From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This edit favours "textilist" but I've only ever heard "textile". This talk page mainly uses "textile". What do others think? SueTwo (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is a matter of location. I have heard both- in the past it was always textilist, and more recently it has become more mixed. I am totally tainted as I am French speaker, and most of the FKK conversations I have with the English refer to places in France, and otherwise they are non native English speakers. There are sentences where I would use one rather than the other- I think I would tend to use Textile in a more derogatory sense- and textilist in a more positive way. If Malcolm Bourra is watching he might have some advice to give. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Until reading the Wikipedia page, I had never come across "textilist". In UK, "textile" is used almost universally in naturist magazines, conversations and forums, and in fiction featuring naturism (eg Adam Mars-Jones' story 'Summer Lighting' and Alan Palmer's 'The Reluctant Nudist'). Some UK naturists avoid the term because they feel it has negative / derogatory connotations, but I've never seen "textilist" suggested as an alternative. Checking online, a search for "textile" includes one definition "non-nudist", while a search for "textilist" finds no definitions at all for "textilist". Google does find around 6000 pages in English using "textilist" as well as either "nudist" or "naturist", but this is insignificant compared to over 1 million pages in English using "textile" with either "nudist" or "naturist". Perhaps we could have some authoritative citations / examples to support mention of "textilist"? Even if my (and others') experience of naturist/nudist terminology is limited and deficient, and the main article should indeed refer to "textilist" as the primary simple term for a non-nudist or for non-naturist behaviour, why eliminate reference to the very widely used term "textile"? Tim Forcer (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a big deal, if you have some references do an edit. If you want to talk about over a glass of wine- asK for me at reception at Monta. Both terms are used so just report it and reference it. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Done. Tim Forcer (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion - the level of detail devoted to textile / textilist (etc) is, perhaps, excessive in the main page. Should it be transferred to section "labels, associations and terminology" in Issues in social nudity? Tim Forcer (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving big decisions until I have boosted by vitamin D levels at Monta and Agde. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Parking a reference[edit] --ClemRutter (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism (July 2011 comment)[edit]

Criticism subsection is a joke in its current state. Someone should clean it up a bit. (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:At the nudist beach.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:At the nudist beach.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Appeal process started[edit]

I have now changed this speedy deletion request into a standard nomination so that it can be discussed here. I imagine most watchers of this page will want to keep it; if so please go to the image talk page and vote to "keep". AdeMiami (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion pictures please[edit]

