Will Ratings Help?

UPDATE: Removed the "X" category, reworded as needed.

Bravo to Nudiarist for a wonderful recent essay on the crossroads of nudism.

I can't help but agree with most of what he says... Yes, SOME "human beings are very sexual creatures." Yes, there is a WEAK "connection between naturism/nudism and sexuality." Yes, "the key component to the success of all social gatherings is BEHAVIOR." I especially agree with that last one, and have noted that behavior is a product of "majority rules". With that in mind, lets fast-forward to the part which concerns me.

I am hard-pressed to find a reason why AANR cannot assign ratings to its affiliated clubs, rather than force those with more adult activities out of the network.

Well, I have your reason. I admit that the rating idea is brilliant and would work, to a point. It needs work, and I hope that my concerns are addressed prior to it being implemented.

A rating system may look something like this, for example:

• G - General audience, family friendly, anyone welcome.
• PG - Parental Guidance suggested, conversation topics may be unsuitable for children sometimes. (Maybe more at night.)
  
• R - Conversation topics are often unsuitable for children, possible lewd behavior, but no sex (in public).
• NR - Not Rated, as-in a venue that hasn't been certified to any of the other ratings.
  

Clubs would work toward their favorite rating, and an external authority (AANR most likely) would certify the resort. Ratings would be published. Couples would prefer the R resorts. Families would prefer the G and PG resorts. Perverts would go straight for the R resorts, and probably leave the others alone. Sexuality would have its place, and family values would have its place as well. Even I have suggested this idea before, although quite indirectly...

Where this entire model falls apart is on the topic of public lands. Nudist venue owners control the rules on the property, but it's the "guests" who control the rules on public lands (within the bounds of the law). Majority rules.

How would the local nude beach be rated? If families are around, and the atmosphere is family-friendly, it would be a G. If swingers are around, it would be an R. The only valid rating would be NR. This is the same with any public event involving nudity.

Consider the following:

Scenario 1: A concerned family wants to try nude recreation. Mazo beach is close, but has an NR rating. Blue Lake Resort has a G rating. Would you take your child to a new NR film? They can only assume that NR could be an R, so they decide to go to Blue Lake instead and enjoy it. They never even try Mazo Beach, even though a family on the beach would almost guarantee a PG atmosphere. Since no families frequent Mazo to keep a family friendly atmosphere, the beach slowly goes to a R (or worse) rating and risks being closed.

Scenario 2: A frisky couple decide to try an R resort and like it. After many trips, they find out that Mazo beach is closer and decide to give it a try. Due to their experience, and the fact that it's only adults around at that moment, they assume that R (or worse) activity is OK. Mazo risks getting closed due to the prevailing activities.

The moral of the stories is that public beaches would likely see a decline of families and a family-friendly atmosphere, and frisky couples might assume that public places have R ratings since they have visited other "nudist" venues with that atmosphere. Beaches get closed when the family-friendly atmosphere goes sour.

Law-makers may jump on the ratings system too. It's easier for them to pass a law that forbids public nudity except at a venue with a PG rating or higher. AANR has already tried to slip in something similar to an anti-nudity law, where nudity would've been prohibited at any place that is not an AANR club. Public lands, with their NR rating, would be left in the dust. By default, people would assume that any NR venue would be rated R (or worse). You never know what you might see at the beach.

Clubs would benefit from this rating system, but public lands would not. This is exactly why I'd expect AANR to try this, and strike another blow to TNS.

Public beaches are on the front-lines of many naturist legal battles. Sure, resorts get some attention from the authorities, but as private venues they are less volatile than public beaches. If a couple behave inappropriately in a resort, they get thrown out quickly and that's it. If a couple behave inappropriately on a public beach, law enforcement notes it and uses it against the whole beach and against any sort of public nudity. A rating system will not help beach-goers at all, and may even hurt in the long-run for the reasons I mentioned above. It'll make NAC's job much more difficult explaining why a NR beach should be treated as a G or PG instead of an R, despite the couple of noted complaints.

Public lands, and public events with nudity, need to be considered before a rating system goes into effect. A poorly designed rating system opens the door for more constricting laws regarding nudity, and may end up contributing to eroding freedoms.

My Most Expensive Suit

I'm happy when dressed in my birthday suit. In fact, I want to wear it all the time. (Unless it's cold.) Despite it being initially free, it has by far been the most expensive suit to wear.

