It was only in 1980 that Lee Baxandall founded TNS - so there were almost no members to start. TNS grew to some 25,000 members around 2000, if I recall correctly. Then Lee had to retire in 2002. At that point, naturist resorts in California had already started closing. Nude beach usage had also been declining for a while. Aging of the earliest nude beach enthusiasts as they entered their 40s was a factor, and closure of many beaches to nude use was another.
But the puzzling factor is how the older generation failed to pass on their enthusiasm for naturism and social nudity to their children. Had that failure not occurred, naturism would have retained (at least some of) its popularity - including opposition to closing nude beaches. As sociologists like Robert Putnam observed, succeeding generations tend to turn away from the preferences of their predecessors. But there's more going on than that. The U.S. became more conservative. (The right-wing party held the presidency for all but 4 years from 1969 to 1993).
In Western Europe things have been different. In a few countries like England and Spain, (nonsexual) nudity in public ceased being illegal in general. Nudity was allowed in more beaches and public parks, at least in certain parts. There are, however, signs of decreasing interest in naturism, even where it's legally acceptable. There are other factors at work too - such as increasing use of internet social media (especially by young people) and what Victoria Bateman calls the "female modesty cult". Among naturists, the male-female ratio seems to grow constantly.
British Naturism had a significant increase in membership and activity during (and in spite of) the covid pandemic. BN is probably the world's best naturist organization. It may have been able to do so well during the pandemic because of outdoor activities and many online video features. It shows what effect a genuinely strong and dedicated naturist organization can have.
I think that certain European states became more secular. You can always point to conservative religious nudists but I believe they are exceptions.
There is a particular fundamentalist religious attitude that is extremely anti-nude in every sense. When they wax, nudism wanes. Not because they are the dominant thinkers in society but because it does not pay to run afoul of them. Their mere existence deters.
The U.S. has also become more secular, at least except for Red states. Church attendance is down in most cases except for the extreme sects. But that doesn't seem to have helped naturism any. Early U.S. nudist leaders like Ilsley Boone (aka "Uncle Danny") and Henry S. Huntington (a contemporary of Boone and editor of "The Nudist" magazine) were ministers, though not holy-roller types. Some nudist clubs have Sunday services.
So the relevance of religion per se is murky. The problem comes from how strong the tendency in the U.S. is to associate nudity with sexuality. I don't know how that happened, but it could be a result of the strong Puritan influence on U.S. religion. Just guessing, but Puritanism strongly favored male dominance over women. So participation of women in naturism might threaten male dominance - women going naked might cause male sexual insecurity.
Having grown up in that "Holy Roller" environment, clothing is armor for a woman. It says she isn't interested in casual sex. The more clothing the less interested. My shool had restrictive guidelines on girl's clothing to give guy's roving eyes less to look at.
This was at war with popular culture with bikinis and miniskirts. The conflict was not whether a female should wear armor but rather how much.
Extremely revealing clothing meant she was a slut or a whore. Such a woman would get little public respect but lots of private interest. A woman's body was wrapped up in temptation and sin. Social nudity was unthinkable.
Male nudity outside of a locker room meant you were either a potential rapist or gay. Even more unacceptable than for a woman. And there was always the possibility of a female comparing and finding her guy wanting or being tempted herself.
For about two centuries, starting withe Plymouth Colony in 1620, religious conservatives fled Europe and accumulated here. Today that has made all the difference.
The notion that "clothing is armor for a woman" makes some sense. It's very similar to Victoria Bateman's "female modesty cult". But the latter is somewhat more general, in that what clothing women are expected to wear is dictated by society, and not necessarily what a woman would choose or prefer.
From naturism's early days in Germany, England, and the U.S., women participated at a higher rate than during recent decades - after the 70s/80s in the U.S. So something more complicated than "armor" may be driving women's diminishing participation in naturism.
Another thing is interesting. Women's everyday clothing often reveals more skin than a man's clothing. E.g. sleeveless tops, low necklines, skirts that stop at or above the knees, etc. Women's shorts are typically a lot shorter than men's - which now often extend well below the knees. I don't interpret that as necessarily showing skin to attract attention (though in some cases it might). Perhaps it's just more comfortable during the warmer months. But such choices these days aren't exactly "armor" - especially compared to what men typically wear in similar circumstances.
There are women who read this newsletter. It would be interesting to know their views about all this.
I was a 20-something in the 60s, and the older I've become, the more idealistic - not just about naturism either. I'm afraid that most of the problems these days are people becoming less idealistic about many things.
A lot in there to digest, but one point to raise/highlight is that interest or otherwise in a subject is not defined by the number or population of clubs devoted to the subject - obviously naturism, as that’s our topic, but most other things too. Certainly in the UK the membership of formal and organised groups has fallen, but that doesn’t mean interest or participation has followed it.
Anecdotally I’d put this down to people having more choice of things to do and not wanting to commit to one particular thing to the degree required by club membership; following club rules can be another deterrent. And let’s be honest, club organisers (whatever the subject) can get quite demanding over the rule book! Just doing your own thing in your own way in your own time is more attractive.
As an example, we’re told that since covid, lockdowns and home-working more people have dispensed with clothes more of the time. But of course that same environment and social distancing means people are less likely to explore naked living via the club route.