Rather than having a slow edit war, please discuss changes, --Nuujinn (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This image does not appear to be about naturism. Neither do the uploader's other contibutions. If an image is not self-evidently naturist, the article should cite evidence that it is relevant. Or putting it another way, what does the image add to an article about naturism? SueTwo (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Could not one say the same of [1]? If I go skinny dipping, am I then a naturist? Or [2], since nude models are a common subject of art? Or [3], as nude saunas are common? I don't have an opinion one way or another, really, but tend to prefer fewer pictures in articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for intervening Nuujinn. The naturism page needs images of naturism as defined in the article. Periodical we get an inappropriate image that a user will claim represents naturism to them (POV), we had one of a woman on a horse that some user was very fond of- but it did not illustrate the article it needed to go. This image is not as naturism as we know it. If you examine the EXIF data you will see it was taken in late October- in weather conditions so foul that a flash was need at midday. The pose, on a easily framed rock suggest that this was a self portrait taken on a time delay, which would explain the need to find some cold damp obscured woodland. There is none of the detritus one would expect in a genuine naturist environment and particularly no sign of a towel which would always be used when sitting down. Look further at the definition in the lead Naturism or nudism is a cultural and political movement practising, advocating and defending social nudity.. this image just doesn't fit the article. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Your questions.
  • Photo 1. Social nudity- such was practised while swimming at Manchester Grammar School in the 1970s- demonstrates that single sex social nudity used to be the norm-- the image has a place but is not required and necessary.
  • If you go skinny dipping you are engaging in a naturist activity- if you do it regularly then I would define you as naturist. An interesting borderline case is where a group of friends (20s -30s) regularly skinny dip together, but not when their are others of the same inclination present. Further many youngsters do use the term skinny-dip but would never say they were naturist. Youngsters don't join organisations. Germany is different, kids will undress happily on a beach and cloth to enter the pool- or for a laugh one will not bother. This will continue into adult hood. They have the letters FKK which is broader than naturism.
  • Carl Larsson- I can't see the connection- a better image would be the one of his son diving[4]. Or even [5].
  • The Sauna- yes, it is poor, when looking to remove it I couldn't find any images of saunas to use. Interesting you say that saunas are nude environments- in Germany [6] this is true but France and UK the wearing of clothes is normal. Wierd.
The major difficulty with illustrating this article is that it is an unwritten rule that you do not use a camera in a Naturist area- so no photographs are available. All the land is private and the owners make restrictions to respect the privacy of their guests. The shots we can use are fairly vintage, and limited to lounging on sun-kissed beaches- or non naturist shots that feature paid models. Hope that helps. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that photography (setting aside that of-and-by the photographer) and naturism are distinct. While it is true that some naturists, some naturist clubs/resorts/venues and some naturist locations discourage or prohibit photography, others don't (or will explicitly allow photography of one's own "group"/"family"). Naturist magazines are full of photographs of naturists - even after discounting images taken specifically for publication/advertising/promotion and images showing only one or two naturists. In passing, please note that there is no rule which states that naturists can't be professional models. For the purposes of illustrating this Wikipedia page, I suggest that readers are perfectly capable of visualising solo nudity (eg in the woods, in a sauna), and the main object of the illustrations should be to show "typical" / "example" naturist situations, reflecting the "social nudity" which characterises naturism: a beach, a club, a campsite, miniten, shuffle-board, a resort bar, a venue's pool, a yacht. Such photos, I suggest, would ideally show a mix of ages and bodytypes - the norm in my experience of naturism - which might help to demonstrate to the reader that naturists comprise more than just "lissom lovely" and tanned Adonis types seen in advertising (eg holiday brochures). Like others, I don't feel the solo-in-the-woods photo is a helpful image for illustrating a Wikipedia page about naturism in general. If individuals wish to promote their individual POV, and to illustrate that POV, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate vehicle for such promotion (in my view) - so specific illustrations as well as text should be acceptable (nay, welcomed) by several or many contributors, not just one. In that context, the beach photo which someone objected to recently seems to have a consensus in favour, solo-in-the-woods does not.Tim Forcer (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I took the liberty of moving the skinny dipping pic to the section discussing that activity, seems more appropriate there. Regarding the sauna, I think the german pic is more appropriate. In the US, mostly people wear bathing suits and sometimes just a towel, and nude facilities are rare. I'm familiar with German practices. So I think it is safe to say common, not pervasive. The Larsson painting should go, I think. I guess point I'd make is that naturism and public nudity aren't the same thing, really. Kids running about naked aren't naturists, any more than I am when I step onto the deck in the morning with my coffee in the buff, or a model posing nude for a painting. As you suggest, it is a social activity, and I think the pictures should reflect that. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


This section has been flagged with a POV tag. Is this because:

  • The user believes all Criticism sections should be deleted
  • The user has found the references to be unsafe
  • The user has located newer notable research
  • The user feels his POV should have been given more weight that afforded by the research quoted.

Opinions please.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the section. Can the person who added the tag explain why he/she did so? --Roly (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The section has nothing intrinsically wrong with it, except that it is not really about criticism of naturism. I suspect the title may have been correct once, but the content morphed away? Not checked that, though. The content looks adequate, but might be better distributed in other sections where it may be more directly relevant. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


What does this abbreviation refer to ?Kdammers (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Health and EfficiencyIdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Clothing-optional communities?[edit]

While stub-sorting the TV show Buying Naked I wanted to add a link or two, but Clothing optional redirects to Nude beach. Is there any Wikipedia content about "Clothing-optional communities", or would someone out there like to create such an article, on such communities (as opposed to holiday resorts). PamD 13:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. But do they really exist? Agde and Monta have a high number of most the year round residents- but residence seems to be a spin off from the holiday resort function. The first 10 googles are hardly notable- where is the starting point? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


I can see what you are trying to do- but the most important line in the article is the INF definition and that needs to be above history. I agree the heading is naff. Any thoughts? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There are now significant problems with this article. The content seems to have escaped the structure I am proposing is to spin off some subsidiary articles and tighten the content (cull) of this page. Any thoughts before I start? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. Encyclopaedic detail has its place, but I'm not at all sure that this single page is such a place. Can the content be split (sensibly, reasonably, appropriately) into some sort of tree? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts are that all be country sections should become stand alone articles. The section on social nudity can stand alone as an article- just leaving the bits that fit with in the Agde declaration. I will cull unrefrenced text or try to direct it to a new page. If there is already an article on a topic- I will write a synopsis- and transfer the text over to that article or talk page. Any alternative thoughts? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
This seems as good a place to start as any. History would be another? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Started to tidy the references- and disentangle the structure- more to come. Please comment. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with "Naturist Ideals" section.[edit]