Where can I wear my birthday suit? Vacations to nudist resorts ($), nudist campgrounds ($), nude beaches (often $ to get to), or private land ($ to own). For full-time naturism, the choices are either living at a nudist campground or private land. Since no campgrounds exist nearby, and real estate is on sale at the moment, the best investment is land.

I could live just about anywhere, since I don't mind small living spaces. Living in town means I'm close to work. Cheap commute, cheap to get utilities, and cheap plots to buy. However, I'd like to be able to get the mail and do yardwork in my birthday suit. In some locations this would be OK (Spain?), but in the US a neighbor would call the police. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with my favorite attire.

Culture's irrational opinion of what I like to wear forces an extra requirement onto our real estate purchase: Privacy. And let me tell you -- privacy is expensive! Everyone, deep down, wants a place that doesn't have close neighbors.

Furthermore, privacy isn't something that is measured. Realty sites list the plot size, anything it contains, and usually have pictures of the land/house itself. Never do they show the views from the land. Can we see the road from it? Can we see neighbors? How many of the neighbors will call the cops when they see our naked butts roaming around? None of this can be found on the listing.

It's been a frustrating search so far. Almost everything that looks to have privacy is way beyond what I can afford. I've looked at several plots of land over the last year. Only two had actual privacy. The first was 10 acres, where maybe 2 were actually usable. Our house would be private, but the driveway getting there would be impossible to climb in a vehicle during the winter. Also, the wooded areas were far too steep to do anything with. The second was perfect (per my ideal plot), a hilltop all to ourselves. But, it was slightly beyond my price range and had two very questionable easements to get there. (Neighbors shouldn't take each-other to court like that, and I don't want to get in the middle of it.) It's no longer listed anyway.

A recent viewing was of a 40 acre plot in my price range. It was right off the interstate, on the other side of a small hill. There was a picture of the very top of a semi on the interstate, showing it can't be viewed from the road. Other pictures show rolling green hills and valley with no houses, fences along the property, and a stream. Was this the perfect place? The 40 acres were stretched out in the bottom of a valley with the stream down the middle, and a house on the hillside on both sides. It was a cow pasture, and the cows looked much happier than we would be.

The search continues... Recently, we checked out a 20 acre parcel. It's close to town, full of trees, and includes everything but a house. One side is a fence, and one side is a road. The fence line runs along the the top of a hill -- sure the farmer could peek over, but it's unlikely. Trees block the view to the road, and to the houses on the other side. The only problem is that a single house on the other side of the road has a mostly-clear view down a considerable length of the property. If we add a house in the right place we could block that view, but it means the front lawn is off-limits for nude use. I'm not even sure if creative shrubbery could save the front yard.

It's difficult to decide what to do. Do we make an offer on this one, or gamble that a better one will appear? I admit that this property isn't perfect, but I think we could be happy there. I'd have to give up my idea of opening a small campground (or future resort) since this land wouldn't support it.

Have any of you been through this before? Did you find the perfect place, where you can wear your best suit anywhere you want? Do you have any tips on what to look for, or what to do to find that perfect place? Any tips on dealing with neighbors? Any tips on bargaining with realters? Please leave a comment.

Sexuality and Naturism

...And why those words don't link together.

This seems to be an important topic of discussion for almost every naturist, so I figure I should finally put in my 2 cents worth. For the purpose of this post, here are my definitions:

Naturism - Being naked in a family-friendly setting with mixed company. Either you do this or you don't.
Sexuality - Using the first three definitions from the Wiktionary, anything that has to do with sexual activity, or an interest in sexual activity. I include thoughts and emotions which are of a sexual nature. The measure can be in degrees. People whose minds are often in the gutter have a high degree of sexuality.

Advanced sexual freedoms - Those who practice sex in a variety of ways. This is different from sexuality (in a high degree) in that it excludes people who only have desire.

Sexual undertones - Nobody is having sex, or being sexual in any physical way. But some make comments of a sexual nature, laugh at sexual jokes, and do other things to indicate their minds are in the gutter.

Sexuality is a part of naturism, right?

Wrong. Although I must admit that the world would be a much better place if it was. Just think, if only naturists were sexual, all the children would grow up to be naturists as well. We'd have a true clothing optional society in a couple of generations.

The truth is that sexuality exists in high degrees with a large number of people, therefore it is not a subset of naturism. Since textiles are having more babies than naturists, it's fair to conclude that a majority of sexuality exists outside of naturism.

Naturism must be a part of sexuality then, right?

Wrong. Children love to run around naked, far before they develop sexual desires. Many other naturists aren't there for the sexuality, either.

