Conference moira::naturism

    I believe the points made in .0 and .1 are quite valid.  On the
    one hand, nudists/naturists say that nudism is, or should be, a
    totally natural experience.  But on the other hand, we want to protect
    women and children from possible harm/abuse/molestation, etc.  
    
    If everyone we met at a nude beach or nudist camp had high ideals,
    and a similar desire to protect women and children, then the nude
    experience would be much more "natural."  Unfortunately, this is
    Not an ideal world.  So to protect against the small minority, the
    majority has to suffer.  But isn't that the case with other aspects
    of life as well?
    
    If anyone has an answer to this dichotomy, I would be Very interested
    in hearing it.  Until then, we will have to continue to practice
    this somewhat hypocritical lifestyle when practicing social nudity.
    
    Jack

    Thank you very much for your replies. I was very pleased to see that
    there was no hostile reaction to this note (at least not yet). There is
    no question that the subject as well as the opinions of Mr. Armalinsky
    are controversial. So, please keep on voicing your opinions, pro's,
    and con's.
    
    I got a hold of the "official" translation through the publisher of
    Michael Armalinsky's works and decided to put the excerpt in it's
    entirety. I have to note, however that this translation is, in my
    opinion, somewhat academic and unemotional compared to a very colorful
    and passionate Russian version. Some humorous expressions were
    completely wiped out by the translation.
    
    "The cachectic desire to gain a reputation as a sexual revolutionary
    takes on monstrous forms. This fact is clearly shown in the rise
    of family nudist camps. There is nothing more tiresome than these
    nudists - exhibitionists. They imagine themselves to be heroes because
    they take off their clothes. Yes they take off their clothes, but
    then they specify there should be no sex. Their motto, so it seems,
    that human nudity is not disgraceful but on the contrary is natural.
    Fine! But isn't the attraction for the naked body also natural?
    And isn't sexual intercourse normal if one is nude and attracted?
    They are struggling for nature, trying too hard for it and then they
    go out and set limits on it. Therefore, these nudists feel even
    more enslaved since they are not only afraid to embrace themselves,
    but fear touching each other at all as if they would conclude they
    are breaking their law code.
    
    Women avail themselves of what nature gave them and take off their
    panties. Still all the same they are not observed for, come hell
    or high water, they will not attempt to spread their legs. The men
    enthusiastically play volleyball. Jumping up and down their genitals
    feebly, vainly dart about in all directions except the essential
    one. Out of the corner of their eyes nude parents scrutinize the
    morals of their children who are romping about. Ah, how wonderful
    freedom is!"

    Well, the translation in .3 seems to be rather a challenge that one
    *has* to be or feel sexual just because the freedom to be sexual (ought
    to) exist.  Couldn't the pressure from both sides just stop?  If I roll
    over on my stomach while out nuding with friends, I just want to keep
    my thoughts to myself, not protect nudism from attack from outside.
    
    The commentary of Armalinsky should be expanded to theorize why any
    minority (racial, or social) need feel compelled to excel in
    "compensation" for mainstream's "dispensation".  Here we get down to
    the whole matter of law, government and what it takes to make
    successful and ideal civilisation.
    
    For example, already CwS would seem to follow a middle ground.  Look at
    the latest issue of CwS and tell me none of the pictures have a hint of
    sexuality or that all of them have a sexual connotation (is a full
    length portrait really necessary when we're talking about the subject's
    favorite beach?).  There is a mix.  What there isn't, I feel, is
    exploitation of the subjects.  (I'm naturally excluding the examples of
    pictures from other sources).

    Armalinsky's style is delightful, and he makes some telling points. I'm
    grateful to the base note author for entering the passage, and
    especially for taking the trouble to do his own translation. 

    However, I have to disagree with what I see as Armalinsky's central
    theme.  He criticizes nudists for their failings as sexual
    revolutionaries.  But nudists have never pretended to be, never desired
    to be, sexual revolutionaries.  Nudists are people who like to be
    naked, particularly around other people -- nothing more.  The dogma of
    nudism is that nakedness *does not* imply sex.  Thus, even discussing
    nudism in the context of an article on sexual revolutionaries seems
    like something of a non sequitur.

    Armalinsky implies (and I've seen it implied elsewhere in the past)
    that nudists are inconsistent when they endorse nudity while
    proscribing all forms of sexual expression.  Now, if you believe that
    nudity is intrinsically sexual, then this is surely an inconsistency;
    but given the basic dogma of nudism, it is just irrelevant.  Within the
    framework of nudist culture, there is no inconsistency.  At worst,
    there is an unnecessary puritanism (as Jay called it) which may be 
    inconsistent with the nudist's apparent willingness to challenge
    irrational social taboos.

