The Wild VVRC Mid-Winter Party

I'm sick. (Great way to start a post!) It doesn't happen often, but by chance my body decided to be sick this week with some sort of chest cold. If we didn't already agree to share a room with some friends, we probably would've skipped it. I can't talk well, have a scratchy sensitive throat, and would much prefer to stay at home. But I'm a man of my word and have a pesky girlfriend who wanted a mini-vacation, so here we go!

On the drive to VVRC's Mid-Winter Party, my girlfriend informed me of something I didn't know: Apparently there was an issue between one of the members of Friends of Mazo Beach and one of the members of VVRC, and the result was a ban on Friends of Mazo Beach people from attending their events. (Shhh! We're members! But I can't see how they would deny us since we have a lot of VVRC friends and are peaceful in general.) Over the years, I have noticed a lack of Friends of Mazo Beach people at the VVRC events. It's starting to make sense, but I think the whole ban thing is silly. VVRC is still affiliated with TNS, and I wore my TNS shirt!

[UPDATE: Had a comment to correct this hear-say: "Being a member of VVRC and a past board member, I can assure you that not all FOMB are banned from VVRC or it's events. I do know the incident and it was a specific 4 people that have been banned from VVRC and it's events. It was not personal, but unacceptable behavior on the grounds of vvrc that caused the situation."]

Looking at my list from last year and comparing it to this year:

• The pool was warmer initially, but the heater must've quit at some point.
• The hot-tub was cooler, so it was often full.
• They served the same great meal, and there were plenty of munchies too.
• No DJ this time -- instead, a guitar player who managed to play non-stop for over 3 hours.
• There was no YMCA.
• There were no edible gel wielding swinger gals.
  
• The ballroom-style dancers were back, and this time they brought a friend. Using standard names, they can be Alice and Bob, with Carol being the friend.
• The arcade has been removed, and there is a dedicated "smoking room" which is the boiler room for the building. The building is all non-smoking otherwise.
• Dave and Eve (more standard names), the ones who invited us to share a room, respectively declined to honor the above policy. I say "respectively declined" because they limited themselves and kept things ventilated. The rooms must've been smoking rooms previously, based on their omnipresent smell. Either way, I'm sure the hotel isn't happy about it. They're great people to hang out with, and I can't hold it against them. I wouldn't want to stand in a crummy boiler room to smoke either.
• The turnout for the event was around 160, and it's been growing every year. I told them that they might need a bigger venue next year, which they shot down with budgeting reasons. There was no room for a dance floor, and they were out of seating space. It was getting cramped.

After making our way through the check-in process, my girlfriend had to make a run to the car for that one item we always seem to forget. In the couple of minutes she was gone, I witnessed a couple walk in and greet a guy they apparently haven't seen in a while. Then, the wife and guy kissed...on the lips. The only thought in my mind was: "Why am I here again?!"

In all fairness to them, it seems that only adults attend this party each year. (The listing never says it's an adult party though.) The entire evening did remain a "nudist" setting, but it was apparent that a majority of the people were something beyond nudist... This is why I like the Badger Naturist parties better -- more regular nudists.

We made our way to the room, dropped our backpack, dropped our clothes, and dropped ourselves back into the pool room. I spent a lot of time sitting by Dave and Eve (and friends) pretending that I wasn't sick and was having a good time, despite talking as little as possible. My girlfriend made her rounds to greet friends, check out the pool, and have a quick dip in the hot-tub.

Alice and Bob were at the next table, and I noticed that they were chatting a lot with a cute new friend (Carol). When my girlfriend returned, I asked her if Alice and Bob brought a friend this year. "Yep, and Alice says I have to chat with her later tonight. She's a dominatrix!"

After that bombshell, we grabbed an open side of the hot-tub and privately discussed how the evening was progressing and how interesting it may get later on. Soon after, she went to nap for an hour (she worked the night before and didn't get enough sleep). I resumed my position at Dave and Eve's table, pretending I wasn't sick and was having a good time.

As dinner was starting, Dave made a trip to the room. My girlfriend followed him back down, and seemed well rested at the moment. She returned to find an extra couple wedged on to the end of the table, who had been there for a couple of minutes. (Did I mention it got cramped?) She broke the ice with them and started chatting away. I didn't want to, because talking hurt my throat even more. A simple "hi" always leads into an hour or so of conversation. Maybe I was a bit rude, in retrospect.

Dinner was great, as always. The pasta was throat-friendly, but the breadsticks not so much. Other harder snacks like RR1 popcorn (our contribution), puppy chow, crackers, veggies, chips, and most everything else was off limits for me too. Bummer! After dinner was a raffle drawing, and most people at our table won prizes. We won a fancy insulated water bottle. Other prizes included shot glasses, scratch-off lottery tickets (no winners), and a jar of candy.