I admit that there may be a high correlation between people who have advanced sexual freedoms, and people who are willing to participate in naturism. One is a catalyst for the other. They are already comfortable being naked, and having sex, sometimes in mixed company, so slipping into naturism is an easy thing to do.

I should also note, from experience, that many who have advanced sexual freedoms DON'T easily slip into naturism. Unless they are having sex, they strongly desire clothing.

All adults have an element of sexuality, right?

Wrong. I had a friend who was truly asexual. He had no desire for anything beyond friendship, either guys or girls. Make a sexual joke, and he wouldn't get it right away. He taught me that not everyone is a sexual being. Admittedly, he wasn't a naturist either. Someday I hope to find an asexual adult naturist! There have to be some out there...

A lot of people seem to think that there are sexual undertones in naturism. I believe it is these very people who are bringing sexual undertones into naturism. It is likely that they bring these sexual undertones to other elements of their lives as well. On a related topic, I talked to a cruiser at Mazo Beach. He truly thought the beach was full of sex and cruising. I've been there enough times to know that it really isn't, since I've never seen a sex act or have been bothered by a cruiser. It's people like him who bring it to the beach. Although a minority, they inflate the numbers in their own minds. Those with sexual undertones are doing the same. (And maybe I am too?)

There are three reasons why people might think sexuality and naturism have a stronger connection than they really do:

• Out of sight, out of mind. Seeing parts that are normally hidden make people think about them more.
• Relaxation. People go to nude venues to relax. When people relax, their minds are free to wander. Also, they tend to look at other people more.
• Majority rules. If a majority, or even a vocal minority, of the people bring sexual undertones with them, it will be evident to those who don't.

The first two are "curable". Going to nude venues more often will lessen the first one. The second one disappears as soon as people get busy with something. As for the last... I often feel that naturism and medical practice have a strong connection, because we meet so many doctors, nurses, and CNAs. We also meet a lot of geeks, therefore linking computing and naturism. If a lot of people laugh at a sexual joke, then yes, it's understandable to draw a link. However, it doesn't mean there is a true link. They'd all laugh if they were wearing clothes too.

The only logical way to combine sexuality and naturism is to say: A part of sexuality exists in a part of naturism. The same can be said for other random topics too: hiking and naturism, holistics and naturism, environmentalism and naturism, ornithology and naturism, geology and naturism, anthropology and naturism, antinomianism and naturism, apiology and naturism, entryism and naturism, socialism and naturism, nephology and naturism, gnosticism and naturism, naturalism and naturism. (Really, I could go on from a couple of lists.) Why don't we make a big deal about any of those? Why do we gravitate to "sexuality", when all these other combinations exist too?

So, my point to all of this is that there is none. There is no point in combining "sexuality" and "naturism" because they really are completely separate topics. Combining them, and drawing links between them, only adds confusion. Please stop.

San Onofre: Stakes and Strategy

Leave it to me to chime in a few months late on an issue... I've been seeing a myth perpetuate, so I feel as if I need to speak up about it. It's already been quickly addressed by Nudiarist, but perhaps I can make it more clear. Also, I'll discuss the strategies of both NAC and AANR.

What is the myth? That NAC and the lawsuit lost the legal status of state-owned beaches.

What is the truth? The DPR threw out the Cahill Policy, therefore making nudity illegal on ALL DPR managed public lands prior to the lawsuit.

The DPR chose to ignore the Cahill Policy with regard to San Onofre. At that point, the Cahill Policy was essentially abolished (and nudity illegal) since the DPR could choose to ignore it at any time with any beach. Thus, it no longer existed.

In this context, what exactly was NAC putting at stake in their lawsuit? NOTHING. If they lost, nudity would be illegal. If they didn't file the lawsuit, nudity would be illegal. If AANR kept talking with the DPR, nudity would still be illegal.

It sounds like AANR started this rumor:

According to these sources, other venues where nudity has been traditionally enjoyed may be under threat now that California’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its ruling regarding the Cahill Policy. This situation is, of course, what the American Association for Nude Recreation feared could happen when the Naturist Action Committee filed suit against the California Parks System.

So the DPR closing random beaches and ignoring the Cahill Policy isn't the threat? What, exactly, was AANR fearing? That nudity would continue to be illegal?

It was then perpetuated by Tom:

They put at risk nude sunbathing at ALL beaches in California.

Wasn't it at risk already? More correctly, wasn't it dead?