Despite other parts of the article repeatedly stating that the philosophical reasons behind wanting to not wear clothes vary from one naturist organization to the other, this section lists some very specific, often highly controversial, and sometimes not even related to nudity ideals (I.E. favoring a unified world government) as being especially associated with naturism, without citing any sources. I already added a bunch of citation needed tags to the especially questionable statements, but I suspect it may be better to audit and heavily refactor or simply remove the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They are probably the ideas of one particular individual (who may or may not be a naturist). They are certainly not all my own ideals and are mostly irrelevant to naturism. --Roly (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a problem section- it contains material added 7+ years ago. We are limited to printed sources,this is discussed by Descamps in his 1987 book but I haven't got much else on by bookshelf. I agree it is dated and reflects a moment in time- and worse still it takes as its source, his 1972 work, Le Nu et le Vêtement. Have we got any more modern notable academic source that is not behind a paywall? I see the section as being important but it needs a haircut and references- as we can't just edit by anecdote. As you see I split the article as a first stage to cleaning it up- and have established three Naturism by Country articles- and directed the US section to the Talk:American Association for Nude Recreation. These can be used for more country specific experiences. Wikipedia prefers proses to lists so that is another problem. As we edit this article further the changes are likely to become more controversial and the talk page will become more useful in establishing consensus. So what should this section say? How should it say it?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to remove the section completely, but that might be going a bit far. It could certainly be drastically pruned leaving only those bits that are relevant to naturism and can be shown to be a general concensus among most, if not all, naturists. Not an easy task, I admit. --Roly (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The temptation is there but I think it is un-important in the UK but was very important in the former DDR, and used to persuade Governments of the benign nature of Naturism thus leading to changes in the law. Also it helps explain why there is a degree of fellowship found on sites, in clubs and on FKK beaches. Some are can be slashed- they are just page fillers- but I think the best procedure is to copy them over here and then invite editors to justify their inclusion- and then seek to back it up with a reference. It comes down to three lists:
All naturist believe / Most naturists believe list/ A majority of naturists also believe/ Some naturists are also passionate about

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Naturist ideals- resolving the issue[edit]

It is thought that most of this list has little to do with naturist ideals. Please indicate which of these we should keep or delete and offer a suitable reference or reason. Remember this is a discussion of ideals may have been adopted- not just ones personal philosophy though feel free to add that at the bottom

  • Individuals have formed nudist groups for a variety of specific purposes.[1] It is generally agreed by naturist organisations that eroticism and blatant sexuality have no place in naturism and are, in fact, antithetical to its ideals.
  • Keep Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - unless these matters fit better with early organised naturism history? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Clem Rutter (talk). Research into Vitamin D.
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep - note social health benefits (societies which are more naturist have lower rates of negative indicators such as underage pregnancy and abortion rates? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, true for some, loads of teetotal clubs. (Personally, I am a great believer in Wine Boxes bought from the local Cave Co-operative, with a choice beween Ricard and 51) Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Delete Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep in association with 'rapport with natural world' information, ie as an indication of an area where some naturists took/take a stronger line on what aspects of 'nature' are implicit in 'naturism'? Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Rapport with other humans — equality and respect.
  • Keep Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. While, on average, naturists are nicer than non-naturists, there are some stinkers. Naturist forums are no stranger to flame wars. Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • An anti-war,
  • children should be respected as equals instead of being patronised[citation needed]
  • delete Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - this should be standard, not anything special about naturism. Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • delete move to social nudity Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Delete Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Move subject to recognition that this place exists only in some religions. Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Dress — nudism, as clothes are unnecessary
  • clothes build social barriers.
  • delete Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clothes are one form of adornment (as well as providing protection and comfort). Adornment in its broadest sense exists in naturism (hairstyling, shaving, tattoos, make-up, piercings/jewellery, etc, etc). Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sports — to develop a healthy body.
  • Arts — should be to develop individual talents, not as a means of financial exploitation
  • Tourism — to understand other peoples' culture, concentrating on camping to remain close to the earth.
  • Liberty — no one has the right to tell others or their children that they must wear clothes.
  • Pollution — less clothing to manufacture and maintain means lower carbon footprint.
Also to be considered
  • Add family bonding, removing body guilt and encouraging children to mix on equal terms with a very wide ethnic, cultural, social, economic community. Clem Rutter (talk)
  • Keep Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Tim Forcer (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of these are good ideals to have but are not relevant to naturism so don't belong in this article. --Roly (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Taken on board- some changes made.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