After most people were finished eating, the hotel clerk on duty was taking care of garbage. She's around our age, and wasn't sure if she wanted to work a nudist party because she didn't know what to expect. The nudists, as usual, were holding doors for her and giving her friendly greetings. My girlfriend talked to her a bit, and she said: "I'm glad I worked this party because everyone is so nice and kind and sweet." I think it's great that she had this opinion! Maybe she'll join in next time?

The clothed guitarist starting strumming mostly country tunes. One cute swinger gal danced on the tiny dance floor for several songs to the enjoyment of a lot of guys. Eventually, the guitarist played a slow song, and many crammed in for a slow dance and an occasional butt grab on their partners. I was too busy to watch much of the dancing.

My girlfriend started up a small game at the table. Dave and Eve played, with Alice joining in after a while. The game was similar to the game we played last year with Alice and Bob. It's simple and entertaining, but easier to play without a loud guitarist. We eventually moved to the food area, which wasn't being used much after the dinner items were all cleaned up. It was quiet. Dave and Eve didn't join us, but we managed to recruit in a total of eight players. With two cute girls in front of me (Alice and Carol), a cute girl next to me, and an entertainingly drunk Bob at the end of the table, I suddenly felt a little better and really was having a good time! I won the first game, and Carol tied me in the second game. Wait...maybe I shouldn't phrase it like that...

Some left, including Alice and Bob, but we were still a chatty bunch. A few minutes later, Bob came back and whispered in my ear: "Carol really wants to talk shop, and isn't really fond of the guys hanging around her." (Being an attractive single girl, she was a magnet for guys.) I conveyed this to my girlfriend, and we three managed to remove ourselves from the conversation. Soon enough, we were in Carol's room listening to the interesting documentary of her life and having a chat.

She had a strict upbringing that she wanted to break away from, and finally did after college. (She's quite smart, a little philosophical but down-to-earth, and is great at telling a story. I think she should write a book!) She found a place where she was able to work as a professional dominatrix, and did so for several years, but decided to give it up a few years ago. She noted that this is not prostitution -- intercourse wasn't expected and didn't happen. Apparently there is a surprising number of people who have a foot fetish, and it's like a day at the spa for her. Her summary of the psychological aspects of the whole scene was very interesting to me at least. I may have a separate post, with a new naturist-related hypothesis, stemming from that in the future...

My girlfriend asked a few questions, but none were nearly as important as mine: "How the heck did you end up here?" The common perception is that a lot of people gravitate towards sex clubs because they offer more "freedom" than nudist clubs. With that in mind, how is it that someone who worked in a domain beyond sex clubs ended up at a plain ol' nudist hotel party? And was she even enjoying the evening or bored out of her mind? The answer was simple -- it all depends on what you're looking for. She wanted to hang out with her friends, and her friends were here. She was enjoying the evening.

My girlfriend and I went back down to the food area. The place was clearing out since it was close to midnight. My girlfriend visited the bathroom while I found some throat-friendly snacks. Eating grapes and watching the latest news on the TV, a couple entered the room and started making out right behind me. Resisting the strong urge to bounce a few grapes (or other foods) off their heads, I chose to avoid a confrontation and simply walked out of the room.

Together again, we noticed that an overly friendly group had taken over the hot-tub. They were doing nothing overt or lewd, but we knew better than to even attempt to fill the few empty spots. It would've been awkward. The longer we waited for them to clear out, the fuller it got with similar people, so we eventually gave up and went to bed. What happened in the hot-tub as the night went on is anybody's guess.

The next morning wasn't too exciting, but there's a strange behavior that I always notice. The night before, everyone is fully naked with exception to a few things the women may wear. In the mornings at every party I've been to, people seem to acquire a random state of dress. Some are fully clothed, some are wearing just pants or just tops, and some are wearing nothing at all. Why is that?

Anyway, we said our goodbyes to all of our friends. We got invites to Blue Lake Resort, a place I'd love to check out sometime. Alice and Bob invited us to camp a weekend or two with them at VVRC, which is another thing I'd love to do this summer. Lastly, Alice and Bob suggested that we all share a room next year. Rooming with people who are much closer to our age would be a welcome change!

Psychology and the Shock of Nudity

"What do you say to a naked lady?" It's an entertaining old video, but it's also a very good question for naturists to analyze. More specifically, how the answers are different between naturists and textiles. The first step to effectively educating textiles about naturism is to understand how they think about it.

