Monday, June 8, 2009

Clothing Optional or Not?

I posted it on Twitter, but it's worthy of a quick post here too... There seems to be an interesting debate going between Bare Oaks and Terra Cotta Inn about their clothing-optional policies. One side says that nudity should be mandatory so that people have to "jump in" instead of hesitating. The other side says that people should be allowed to "jump in" when they are comfortable.

Both seem to work, but I think there is a better compromise that mixes the two and would end up more profitable.

My vote is that resorts should be "clothing taxed". Charge a flat fee for every warm hour in which the person is dressed. (The only exception would be bottoms on women during certain weeks.)

That way if they are seriously uncomfortable, they have the option of staying dressed a while and are willing to take the hit in fees. These fees also compensate for the discomfort from others when that person is dressed. Lastly, the fees encourage people to disrobe early to avoid having the fees stack up. Each hour, they must commit to either getting naked or paying more money to the resort.

It's a good idea -- feel free to steal it. Leave a comment if you decide to try it out.


Anonymous said...

I saw your Tweet and figured you'd blog it. It would seem that each approach works for the respective resort. Both men are targeting different groups, naturists and couples looking to get away for a vacation. I can see where they're both coming from.

I find the issue intriguing and I'm working on a post to add my two-cents.

John A said...

Cute idea Doug but I doubt the practicality of adding another layer of discomfort to the "clothist". I understand the reasoning of both sides of the clothing-optional issue both seem to work out just fine most of the time. The only time I have a problem with the clothing optional philosophy is when the numbers turn upside down and nudists become the minority.

P.S. Doug, would you mind pinging me offline? I've got a couple of questions that I don't want to clutter your site with and I can't find any contact info for you.

Anonymous said...

I love wearing nothing and don't have the slightest problem if someone else, even everybody else, in the same circumstances chooses to wear something. However, I find the idea deeply disturbing that someone else could possibly question if I were "really" cold or "really" about to get sunburned. This kind of policing just doesn't fit with my idea of a relaxing, free-of-clothing-worries getaway.

Academic Naturist said...

@John A -- FYI, my other site is the World-Wide Nudist Collaboration Wiki. On there I post an email address:

I can't find any contact info for you, so hopefully you see this comment...

@Adelheid -- I agree, some common sense will need to be added to the mix. IF a test is needed, ask them to flash you. No hesitation means they're probably OK.

Anonymous said...

Boy, this is getting complicated. Used to be you went to a nudist place to be nude. Now there seems to be layers upon layers of acceptable attire, or non-attire.

Perhaps folks that feel more comfortable dressed might consider going to one of the many, many more textile places available to them and let us nudists be relaxed together in the alltogether. In the few places available to us.

Most gay venues won't exactly exclude straights, but everybody's more comfortable if they aren't there. Get the idea?

Some nudists have no problem with textiles hanging around, others do. The whole idea of any nudist venue is that NUDISTS feel safe and comfortable, textiles have a lot more options. Let them use them.

It's pretty simple: If they're not nudists, they're there for the wrong reasons. Why else would you hang around where you can, clothed, look at naked people?

Oh yeah, strip clubs.

Academic Naturist said...

@allnudist -- At the annual car show, I know of at least one family who attend but aren't always nude. The dad likes to be nude, but the mom and often the kids like to remain clothed. If the "not being nude fee" was capped at $20, they'd probably be willing to pay it. The fee just adds pressure to be nude, and lets them know it's not 100% totally OK to be clothed.

Leo said...

I think this idea is an academic approach to a emotional issue. The quote "The fee just adds pressure to be nude" sums it up. Are we wanting to pressure people to be nude? People should be able to dress as they please. Clearly if none of the family ever undressed then they shouldn't be coming to the venue. But as I understand it the annual car show is a chance for non-nudists to attend and see how they like the place.
How often do you think the family would come if they got fined for members wearing clothes?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't the suggested policy just make it easier for gawkers to attend a nude/clothing-optional resort? They could just keep forking over the money hour after hour to stay clothed while everyone else enjoyed the place nude. Isn't it sort of an invitation to an outdoor peep show, therefore?

Tygepc said...

I think having a fee is a good way to make money, but not a good business model for this line of work.

As for the whole must-be-nude versus clothing optional debate. I think it is more akin to hotels charging for wi-fi or offering it for free. Not everyone uses wi-fi but some do.