And also perpetuated by the SCNA, who take it a step further:

Allen says he may consider getting a ticket at San Onofre in the Spring and taking the case up the court system on the nudity issue itself. The trouble with that is if he loses, then ALL the beaches are gone.

Wait -- if it's illegal already, then how exactly is Allen going to make it illegal?

It's court cases like that which made Mazo Beach legal. A person got cited for indecent exposure, and the courts said it's not indecent if it's in a traditional nude sunbathing area. They stated that they will throw out any indecent exposure citation from the traditional beach area. If they can do this in California, that would be great!

Nobody blames the EMT for trying to resuscitate a dead patient, and failing. Why are people blaming NAC for trying to resuscitate the Cahill Policy? Allen simply offers up another try in the future. I hope they keep trying.

I understand AANR's strategy as well. It's not quite as bad as Nudiarist seems to convey. Their strategy can be summarized as follows: Stay out of the spotlight.

The DPR had only one beach in the spotlight. AANR said "OK, but continue to ignore the rest." This could've worked to keep all of the other beaches semi-protected under the Cahill Policy, but that assumes that the DPR would actually do it. Sure, it's a strategy that could've worked for years, until the DPR decides to rock the boat again. Either way, it's the DPR that ultimately chooses the legality of a beach.

From the DPR's perspective, they are responding to reported problems at the beach. It doesn't matter how factual those reports are (as shown by the San Onofre case), they will still respond by doing the easiest thing they can. If it's naked people causing a problem, it's easy to just ignore an informal policy and chase them away. If problems are reported at another beach, it's easy to do the same thing again. There is little reason for the DPR to appease AANR by leaving the other beaches alone when problems are reported.

Society is increasingly against simple nudity. We're in a population explosion, and there is more traffic than ever even in remote areas. We're connected by cell phones, allowing anyone to snap a picture and call the police before even thinking about the situation. Society is becoming more sexualized too, and it's an increasing problem that this sexualization is invading naturist beaches and pressuring them to be an adult-only playground. I expect that reports of lewd conduct are increasing at beaches which lack a method to deal with it. I also expect that they are reported more frequently, since it's so easy with a cell phone and there are more people around that may do it. Lastly, I expect that there are more false alarms, where people complain about activities which really aren't lewd. I doubt that these false alarms are removed from the complaint lists.

The DPR took action from the complaints they have received. They put naturists in a defensive situation by closing San Onofre. This requires a defensive strategy. My favorite analogy is the situation where a bear approaches you in the woods. What do you do?

First is to back away slowly. Both NAC and AANR did this by talking with the DPR. But, the DPR decided to take a chomp at San Onofre.

Then, the strategies diverge. AANR decided to offer up their arm to the bear, in hopes that it satisfies the bear. They assumed that the bear would eat the arm, then spare the rest and maybe make a few promises to avoid humans in the future. Hey, it could work. It's a valid strategy.

More specifically, it's a valid strategy for an offensive situation. For example, if AANR demanded 5 new beaches to be created, and the DPR compromised to only create 3. This compromise would be wonderful! Business in general is offensive (always want to expand, advertise, and gain new markets), which is why businessmen tend to say that compromises must be made to get what you want. The keyword is 'want', indicating it's an offensive strategy. When applying it to the bear scenario, it sounds dumb. Applying an offensive strategy to a defensive situation generally doesn't work.

More realistically, the bear would eat the arm and everything else attached. Then they might consider humans an easy target.

If the bear took a chomp at me, I'd climb the nearest tree and kick it in the face if it tries to follow. I might get eaten, same as the other strategy, but I'm not going to offer up myself, or any part of myself, on a silver platter. This is the strategy that NAC went with -- defend all our limbs at all cost, and show them we're a tough contender.

Yes, they lost. And everyone is saying "I told you so!" What did they lose? NOTHING. Legal nudity at the beach was lost before the lawsuit. Nobody, except AANR, talked about what they might've gained with the actions:

From the day the suit was filed, it was unlikely to accomplish anything more than to delay the Department. Even if successful, the suit would have only required the Department to go through a public hearing process, after which it would not be bound in any fashion to follow any recommendations made through the hearing process, and could have then proceeded to do as it pleased at San Onofre.

A public hearing process? NAC is great at winning those! Especially in California! The NEF/Roper Poll (2006) found that nude beaches have an 84% approval on the west coast. Naturists would've won the public hearing process, and therefore revived the Cahill Policy into an official policy stronger than before. San Onofre would be legal, and other beaches wouldn't be under attack in the near future. Remember that NAC initially won the first court case, so they started off good.