New issues on Naturist magazines pages[edit]

A respected editor wishes to introduce this paragraph: (19:30 GMT version)

Nudists who visit public nude beaches may be photographed by street photographers, social documentary photographers, photojournalists or other kinds of photographers without the nudists' knowledge and in the United States and most democratic countries the photographers have the law on their side as no individual has an expectation of privacy in a public place and photographers are not required to have the naturists' consent before photographing them or publishing and selling the pictures or videos.[7] In many countries there exist private nudist areas in which photography is not allowed and naturists who wish to not be photographed can enjoy their activities there. However, naturists who wish to not be photographed in public nude beaches have found various ways to make the photographers leave the beach, such as photographing the photographer and publishing such photos.[8]

Some nude beaches provide fences that block the view from nearby streets.[9]

In its favour it it is well written and contains material that should be included in wikipedia, the question is where should it go. It gives some useful references.

  • It appears to be very US specific- and goes against many codes of law, written to include the European Privacy Law. Commons:Country specific consent requirements demonstrates that consent to publish is required in 24 countries- and nor in the US and six other.
  • It is too detailed for a top level article and could stand as article in its own right.
  • At this moment we are trying to condense this article so multiple ways of illustrating the same thing eg by street photographers, social documentary photographers, photojournalists is the sort of prose that needs to be condensed.
  • It focuses of Social Nudity not on Naturism- and is in fact more about photographers rights.
  • It contains dangerous advice. UK photographers have to contend with the Terrorism Acts (all embracing and totally misused), law relating to photographing children or possessing photographs of children. At the very least a photographer will have his equipment and computers seized.

Comments and suggestions please. While pending I have included it in a {{efn}}. But recommend it is transfered to a country specific article.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Clem's suggestion. Meanwhile, I think this material sat uncomfortably under the heading Magazines, so have split that into two and beefed up the photo/film element with notes about kiddy porn DVDs masquerading as naturist (and the legal consequences for naturists in the UK). I've also given the magazine material a spring-clean - it referred to a long-defunct magazine, used British Naturism's old title (dropped in 2009) and - in my view - did not classify naturist magazines fairly. To aid readers, I have increased the number of magazines mentioned by name, adding Wikilinks to them or their publisher where possible. It's right that there should be at least mild controvery in regard to magazines and imagery, since this is in the main section titled Issues in Social Nudity. Some of what I removed/replaced I've commented out rather than deleting.Tim Forcer (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Zoro Garden Nudist Colony[edit]

Is there a reason why the reference to the Zoro Garden Nudist Colony was eleted from the article?--Avril1975 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Issues in social nudity[edit]

The intro paragraph lumps all criticisms of the nudist lifestyle together, presenting -in my view- opinions that are on the fringes of criticism (and ridiculously stereotypical) so as to make any criticism/worries about the actual consequences of the nudist lifestyle seem ridiculous and extreme.

For example, when describing criticism the article mentions that critics say...

"it is only for the physically beautiful; it is too embarrassing; it is against the laws of nature, against the law, or against religion; 'nudism makes me think of sex'; it is for primitive people or animals"

Yes, some people may say/think these things, but to place these as the main criticisms in the intro paragraph of the "issues in social nudity" makes me question whether these were included because they were common criticisms, or if they were included to discredit critics by making all arguments seem irrational and extreme.

There are other, less extreme views on whether nudism as a communal lifestyle is really good for the participants that have nothing to do with embarrassment/beauty/law/religion and this section should be updated to include more sophisticated criticisms/observations that do not paint critics as bible thumping intolerant prudes. There are serious / non-extreme questions people have that are valid and deserve to be mentioned in this section and they should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD63:19F0:9C7D:A890:C428:8036 (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty is finding a notable, reliable reference that is not immediately savaged by one or more of the factions that have achieved consensus here. Descamps has stood the test of time- if you have a reliable academic source please share. We have already hived off difficult material to a subarticle. Yes Descamp is dated and does not express my POV but that is what we have to work with. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


