Ce billet en Français

Like a river, our life runs along meanders, and circumstances lead us to sometimes turn our glance either towards the past or towards the future, while time unrelentingly drives us towards the ocean… where everything dissolves into naught! We see the same landscapes under different angles and lightings… Likewise, our ideas are generally nothing more than mere points of view. In this regard, I would like to echo here the debate launched by the superb blog “A Naked World”, asking the following question: “At a time when gay marriage is recognized or in the process of being so, when one discuss of legalizing euthanasia, do you think that the legal recognition (which means it being no longer merely tolerated) of nudity in society is the last taboo to tear down?” I invite everyone to refer to this blog and to take part in the discussion, but I will take the liberty to report here my own comments.

Is nudity in society the last taboo to tear down? The question is vast, and I do not claim to answer it in a few lines. I would simply like to start by reversing the question: Is nudity a taboo to tear down or a freedom to (re)conquer? It is interesting, in this respect, to consider the way the question is asked, putting at the same level gay marriage (a question of sexuality and society), euthanasia (a moral question), and nudity. It seems to me that naturists (or many if not most of them) live nudity above all as a pleasure. Consequently, freedom for the ones to benefit from this pleasure stops where begins the displeasure of the others. The fundamental problem is then educating people to tolerate different behaviours, be they sartorial or other. Clearly, our society is not evolving in this direction, when it plans to treat by legal prohibition the wearing of “excessive” clothing, i.e. masking the totality of the person. Could society be more tolerant to an extreme of clothing behaviour (covering nothing at all) than to the other (covering everything)? The regression of areas where naturism is tolerated on beaches is the - not very comforting - beginning of the answer (how much sites formerly attended by naturists are now forbidden?).




If there is “taboo” in connection with nudity, it may be because nudity is, de facto, assimilated to a sexual activity? It is notorious that many places attended by naturists are also visited by people seeking sexual stimulation or even adventures. “Conventional” naturists are trying to protect themselves and their way of life, and some of them build around (or on the basis of) their practice of nudity a whole system of thought, more or less desexualized. But “who wants to play the angel plays the beast”, and the negation of sexuality in naturism seems to me, at the very least, debatable, or even dangerous. Promoting the tolerance of nudity can be achieved only by education, training people to respect others, their sensitivity and their feelings. The sight of nudity being likely to disturb some people, or to arouse unwanted feelings, or even (for children) to disturb the development of their own sexuality, caution and discretion are essential.

Anyone who had the opportunity to experience nudity on naturist beaches or in dedicated centres know that this render nudity very common-place, so that the feelings the sight of nudity may arise will eventually blur (is this a good thing?). One can thus imagine that the common-place sight of nudity in society would lead to greater tolerance… if this nudity is no longer used as it is it now for commercial and advertising purposes, i.e. to exploit the feelings it causes… because nudity arises feelings, fortunately!



Some comments posted on “A Naked World” parallel nudity with other societal problems like the death penalty and the rights of homosexuals. I am somewhat surprised that the apparently trivial question of nudity comes along some major problems of our societies. I do not know where the comparison can go, but it challenges me, because these subjects relate to fundamental, potentially crucial problems, whereas the question of nudity and naturism is generally treated (or considered) more superficially. As for me, I am concerned with the progressive narrowing of the areas and beaches on which naturism is tolerated, and I fear that, given the current evolution of mentalities, laws will become more restrictive towards nudity and naturism. I would certainly feel greatly frustrated if I am no longer allowed to practise naturism when nature and sun invite me there… but I would not allow myself to compare that to what would represent for homosexuals the negation of their identity and of their rights, or what would mean (in our country) the come back of the death penalty.



The question of euthanasia is another matter, and my personal experience taught me that one should never take the place of the other to decide what is good for him or her, and that the idea that one may have of our reactions in a given situation is often contradicted when we are actually confronted to it, but this is probably not the right blog to discuss that matter. Back to the practical problem of nudity, I agree with the comments emphasizing the interest of a broad campaign of explanation and promotion of nudity. I also share their resentment towards the huge hypocrisy of our societies which censure or penalize the representation of nudity but tolerate that of the most extreme violence. I may even think that the former explains the later, in the sense that such repression leads implacably to perversion and violence. Consequently, a society able to accept nudity for what it is - a perfectly natural thing - would be a society truly adult and de facto less violent. In other words, let us build a more tolerant and more open, less violent, less repressive society, and this society will accept nudity quite naturally. This is “blah”, obviously (“Imagine all the people” etc.).



However, I really believe that the attitude of the society regarding nudity is symptomatic of its current status. The symptom should, of course, be treated, but symptomatic treatment alone would lead to relegate naturists to strictly delimitated areas or ‘reservations’ carefully put out of sight of ‘decent’ people… Indeed, this strange behaviour of our society (and, in a more extreme way, of the American society) keep surprising me, and I wonder sometimes if rites and symbols (or virtual reality) are not, more and more, prevailing over essence. Nudity hits a taboo, a social code, no more, whereas violence causes wounds or dead. The nuance is a serious one. However, a parallel drift is more and more often observed in allegedly religious behaviours, which attach more importance to the respect of rites (including clothing and food) than to fundamental principles, namely respecting fellow-beings, their life, their integrity, their freedom. If God existed, it would certainly make him angry to see people fussing with more or less meaningless rites rather than obeying his fundamental commands.



In fact, I remain circumspect as for the priority of obtaining a legal recognition of nudity (i.e., if I am right, no one would be put on trial for being nude, in any place and at any time). It would be more careful and more realistic to consider that, in the current status of our society, the right to be nude must be acknowledged within a given framework. Today, this framework is still restricted (a few beaches and closely delimited areas), and it seems to be narrowing year by year (whereas, at the same time, the commercial use of women nudity for advertising knows almost no limit). Fighting against this erosion of our spaces of naturist freedom is important and urgent. Enlarging the legal framework of nudity would certainly help - for instance, nudity should be authorized in all natural areas as long as it is not visible from roads and highway, and should be naturally granted on beach and riverside… Of course, a few areas would have to be reserved (at least for some time) to clothed people, so that no one would be confronted with nudity against his or her will. Obviously, would remain prohibited any from of sexual exhibition (although it is difficult to provide any indisputable definition) and any form of harassing. Such new legal framework would indeed hit a taboo… but it is may be not the most urgent, and certainly not the last taboo to hit.