So would you risk nothing for a slim chance to officially legalize the nude beaches? NAC said yes, and AANR said no.

AANR thinks that the lawsuit will make the DPR act quicker to enforce textilism at other beaches. AANR thinks that their strategy would've allowed nude beach use for longer. I don't think the DPR is going to act any faster or slower, since they have the same legal standing from either strategy. If anything, the NAC has shown that naturists will make it as difficult as possible for the DPR bear to eat us.

I should also note that it's a good time for naturists to be kicking at the DPR. California is very poor, and the DPR and law enforcement are strained from budget cuts. Even though the DPR has the legal standing to issue citations for nudity, I don't think they can afford to yet. NAC at least has some time to take further action. They could take further legal action, call on naturists to overwhelm the DPR with letters, sweet talk the DPR into profiting from beach parking, or any number of things. All-in-all, now is the time for change. If we gave up one beach and went stalemate for a couple of years, the DPR would be a stronger force to deal with later. Tom, at least, thinks we should've waited: "NAC sued prematurely and lost the Cahill policy. " (He said this multiple times.) Ummm, wasn't it dead already? Let's start CPR after lunch.

Another strategy deviation to consider is what would've happened if NAC and AANR joined forces. I don't think more money, or more naturists from AANR, would've changed the courts decision that Cahill isn't an official policy. Adding AANR's name to the supreme court request would've given it slightly better chances of being heard, but probably not enough. I don't think AANR could've done much to help, but by joining up in the beginning they would've done less things to hurt. The SCNA explains (and NAC also mentioned):

I know AANR's reps (Debra Sue Stevens, etc.) met with the chief deputy of the Parks Dept when the ban was first proposed and they gave Parks the impression it was ok to close San Onofre. Debra refuses to believe she threw gas on the fire but she did. Well-meaning people who don't know all the facts (Park's statistics about crime and lewd behavior was very incorrect but AANR did not challenge it) need to stay out of this!

How the whole San Onofre thing spun into a call for donations for both AANR and TNS/NAC is beyond me... What exactly has AANR done again? NAC is doing the work, so send all your donations to them.

Fearful Freaky Fright Night 2009

The Badger Naturist Halloween Party was at the same venue as last year's Bare Bones Bash. And just like last year, we had a ton of fun!

Unlike last year, the crowd was huge! Not only did the rooms sell out this time, but people doubled up upon request (we had roommates) and several overflow rooms were booked at a nearby hotel. At least twice as many people wore costumes for the judging. And all evening, we feasted like royalty at the huge selection of thoughtfully prepared pot-luck food and a couple of catered dishes. Last year, we ran out and my emergency pizza's saved the night. (This time, they weren't needed at all.) The hot tub was perfectly hot, and the pool was comfortably warm (even for me).

A lot of Mazo Beach people were there, and a lot of regulars to VVRC, Sun Ray Hills, The Homestead Nych, and Northern Exposure Naturists were all represented as well. A group came from Indiana, a couple came from Florida, and one even came from Canada. We even had celebrity among us -- the head honcho of TNS! I think it's wonderful that all these people attended.

My vivacious lady friend and I were, however, disappointed that some people couldn't make it. Steve & Angie were in our thoughts. They announced the event on their blog, but were unable to attend. I wore the exact sarong that Steve gave to me last year, and promise to do the same next year. Admittedly, I didn't wear it much. I mostly carried it around. I like it a lot more than a towel.

The other couple that didn't attend are the ones who normally coordinate the games. Thus, there weren't as many games this year. I personally don't think this mattered -- the few games and events still provided a full evening of entertainment. People didn't mind socializing to fill in the gaps, or breaking into card games, swimming, hot tubbing, or relaxing poolside. The kids entertained themselves in the pool. The meal took a while. Bowling down the hallway went on for hours. Costumes and judging took over an hour. Music went on all night in both the conference room and the pool area. Puzzles were plentiful. Prizes were won by lots of people.

There were a lot of new people too. Or at least new to me, since many skipped last year but attended many times before. We met a couple our age -- or close to our age at least. The younger of them was the age of the older of us. He's a tech guy like me, and they were both fun to talk to. They are regulars at a TNS affiliated resort that isn't too far away, so we might just have to visit them next summer.

One of their close friends, and ex-roommate, was also at the party. I've never really met her, but I certainly know about her! She's the busty star of one of my Mazo Manor episodes -- Bambi! (Of course, that isn't her real name, and I don't intend to disclose any names here.)