I am getting worried that these incredibly useful lists are becoming a Linkfarm and against WP:NOT. I can see why people new to Naturism would want to compile them if the live in a hostile environment- but this is a personal journey, and unless the reference addresses the article directly and add to the content- they are misplaced. There is possibly a need for a more gbeographically specific article where they would become relevant. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is user:waynejayes speaking; I agree with you. I have tried to move all the links that I think are not useful initially to the external links section, in the hope that someone else will kill them completely. I agree that the references section needs to be split into a works cited section and a further reading section and the further reading section needs to be trimmed. The way I like to edit is to reorganise information into (what I think) is a more usable and useful arrangement, and I try not to delete info that someone has put in the article (unless it it is clearly wrong). I do think this article is too long and could be tightly edited. I am willing to give it a go if there is support from other wikipedians. Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I looked at your Annie Isherwood article- and the referencing is done exactly the way I would have done it. Leave it a few days for comment then we can start. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
While the substantial collection of links, references, citations, journal articles (etc, etc) is an excellent resource, much of the material referenced will be unavailable except to those working or studying in an academic institution or major library. The current listing suffers from being 'flat' (ie the quality/importance of an item is not apparent). Is there an argument for a new article on Scholarly or Academic research into / examination of naturism, nudism and social nudity (and, perhaps, one on significant reports about naturism in the popular media)? This could then apply a heirarchy/structure of significance and/or of matters considered and/or based on loose chronological periods, with only the most useful / relevant / accessible works being cited directly in the Naturism article. This restructuring would be part of the general project of turning a single large article into an interlinked mesh of articles. Tim Forcer (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

About Paul Zimmermann[edit]

He was born in November 13, 1964, but how could he "organized club for nudists on a large scale, Freilichtpark (Free-Light Park), was opened near Hamburg in 1903" -- (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several people named Paul Zimmermann who have made significant contributions to this world. This Paul Zimmermann was born in 1878 near Leipzig, Germany. He created what is believed to be the first organized nudist/naturist club. He's not the only Zimmermann. Werner Zimmermann from Switzerland was also instrumental at the beginning of the 20th century in spreading the naturist/nudist philosophy. -- naturist (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Catholic theology- a quote from Karol Wojtyla[edit]

Nudism and Morals

Pope John Paul II on Nudism

Drawing from his own pastoral experience as a priest and bishop before he became Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla has produced a remarkably eloquent and resourceful book Love and Responsibility.

The following is a portion of that work.

Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest… nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object of enjoyment. The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reasons are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person. There is a certain relativism in the definition of what is shameless. This relativism may be due to differences in the makeup of particular persons-a greater or lesser sensual excitability, a higher or lower level of moral culture-or to different world views. It may equally be due to differences in external conditions-in climate, for instance…and also in prevailing customs, social habits, etc. Dress is always a social question, a function of…social customs. In this matter there is no exact similarity in the behavior of particular people, even if they live in the same age and the same society. The principle of what is truly immodest is simple and obvious, but its application in specific cases depends upon the individual, the milieu, the society. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest. If someone takes advantage of such an occasion to treat the person as an object of enjoyment (even if his action is purely internal) it is only he who is guilty of shamelessness… not the other. -- Pope John Paul II, Love and Responsibility, trans. H.T. Willetts (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1981), pp. 176–192.

My personal thought is that it could be included as a footnote when a few wikilinks have been added-- other thoughts please. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant. I'm not sure where the best place is for it, probably as a footnote.--Roly (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In Finland...[edit]

...I just read that in Finland "it's not an unusual sight to see groups of children playing naked in a street for example." This is exaggeration. Playing naked in a kindergarten or in the family yard isn't uncommon, kids may well bounce around naked on the swimming beach, but I'll give ten euros to anyone actually seeing kids playing naked anywhere else since the 1960s. May I edit? Harjasusi (talk)17:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Go for it! — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. Harjasusi (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

World Naked Bike Ride:[edit]

@TBM10: I am pleased to see you are getting involved on this article- but obviously we have a few differences on what to include. This should be easy to sort out as we seem to be a different places on the same hymn sheet. For years I have tried to ignore WNBR but now have change my mind as it is listed as an event in the current issue of BN Magazine BN208- page 29. The paragraph is anodyne having been taken from the lead of the WNBR- I was going to leave it a couple of years before seeking changes. The positioning of the paragraph is more problematic- as I agree, as written it is not Philosophy. The sections were reordered in 2007 and it was a problem then. Descamp writes about Naturist Values while the German school prefers Philosophie- but in a wider context than the English meaning. We had to make a hard decision to stay between WP:OR and the need for references. I have looked at alternative places but this seems to carry equal weight to the bit on the Romantics and Health.