You're right, Peter. Club membership is an indicator of participation, but not anywhere close to total participation. The two things are usually correlated yet quite different. Also, many naturists visit clubs and resorts without ever becoming members. But there are many way to enjoy social nudity without visiting clubs. Of course, in the UK, membership in the BN organization is way up in the past two years. (At least, that's what they claim.)
At least in California, I could see it starting to decline in the late 1980s. Part of it was more conservative governments closing down free beaches with more restrictive park policies, both on the state and city level.
But I also think the ultimate cause was that the 20 somethings of the 60s turned into 40 somethings in the late 80s and 90s and eschewed the ideals of their youth..
This story has many moving parts, but no single leading cause. (And that makes dealing with it tough.) It was only in 1980 that Lee Baxandall founded TNS - so there were almost no members to start. TNS grew to some 25,000 members around 2000, if I recall correctly. Then Lee had to retire in 2002. At that point, naturist resorts in California had already started closing. Nude beach usage had also been declining for a while. Aging of the earliest nude beach enthusiasts as they entered their 40s was a factor, and closure of many beaches to nude use was another.
But the puzzling factor is how the older generation failed to pass on their enthusiasm for naturism and social nudity to their children. Had that failure not occurred, naturism would have retained (at least some of) its popularity - including opposition to closing nude beaches. As sociologists like Robert Putnam observed, succeeding generations tend to turn away from the preferences of their predecessors. But there's more going on than that. The U.S. became more conservative. (The right-wing party held the presidency for all but 4 years from 1969 to 1993).
In Western Europe things have been different. In a few countries like England and Spain, (nonsexual) nudity in public ceased being illegal in general. Nudity was allowed in more beaches and public parks, at least in certain parts. There are, however, signs of decreasing interest in naturism, even where it's legally acceptable. There are other factors at work too - such as increasing use of internet social media (especially by young people) and what Victoria Bateman calls the "female modesty cult". Among naturists, the male-female ratio seems to grow constantly.
British Naturism had a significant increase in membership and activity during (and in spite of) the covid pandemic. BN is probably the world's best naturist organization. It may have been able to do so well during the pandemic because of outdoor activities and many online video features. It shows what effect a genuinely strong and dedicated naturist organization can have.
I think that certain European states became more secular. You can always point to conservative religious nudists but I believe they are exceptions.
There is a particular fundamentalist religious attitude that is extremely anti-nude in every sense. When they wax, nudism wanes. Not because they are the dominant thinkers in society but because it does not pay to run afoul of them. Their mere existence deters.
The U.S. has also become more secular, at least except for Red states. Church attendance is down in most cases except for the extreme sects. But that doesn't seem to have helped naturism any. Early U.S. nudist leaders like Ilsley Boone (aka "Uncle Danny") and Henry S. Huntington (a contemporary of Boone and editor of "The Nudist" magazine) were ministers, though not holy-roller types. Some nudist clubs have Sunday services.
So the relevance of religion per se is murky. The problem comes from how strong the tendency in the U.S. is to associate nudity with sexuality. I don't know how that happened, but it could be a result of the strong Puritan influence on U.S. religion. Just guessing, but Puritanism strongly favored male dominance over women. So participation of women in naturism might threaten male dominance - women going naked might cause male sexual insecurity.
Having grown up in that "Holy Roller" environment, clothing is armor for a woman. It says she isn't interested in casual sex. The more clothing the less interested. My shool had restrictive guidelines on girl's clothing to give guy's roving eyes less to look at.
This was at war with popular culture with bikinis and miniskirts. The conflict was not whether a female should wear armor but rather how much.
Extremely revealing clothing meant she was a slut or a whore. Such a woman would get little public respect but lots of private interest. A woman's body was wrapped up in temptation and sin. Social nudity was unthinkable.
Male nudity outside of a locker room meant you were either a potential rapist or gay. Even more unacceptable than for a woman. And there was always the possibility of a female comparing and finding her guy wanting or being tempted herself.
For about two centuries, starting withe Plymouth Colony in 1620, religious conservatives fled Europe and accumulated here. Today that has made all the difference.
The notion that "clothing is armor for a woman" makes some sense. It's very similar to Victoria Bateman's "female modesty cult". But the latter is somewhat more general, in that what clothing women are expected to wear is dictated by society, and not necessarily what a woman would choose or prefer.
From naturism's early days in Germany, England, and the U.S., women participated at a higher rate than during recent decades - after the 70s/80s in the U.S. So something more complicated than "armor" may be driving women's diminishing participation in naturism.
Another thing is interesting. Women's everyday clothing often reveals more skin than a man's clothing. E.g. sleeveless tops, low necklines, skirts that stop at or above the knees, etc. Women's shorts are typically a lot shorter than men's - which now often extend well below the knees. I don't interpret that as necessarily showing skin to attract attention (though in some cases it might). Perhaps it's just more comfortable during the warmer months. But such choices these days aren't exactly "armor" - especially compared to what men typically wear in similar circumstances.
There are women who read this newsletter. It would be interesting to know their views about all this.
I was a 20-something in the 60s, and the older I've become, the more idealistic - not just about naturism either. I'm afraid that most of the problems these days are people becoming less idealistic about many things.
This is good stuff thanks for making the effort to research and put this together
Thanks for subscribing and your comment