As a funny side-note, remember that I called Bambi "college-age". Kingpin wrote me a letter, part of which was ranting about how far off I was about her age. Come to find out, she's just now finishing up an associates degree. Technically speaking, that makes me half-right about my first impression. She may not be the typical age, but she certainly seemed like a student.

She managed to win a special place in my heart -- she's the first true naturist that I have actually disliked. With clothing and status gone, I strike up conversations with people I would normally never talk to. I have never before, after probably hundreds of people I've met, actually disliked any true naturist. The root cause of my opinion stems from her being completely rude to my girlfriend one sentence after introductions. I won't go into details. We were being nice, and everyone in the group knew that. Everyone else was friendly and cheery except for her. Too much alcohol maybe?

Later that evening, she pestered the musician to put on her CD, loudly, and to play the drums to it. However, he got rewarded... She belly-danced for him (and for the couple of people in the conference room) for almost an hour. She's quite good, but not good enough to be forgiven. Maybe next year?

She at least started out on my good/neutral side. In costume, she laughed and commented on my "cute hairless butt" and how it went so well with the costume. I wasn't really sure is she was laughing at it, or giving me a compliment. Either way, I laughed it off. I still don't understand why she said it.

So what was my costume? I'll get to that... We had it all planned out, and order mattered. That's how we won the "most in-character couple" award. We love the simple costumes that, when seen together, add a whole new level of humor. This time it worked best if we played the part.

My girlfriend got dressed in our room. I was there too, but only to wait for a while. She put on homemade pig ears (headband with pink foam ears cut from cheap sun visor hats, zip-tied together), a homemade snout (paper towel tube, with an end glued on, painted with nail polish), and some pink undies with a tail (bunch of pink pipe cleaners bent into shape). The costume was a hack-job for sure, but she looked great! Her plan was to stop by the BN room, go mingle through the conference room, and mingle into the pool area. She had 15 minutes. Being cute, she drew attention from everyone on the way.

I put on a store-bought butcher's hat and apron, with a big plastic knife in hand. Blood was painted on the clothing, and we used nail polish on the knife. I followed in her footsteps. I hastily walked into the BN room, stopped, and sternly said "Has anyone seen a pig around here?!" Instant laughter! They pointed and said "That way!"

I did the same thing in the conference room, and by groups along the hallway. One guy said "that's just sick!" Many of the women went with the "don't lay a finger on her!" routine. Some pointed in the opposite direction, or simply said "no pigs around here." No matter what the reaction, they figured it out quickly and were laughing as they responded.

In the pool room, she hid behind chairs and I pretended not to see her as people were pointing me away. She would "eep!" and run, and people cheered her on. I eventually caught her before the parade (as planned), where we both paraded together as I held on to her wrist. She whimpered a few oinks and save me's during the parade.

There were a lot of clever costumes including:

• Juggling ninja (who could actually juggle).
• A couple who were a tortoise and hare.
• Three people who were bride, groom, and preacher.
• Dominatrix holding a knife with a bloody slave. (A little edgy, but oh well.)
• Sexy nurse and surgeon couple, very detailed and well done.
• Caveman and cave woman, the original skinny-dippers.
• Guy with a tie: birthday suit. We contemplated what he was wearing when he took it off.
  
• A couple who simply glued a beach-ball valve to their backs: blow-up dolls. (She was in character by wobbling around with her mouth open.)
  
• A belly dancer in full jingles (wonder who that could be...)
• A guy with laundry stuck to him: static cling. (Led to many "he's wearing my underwear" jokes from his girlfriend.)
  

After a dozen winners were announced, the party went on until around 3am. After a few games in the arcade, we finally made it to bed at 3:30, only to discover that our roommates snore in a not very subtle way. The alarm was set for 8am. We didn't get much sleep. We didn't plan on a full night anyway, so it's no big deal.

In the morning, my girlfriend and I got to chat with the couple our age some more. Breakfast was a feast. I have no idea where all that food came from, but I loved it.

Same as last year, we had a giant table full of goods (and money) donated from naturists to the food shelter. The best part about this fundraiser is that there is a link between us naturists, the food shelter, a church, and the DNR who manage the Mazo Beach area. We like to stay on their good side and help out the community. Based on how much gets donated, it's apparent that us naturists are good generous people.

The event this year was a huge improvement over last year, not to say that last year wasn't fantastic already. We're hooked. This is by far the best hotel party we've attended. We plan to go every year.