The photograph was a chance shot by Andrew on his mobile. I like it because it firmly ties a Naturist activity to the centre of London. It allows later us to delete a all tits shot from Brighton where the bike did not feature- and I did get to remove one posed shot from Templo del Sol (dubious about Spanish law over that one) without any fuss. The shot illustrates 'Naturism' not 'Naturists' which to me is a huge bonus.

So there are a few reasons- but it occurs to me that Andrew showed me the photo at London Wikimeet 107 how about coming to London Wikimeet 108 10th July and meet the London Crowd- for a good afternoon chat. ClemRutter (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me the section on the World Naked Bike Ride belongs on the Public nudity article, would it not be better to move content related to WNBR from the Naturism article to the Public nudity article? I suggest there should be a link to that section on the Naturism article. Wayne Jayes (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The WNBR may be a nude event, but it is not a naturist event. The two things are not synonymous. I agree that the material belongs in the Public nudity article, but not here.Enthusiast01 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies thought we were here to discuss whether the image remained or not, and here was I still thinking about it! No use now saying what my thoughts are.....Edmund Patrick confer 07:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
While I (obviously) agree with what the Enthusiast did, I do think that he was a bit over-enthusiatic. Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the status quo. I really want to know peoples thinking on the matter- rather to see the article and debate curtailed. That is the spirit of Wikipedia, The only definition we have for Naturism is enshrined in the Agde declaration
According to the XIV Congress of the International Naturist Federation (Agde, France, 1974), naturism is:
a way of life in harmony with nature characterised by the practice of communal nudity with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for others and for the environment.[2]
So while the WNBR is outside my comfort-zone they are engaged in the activity as a protest in favour of the environment and a form of self- respect- it is communal nudity and has become a regular event and way of life for them and their followers- my question is what is the reason to exclude it- we report de don't promote a particular view, we don't censor. CCBN accepts their existence, informing members of venues so they may take part. It exists, it is Naturism Jim, but not as we knew it. Please can we have some comments. It would be a good idea to copy it over to Public Nudity as well, but keep the discussion here.ClemRutter (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I have recently written biographical articles on the brothers Gaston and André Durville, founders to a larg extent of the naturist movement in France. They were both physicians, their father was hypnotist (sort of psychologist, I guess) Due to their father's influence they believed in the psychological effects on bodily healing, they then got interested in the work of Paul Carton who studied nutrition on health and healing. They came to beleive in natural foods and natural therapies, which I understand they term naturism. They then moved onto the idas of the importance of a natural environment on our health, sunlight, clean air and so on. The concept of air baths came out of this and of course this followed onto social nudity. I found it very interesting to follow the thoughts of these two brothers as I researched for their wikipedia articles. It "joined the dots" for many of the naturist concepts that I had half-darkly seen before. The early history of naturism was about healthy food, healthy exercise, healthy clean air and sunlight, perhaps not too far from the aims of the WNBR? (As and aside: Gaston and Andre would be quite horrified to see the typical natrist gathering in South Africa the 21st century, a group of (usually) men standing round a braai fire barbequeing great slabs of meat, while puffing on cigarettes and consuming much brandy and coke.) Wayne Jayes (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
While I agree with the orthodoxy that WNBR is not a naturist event and that WNBR participation is not necessarily naturist, many WNBRs are organised by naturists. Also, many (most?) naturist organisations at least acknowledge the existence of WNBR and report and/or advertise rides. Non-naturists are most likely to encounter mixed-sex public nudity by seeing a WNBR, so this, rather than (say) visiting a naturist or clothes-optional beach, must be a way of initiating new thoughts about non-sexual nudity in non-naturists. Therefore I think any comprehensive information about naturism should include specific mention of WNBR - including the strong association between WNBR and individual naturists. Tim Forcer (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have added a sentence linking the philosophy of WNBR and naturism, and reduced the size and prominence of the photo. Maybe with these improvements (if they are improvements) we can leave the WNBR section in? Wayne Jayes (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to me, this is the way that WP should work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talkcontribs) 11:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference VivreNu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Deschênes, Stéphane (4 January 2016). "The Official INF-FNI Definition of Naturism" (PDF). INF-FNI. International Naturist Federation. Retrieved 11 January 2016.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Naturism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Naturism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naturism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naturism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)