With that in mind, a unique chain of events unfolded a few weeks ago.

• My girlfriend came home in the morning and went to bed (naked).
• Very rarely does it happen that she forgets to lock the door.
  
• The weather turned bad during the day.
• Carol (not her real name - I'm using standard names again), who is a typical sweet motherly type in her 40's, left work and decided to stay at our place to avoid the slippery drive to her rural home and back the next morning.
• My girlfriend rolls out of bed and visits the restroom.
• Carol does a quick knock at the door and then walks in.
• My girlfriend says "hi honey!" thinking it's me, opens the door to walk out, and gives Carol a full frontal. She then says "oh hi!" and smiles on her way to the bedroom to put some clothes on.

The part that confuses me is that Carol felt really bad for catching my girlfriend in the nude. My girlfriend repeatedly said she didn't care at all about it, and we told Carol that we're naturists anyway so it's no big deal to us.

Carol is completely fine with us being naturists and all, and asked a whole bunch of questions about naturism. We told stories, and she thought it was neat and was happy for us but would never consider it herself. (The usual story...) Despite all this, she still felt extremely bad about catching my girlfriend naked! She kept saying she was sorry about it, even when she left the next morning.

This is how I believe the chain goes, when a textile (Alice) catches another textile (Bob) in the nude:

• Alice sees a naked body, and is a bit surprised but realizes that naked bodies do exist and are generally harmless.
• Bob is completely embarrassed: Body shame, bad luck of being naked at that moment, feeling vulnerable, whatever. Bob's life is changed forever, or so it seems.
• Alice feels guilty for embarrassing Bob, conveys that she's very sorry. Both pretend that it never happened, and both feel bad about it in separate ways.

Naturists have a different attitude in the second step: You've seen me naked? Good! That means I don't have to get dressed next time you come over...if that's OK?

Since the middle step is different, the final step should never happen. Why should Alice feel bad about seeing Bob naked, if Bob didn't care at all about it? Alice is not guilty of embarrassing Bob.

Next time Carol is over (assuming we get bad weather again), I'd like to investigate this further. Why, to this day, does she still feel bad about it? What other forces are at work? Does she feel bad simply because she's supposed to based on other experiences with textiles? I thought I addressed that in our evening of chatting, but apparently not.

A similar thing can be said about meeting a hunter while freehiking, and the GoTopless protest. The hunter avoided looking in our direction and seemed shy, as-if our nudity is some sort of blinding light. Carol did too after the initial sight. A majority of people at Chicago avoided looking at us as well, but we weren't naked and most probably ignore all protest groups. (Others, in all fairness, seemed to think this was the only time in their lives that they would see a breast and cherished it for all it was worth.)

Getting textiles to not feel guilty about seeing nudity would be a good step for general acceptance. If we can better understand the problem, or what leads up to the problem, then we have a better chance of correcting it early.

Maybe we're wrong about how we notify others? The signs at Haulover warn "ATTENTION - BEYOND THIS POINT YOU MAY ENCOUNTER NUDE BATHERS" Perhaps the right approach is something like "There's friendly naked people beyond this sign, and we won't mind if you stop over and chat with us!"

Spring Cleaning

Although most other bloggers retain their entire history, my opinion is that it creates a lot of clutter. Links break, comments get dated, posts that are of no interest beyond a few days still manage to look important, important posts look dated, and it's hard to find the good stuff among the clutter. Thus, I intend to clean my blog!

I've always had two main goals with this blog. First is a publication space for articles and essays. Ideally, this should read like a book. Second is a storyline of my forays into naturism. This should be a timeline.

I plan to create an index post with the above mentioned "table of contents", "storyline", and add a few links with my profile and recommendations sort-of like a resume. Posts that apply to either of the two main topics will be kept. Other rants and links (such as most of the Missed News series) will be removed since it's unlikely that anyone cares at this point in time. If any good bits remain, I'll concatenate them into a single post.

One thing that I'd like to fix is dates. All events that I wrote about were posted at least a week after the actual event. I'd like to fix the dates to represent when things actually happened -- including the Australia story that happened over a year before I started the blog. The problem with this is that Blogger uses the date in the link, and therefore it will break all of my links. So, it's probably not a good idea to fix dates! I'll at least have the correct ones in the timeline.

For multi-part stories and posts, I can add "Previous" and "Next" links to the bottom for easy browsing.

Lastly, with the important posts, it would be good to refresh them a bit. Little updates here and there will show that the ideas still apply and are actively maintained.

If anyone would like a snapshot of the blog prior to my cleaning, download an archive from here (~6.5 megs).

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.