Burning Man 2009

As is usually the case, I missed out on yet another Burning Man. Long-term readers know this is my yearly ritual. I end up pouring through the pictures and wishing I had gone, while making empty promises for next year.

Perhaps it's an obsession, but deep down I believe that Burning Man represents an experiment for a clothing optional society (among many other things). Nudity is completely legal, and accepted by other attendees. The city is very hot and sunny during the day, and dirty all the time. Going nude seems like the logical thing to do if you want to stay cool and not have filthy clothes. When a clothing-compulsive society lands themselves in Black Rock City, do they take the logical path?

This year I wrote a script. Quite a clever script, actually. It downloads all the pictures without duplicates in 5 photo streams (tags: burningman, burningman09, burningman2009, BM09, BM2009) over a variable amount of time (depending on how busy the feeds are, 10 minutes to 75 minutes). It saves all the pictures along with the original links so I can view it on the flickr page if needed. Note that it will miss pictures when there are more than 20 uploaded between updates, which happens often enough to bug me. Google Reader is worse since it has much slower updates. I use Plumeria (windows program) to delete or save photos one at a time. This results in a large representative set of pictures chosen basically at random, which is better for seeing how the event really is. I let the bash script run on my 15 watt Zonbu (linux) since the event started, and just shut it off this week.

I suffered through a total of 21,142 pictures from 660 different flickr accounts. What did I learn?

• Don't do this again next year, though I probably will since I have a baseline now.
• Most people take really bad pictures and have a strong urge to upload every one of them.
• Professional photographers offer small resolutions with watermarks, and their pictures usually aren't as good as amateurs who share in full resolution.
• Men often wore shorts and no top.
  
• Women often wore bikini tops (or bras) and shorts.
• Despite the freedom of top-equality, women almost always wore tops and the men didn't.
• For a vast majority of group/crowd photos, there wasn't a single instance of nudity.
  
• Roughly 600 of the photos included nudity of some sort within the frame. (That's almost 3%) Beware that there are groups of several photos that depict the same scene, so I tried to limit it down to unique people when tallying numbers.
  

Of the ones including nudity....

• There were a lot naked men, mostly photographed by chance. Sadly, I don't have an accurate number. Saving naked men caught by chance was an afterthought a few weeks into it. I consider the women to be the canaries anyway.
  
• Excluding the Critical Tits parade (but possibly including after-party):
• About 35 women were brave enough to go naked or only in body paint among the general public. (In other words, bottoms were exposed.) 4 of these were obviously modeling.
  
• About 120 women went top-free without cover. Some were for erotic situations (12).
• About 43 were top-free but with bodypaints.
• About 27 were exposed by wearing see-through clothing, all except one wore bottoms.
• For for no good reason whatsoever, about 41 decided to wear pasties. Why would you even bring pasties to an event with legal nudity?
  
• Out of 43,435 total participants, about 225 women and a guess/estimated 35 men (based on this old stat, but likely more) exercised their right to bare breasts or be naked and happened to be caught by a camera, flickr, and my script. That's almost 0.6% of the population. Remember that it excludes the Critical Tits parade and party, which typically sees hundreds topless.
  

The old stats (from 1999) estimate about 5% go nude or top-free. My estimate is 0.6%, but that includes a set amount of error. Much of the nudity probably isn't captured, and many photographers probably choose not to upload photos with nudity. If I do the same experiment next year, it'll be possible to compare my estimates. Otherwise, I need to stand on top of an RV at the event and count with my own eyes to get a number comparable to 5%.

All-in-all, I get the feeling that nudity at Burning Man is on the decline. I know the American society is at war against nudity more than ever, and it seems like a lot of college students have been more prudish than usual in recent years. Seeing less nudity at Burning Man, in my opinion, confirms that American culture is getting more prudish. In all the pictures I've seen, there was only one topless firedancer, and no topless stiltwalkers. In years past, I saw many of them each year. It worries me that so many women are opting for pasties (ouch!) instead of simple body paint. It also worries me that so many are putting on skimpy tops, and sometimes even layering up with a bra under it all. (Why wear a bra at this event?) It seems that more have done this in recent years.

This year gives me a reasonable baseline for tallying up nudity via flickr pictures. Next year, I plan to travel to Burning Man and perform the same experiment that got the old 1999 stats. Ha! More realistically, I'll probably end up cruising pictures again. At least next year I can draw some conclusions statistically.

I'd love it if any of my readers can contribute. If you attended BM this year and in previous years, in your opinion has the amount of nudity changed? If you go next year, please stand on top of your RV for a while and do some counting.