Naturism is anoher common term for nudism and that definition would be the one most commonly used. Rowei99 (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Naturista2018 do you have any reliable sources that say that what we normally call Naturopathy is referred to in English as "Naturism"? If so, a Wikipedia:Hatnote may be the solution here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Misleading picture[edit]

While naturism in Germany is more common than probably anywhere else (with the possible exception of the Netherlands), the picture of the naked woman on the street is misleading. This is not a common sight. Probably the picture was made during some stunt. It is certainly not representative of naturism in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

nudism is not the same as Naturism[edit]

There is distinct difference between taking up a philosophy and/or lifestyle, and running around unclothed.

In my home region, "Naturist" is generally a proper noun. Regular events are organized by the local Naturist clubs, mostly private (open only to dues-paying members) or semi-private (requiring invitation by a member).

Meanwhile, any self-styled nudist can attend a nude beach, so long as they aren't troublemaking gawkers or wankers. There might be a nude (or naked) bike ride, or a nude contingent at a Pride event, but nowhere are they called "Naturist" (perhaps because "NUDE" fits on signage better).

The International Naturist Federation defined the term clearly as far back as 1974:

Naturism is a way of life in harmony with nature characterised by the practice of communal nudity with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for others and for the environment.

One more note: Though some Naturists are activist, and there's the base "living in harmony with Nature" theme, Naturism IS NOT "a political movement" as W'pedia presently labels the page. Naturism is about as radical a statement as avoiding unhealthy foods or sorting your trash for recycling.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ask 10 people what is naturism and another 10 people what is nudism, you will get close on 20 different answers but with a great deal of overlap. The few that agree will probably be quoting (or paraphrasing) the INF definition, which is popular but by no means universal. There are a large number of naturists/nudists who will deny that the INF represents them or their views. --Roly (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, yeah, and that summarizes the human condition so it's not relevant in any specific context. Like, just because many people cannot use "literal" right ("My head literally exploded!!") doesn't led credence to "hey, let's all just agree to disagree, okay?" being much of a stance — particularly as it voluntarily invalidates the purpose of W'pedia.
As well, there are many WP articles that crow about "what the dictionary says," neatly dodging the fact they've cherrypicked the definition that suits their prejudices, sometimes dumping the OED entirely in favor of some gradescool-level or pocket-paperback reference.
No matter how popular or how unintentional, weaseling doesn't make the claims right, much less true. Of all places outside a courtroom, weaseling doesn't belong in a credible reference work, a task at which W'pedia already struggles.
Back to my original point: nudism is a general class, Naturism a specific manifestation. For starters, Oxford Online says that a "nudist" is "a person who engages in the practice of going naked wherever possible" so on that basis alone the topics diverge quickly — no indication that nudism is in any way organized or structured. (As a bonus, it could thereby subsume such forks as Nude beach, Nude swimming, Nude recreation, maybe List of social nudity places, ad nauseam.)
Meanwhile, a "naturist" is "a person who goes naked in designated areas" and "naturism" is "the practice of wearing no clothes in a vacation camp or for other leisure activities" — repeated reaches to structure that are absent in "nudist."
This sort of tussle was undertaken years back for "polyamory"; what resulted was reliance on the OED followed by a few elaborations but NOT contradiction. As regularly pointed up elsewhere, the OED is not universal (hey, that sounds familiar) but is common enough, and the gaps are filled by respected but somewhat less weighty sources that are more readily verifiable than "some people." (And popular use of "polyamory" to mean "affair" or "swinging" or "anonymous last-call hookup" is regularly undercut.)
At very least: if those other articles are going to be left using "nude" rather than "naturist," then this article should be actually moved to Nudism, rather than hiding the general class behind the specific manifestation.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
If you're going to quote the OED for nudism, you might also quote it for naturism. The entry for naturism in my Concise Oxford says " … n. naturalism; worship of natural objects; nudism … ". Which implies that naturism = nudism (or something completely different and irrelevant to this WP article). --Roly (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the wp:lede and the first section Naturism#Definition and lexicology adequately discuss the use of the terminology naturism vs nudism. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. There is clearly not nearly enough of a consistent difference in meaning between the two terms for WP to take a postition. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material[edit]