    It is undoubtedly true, as Jay observes in .5 and elsewhere, that the
    nudist/naturist movement is generally about gaining the freedom to
    engage in a particular activity of primarily personal value, rather
    than about freedom in a more general sense; and that this is reflected
    in the puritanism that Jay refers to in .1 (that is, a collection of
    sexual mor�s which seem irrelevant to nudism, given that nudism has
    nothing to do with sex).  However, as I read the quoted passage,
    Armalinsky sees nudism, not as a limited but consistent movement, but
    as a failed form of sexual revolution; and that perception seems to me
    to be incorrect.

    	-Neil

>Nudists are people who like to be
>naked, particularly around other people -- nothing more. 
    
    Is this really true?  Or is it just more acceptable to be naked around
    other people who are?  Some might be embarrassed to be "caught" naked
    and alone on a beach, for example.  But, I think, being naked and alone 
    makes you feel "more free", more Adam- or Eve-like, especially when 
    swimming or hiking....though, of course, it's always fun to share 
    experiences, and perhaps that's what you meant.
    
    -Rob
    
    

    I don't know if it's necessary to around other people when nuding.
    The enjoyment is there, regardless of who's around.  Some people
    might be embarassed to be seen alone in the nude at first, but that
    usually goes away.  I've been to a beach many times where I was
    the only one for a long time (cloudy day) and I didn't feel different
    when other people walked by.
    
    I don't think that nudists think anymore about sex than anyone else 
    at a regular beach.  Yes, you might look around alot, but that's human 
    nature. It's nothing special about nudists.

    
    B.
    

    Thank you very much for your inputs. It looks like this subject has
    triggered the related one "Sex and Social Nudity" later in this conference. 
    
    In conclusion, I would like to post the address of the publisher of
    Mikhail (Russian spelling of his 1st name) Armalinsky's writings for
    those who are interested. All the works are in Russian and
    unfortunately very little is translated. But here is the address
    anyway: M.I.P. Company, P.O. Box 27484, Minneapilis, MN 55427. 
    
                                     Eugene Dyatlovitsky.

    What happened to notes 136.1 and 136.5? Were they censored by the
    moderator or removed by the author?
    

re .10, they must have been deleted by their author.  

	-Neil Faiman (moderator)

    I am relieved and delighted to get a confirmation that no censorship
    took place!
    
    Would the author of the notes 136.1 and .5 kindly allow an anonymous
    entry via the moderator(s) with at least a general idea of what
    was said in those notes? This is to preserve both the completeness and
    the continuity of the discussions in this conference.

    Having some limited background in communism ( I study almost anything
    imaginable ), his opinion is pretty typical. It's kind of interesting
    because I think he is partially right about the link between nudity and
    sex. His opinion, however, is a bit bizarre ( I have the same feeling
    about a great many communist assertions ), in that he sees the only way
    to change is through extreme revolution. These are clearly the rantings
    of a hopeless idealist.
    
    No, there is probably nothing intrinsically wrong with nude people
    touching in public, or even getting fairly intimate. The problem of
    association is one of the most fundamental flaws in human behavior and
    I can assure you will not be solved overnight. You can't change people.
    We just don't want to be associated with it.
    
    Maybe there are people who enjoy copulating in public, but I'm not
    rushing off to spend more time with them. I want to be able to invite
    my friends without having to fear that they will get the wrong idea
    about me. I can be very delicate and difficult to explain even
    naturism at times.
    
    So, I feel that naturism is a form of sexual progress, namely that I am
    not required to hide my gender and deprive myself of the experience of
    seeing and being seen. There is nowhere in reality to hide, it is a
    healthy experience to enjoy the visibility of existence. And yes, you
    can tell one sex from the other.
    
    This progress can only come in small steps. I do not know exactly where
    it leads, but then again, no one does. I feel that naturism has
    enhanced my relationship with my girlfriend. I feel that it has
    enhanced my relationships with others as well. Then again, maybe I just
    like being nude and looking at nude people and all these wonderful
    effects would have happened anyway.
    
    One point I think the author makes that is probably true of almost
    anyone, and that is denial. In this case, I think we intentionally deny
    something from ourselves in order to preserve something more important
    to us.
    
    Anyways, in conclusion, if we're so repressed, why isn't this guy seen
    out in public copulating more often? ( for all I know, maybe he is! )
    
    In the meantime, it's the closest thing to freedom that exists.
    
    							John.