Free Book? Rejected!

While visiting TNS HQ earlier this year, I decided to buy 6 copies of their latest book: "The World's Best Nude Beaches and Resorts" The plan was to keep a copy for myself, and give the rest away. Two were given away at the Nude Olympics. The rest are still in my apartment.

I liked TNS's suggestion to donate them to libraries, so I did just that with our small local library. My girlfriend dropped it off a few months ago, and has checked back periodically. She was told that they would put it in the "adult section".

They never had an "adult section". Even if they did, this book belongs in the travel section since it talks about beaches all around the world. It's clearly a travel book.

We got a call recently that they decided not to accept the book. As we picked it up, we were told that "it's a really good informative book, but we don't have a place for it." In other words, they don't want to put it in the travel section and don't want to make an adult section.

Why was it rejected? Nudity! Lots and lots of nudity!

Follow along with my analogy... Alice is a firm believer in the National Rifle Association (NRA). She believes that she should be able to carry a gun with her anytime she wants, and does so as much as she can. She also wants to attend the annual NRA meeting that is many states away. By going, she can contribute a lot to advancing the rights of gun lovers everywhere. She doesn't have the vacation time to drive, so therefore she must either not go at all or fly there. By not going, she can't do anything to promote the right to carry guns. By going, she must leave her gun at home in order to be allowed on an airplane. What should she do? The obvious answer is bite the bullet and leave the gun at home, despite her belief that she should be able to take the gun with. She'll have a much bigger impact on the future rights to carry a gun if she goes without it.

Bob is a firm believer in naturism. He believes that he should be able to go naked anytime he wants, and does so as much as he can. He also wants to promote naturism. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Where the stories differ is that naturists put naked (and exposed) people on EVERYTHING. This is akin to Alice wearing her gun to the airport anyway, and then promptly getting stopped (arrested?) by TSA. Naturist stuff gets promptly classified as "adult" by most of society and then ushered off to places where nobody will see it. Naturists will all agree that this shouldn't be the case -- but it is and we must deal with it anyway. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

How can I promote naturism if no libraries will accept my books? I can't just remove the nudity like Alice can remove her gun and leave it at home.

I have the same problem with TNS's latest tri-fold information pamphlet. I'd love to slip these into tourist information centers guerrilla naturism style, but the cover shows a naked woman with a naked child. If certain things were covered, everything would be OK. Since they aren't, it could lead to a police investigation and a sting operation to catch me for "distributing child pornography" or something stupid like that.

TNS's DVD, Chasing the Sun, is absolutely great for introducing naturism to political leaders and anyone else. However it's scene after scene of naked people with all bits exposed. Those who are seriously offended by nudity, perhaps the very people that SHOULD watch the video, won't because of all the nudity. The nudity prevents it from being shown in a lot of places. I believe they should put a censored version on YouTube for everyone to see.

The answer is that we need to bite the bullet and censor ourselves to get past the firewall of society. It's fine to have uncensored books and DVD's for naturist consumers, but it's also a good idea to have censored versions as well just in case they are required by non-naturist consumers. When the choice is to have a censored video or no video at all, I believe the answer is clear. People can use their imagination to fill in the blank spots, like they do with expletives. We should be educating people before we offend them, because if they are educated they probably won't be offended by the nudity. (My hiking signs are a good example of this.) Currently, we offend them with nudity first and then expect them to hear what we have to say. It doesn't work.

I seem to be the only person advocating for naturists to cover up sometimes. I suggested that naturists should wear clothing to save money during the winter. I suggested to put clothes on and do road cleanups, as we have done several times. We put clothes on and covered nipples to protest. I suggested to do clothed fundraisers at places other than resorts. I suggested a lot of things that require clothes! I also don't post nude photos on this blog, which is why it doesn't have Blogger-induced warning messages. By self-censoring, my words can reach a bigger audience. By getting dressed on occasion, we can have a bigger positive impact on the future of naturism.

I intend to ask the local library if they will accept the book for the travel section if I go through and marker out all of the normally censored bits. I know this action might tick off a lot of naturist purists, but it's the ONLY way that the book will end up available for public browsing at that library.

UPDATE: Wow! It's not the coarse I planned to take, but under NAC's direction we're going to pressure the library to accept it! Apparently NAC won a case a while back that deals with this issue. My fear is that they will accept it, then keep it behind the desk instead of on the shelves. We'll see where this goes... I have a letter to draft!

UPDATE 3-2010: Still working on this one...