I have recently removed a good deal of unsourced material from this page. (I have also removed a few images, most of which were signs relating to nude beaches.) If anyone believes that said unsourced material should remain, please feel free to source and reinsert it. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What some editors do is mark statements as unsourced so that others can add if necessary. Leads one to believe all editors are working towards a good informative article for an encyclopedia. Edmund Patrick confer 22:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Edmund Patrick, I would hope that all editors are working towards a good, informative article. Please note that some of the unsourced material I deleted was tagged for removal, and had been for several years. Also, some of that unsourced material was non-encyclopedic. I will take a look through my edits and see if there is anything that ought to be re-inserted and tagged. (I acknowledge that patience with unsourced material is not one of my virtues.) SunCrow (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Spot-checking, I see a bunch of material that is summary or general statement about an underlying link to some other page or adjacent ref. Examples: [10] supported by the linked bio articles, [11] (FKK part) supported by Freikörperkultur and the dewiki linked from it, [12] is a detail from the noted {{main}}, [13] is fully supported by the ref in the previous sentence as well as the article linked about the event, [14] (first paragaph) supported by the people and organizations linked. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@SunCrow: "Citation needed" does not mean "please remove this". I think you've gone far further than would have been reasonable. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In response to other editors' input, I have just reinserted much of the material that I deleted. In hindsight, I believe my edits were excessive, and I apologize. SunCrow (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, apologies for not replying earlier, real life got involved!! Hopefully we can all spend a bit of time on the subject. Edmund Patrick confer 07:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There is still a good deal of unsourced material here. SunCrow (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverted image[edit]

I have just reverted an edit in which the following image had been added to the page:

The image was added by 3peay. It appears that the picture was also taken by 3peay. I don't think the article needs the image. Beyond that, I'm a bit dubious about an editor adding an image that he/she took. Does anybody know if there's a policy on that? SunCrow (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a policy against it, and I think it's fine as long as the photo genuinely illustrates the topic. I've added a few of my own photos to pages, such as at New Zealand sea lion. But in this case I think you were right; the picture wasn't a particularly good illustration of a nude beach. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


This article is quite long. It seems to me that it overlaps with Nudity a bit. Could some of it be condensed (WriterArtistDC, your thoughts)? SunCrow (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Image switch[edit]

I have replaced some images in the article, mostly because it is better to have some variety than to use the same images that are used on the nudity page and other related pages. For example, I am replacing one image of the Florida Young Naturists at the beach with another image of the Florida Young Naturists at the beach. SunCrow (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletions, 21 January[edit]

I think the editor involved was simply confused, and accidentally edited an old version of the page instead of the current one. I did that a few times when I was newer to Wikipedia than I am now. I don't think I removed quite this much material, though – really, the entire Naturism in New Zealand section? Most tellingly, SunCrow, you may not have noticed, but they actually put back quite a lot of the stuff you had removed, which I think you may have thought was what I was doing when I reverted the change. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Article size[edit]

The article, at 113,161 bytes, is too long (see WP:TOOBIG). I propose the following:

  • Remove the "Demographics" section;
  • Remove the "Issues in social nudity" section;
  • Condense the "Philosophy" section; and
  • Condense the footnotes.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I have made the changes I suggested above. I have also removed some unsourced and unreliably sourced material. The article is now under 100,000 bytes. SunCrow (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Related redirects nominated for discussion[edit]

Clothing optional (a redirect to Nude beach) and Clothes free (a redirect to Nudity) have been nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Clothing optional and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Clothes free respectively. Editors interested in this article are invited to comment in the linked discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The literary movement[edit]

The current version of the article [15] has the following paragraph:

Naturism was part of a literary movement [fr] in the late 1800s (see the writings of André Gide) that also influenced the art movements of the time specifically Henri Matisse and other Fauve painters. This movement was based on the French concept of joie de vivre, the idea of reveling freely in physical sensations and direct experiences and a spontaneous approach to life.[1]

Now, the link to fr:Naturisme (mouvement littéraire) was recently introduced. It may or may not be accurate here, but the whole passage leaves me with the uneasy feeling that there may – possibly! – be a mixing up of two meanings of the word naturism – the current one ('lifestyle that involves nudity') an another, older, meaning ('a certain attitude to life and nature'), which presumably was at the base of the literary movement with the name. Does the source explicitly make the connection between the two, that is, did Saint-Georges de Bouhélier, André Gide et al. really advocate for social nudity? – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Harrison & Perry 1993.