Howard Anderson

I was honoured when Richard asked me to join the group of moderators on this site although not having done that kind of thing before, I recognised it would take some getting used to.

So how should I act as a moderator? Should I delete or warn about content I do not like. Definitely not, what I like or dislike is completely irrelevant. This is not a naturist/nudist site so ideas that align with that lifestyle, although they overlap, do not give sufficient guidance. So what to do?

To me it comes down only to the aims of the Naktiv site and the rules that have been developed to support those aims. My motivation for sticking to the task is strongly aligned with these aims, i.e. to “support and encourage naked activities everywhere, educate society that the naked human body is acceptable in all contexts and to decriminalize the naked human body”. The aims are clear, to promote the idea that just getting on with life without clothes is good. These aims do not include sexual liberation, however important that may be- we cannot take on the whole world. Others have taken on that task and good luck to them, this site is about living daily life nude. If it evolves into a sex site then I shall quietly duck out.

So what should I do if someone posts a photo clearly centred on their genitals? The first thing to consider is, does it break the rules. Generally yes, rules 1-3. Does the photo support the aims of the Naktiv site? It could do, after all, genitals are no more or less unacceptable than an elbow. But then I should consider the aims of the Naktiv site, will the photo help with those aims? Probably not as those seeking more information about a nude life will probably misinterpret the photo and lead them to think the site is yet another tawdry sex site- they will go elsewhere. Far worse, any suspicions they may harbour about the nude life may be reinforced so the photo will have done the opposite, to have worked against our aims. So the conclusion is, ask the poster to remove it or to transfer it themselves to the private area reserved for such photos so that what is left does support the aims.

The rules outline unacceptable content. Whilst any text gives scope to argue over meaning, in general they are quite clear. The best photos show people going about their activities (apart from sex) whilst nude and in most genitals are clearly visible. So what, that is how we are made, the issue is context, apparent intention and the likely interpretation that others make, particularly those just setting out on our quest. It is not about proof, definitions of intention or any related pedantry so beloved of lawyers, it is about what ordinary nude people think is worth doing or not. I am an ordinary nude person and I try to judge posts by what I would show my non-nude friends in order to demonstrate why I like being nude, i.e. to promote nudity. Would I show them cock-shots, pussy shots or “nude glamour” photos from porn sites? No.

In general I do not like deleting anything, so far I have done it just once. Far better to encourage people not to post content that breaks the rules and to explain why- hence this blog. Encouragement not force, promotion not preaching.

So please please please, if you are thinking of posting a photo of your genitals, think about how it may hinder our cause. The same applies to photos clearly lifted from soft or hard porn sites and all the other stuff we see that does not support our aims.

If you don’t like the rules then post comments to that effect and lets have a discussion, perhaps they will be changed but don’t post and be dammed, think of the rest of us trying to promote nudity. There is a long way to go yet.

I have had a rest from the Naktiv site for a while. One or two people started to claim that I had written or meant things that I had not, a clear sign of impeding trouble with the increased likelihood of a flame war developing. It seems such flame wars did develop but as I was no longer reading the Naktiv site, they thankfully passed me by. Flame wars do not help anyone, they do not help to promote the aims of the Naktiv site nor is there any chance that agreement will be obtained. The best thing to do is duck out, so I did.
I work with the idea that the Naktiv site exists to promote nudity. The key is promote, to make more widespread, help make nudity more accepted, to have fewer people given aggravation for being nude etc. etc. Internecine conflict will work against that promotion, making the site worth much less.
Robust opinions are one thing, people may disagree. Such disagreement makes the world go round and helps us all converge on the best solution to problems, to help us all to see things from a different viewpoint allowing different approaches to various issues. Flame wars are quite different in character, they are generally against the person (ad hominem arguments) rather than against their opinions. This is a useless mode of argument, more akin to tribal wars than intelligent debate.
I try to take an engineer’s approach to writing, short, accurate and to the point with no extraneous text to confuse the idea being put forward. That means there are no hidden agendas in what I write, what you see is the whole thing. If you think you can see a hidden agenda, think again, because it is not there.

If we are to promote the idea that a nude life is good, it would be well to present that idea as best we can. If a succession of sad, boring photos or text is presented as representative of the good nude life, some people may make up their mind that the idea itself is wrong and simply go elsewhere; we would have failed.

This is key to the success of this whole venture. Many men find their female partner will not join in, in my case, my wife will no longer join in even after happy nude holidays as a direct result of sad boring men intent on calling attention to their willy. She now holds the unshakable view that too many men go nude for tawdry motives, nothing to do with porn, just sad people who think that nudity is about genital exposure. It isn’t, it is not about genitals at all, to those who really believe in this life, seeing genitals is as irrelevant as seeing an elbow.

This is a difficult point to put across to some people, as genitals are irrelevant, why not show them? It is because they are irrelevant that constant re-focusing on genitals attempts to make them directly relevant to nudity. Compare two images, one of a man walking in the mountains, the other of a man sitting on a bed legs wide open, genitals towards the camera, centre shot. What do these photos show the viewer? To me, the fact that the walker’s genitals are clearly visible is utterly irrelevant, the second was probably taken with other less helpful motives.

Being a liberation who hates being told what to do (or to be dressed!) I do not support a Facebook style censorship, I prefer as far as possible to encourage posts like those of nude activity etc. that show that life without clothes is just fine and to ask the willy pointers to go elsewhere; they have their place, I just do not think it is here.

So this is a purely personal plea, if anyone is thinking of uploading a photo that focuses on genitals, how about using a different website, one aimed instead at repairing body guilt or that encourages exhibitionists. To me, this site is not about that.

Shane put it better than I have:- http://www.naktiv.net/blog/350/i-039-m-naked/

I find it both odd and disturbing that people want to pigeon hole other people, worse is the desire to pigeon hole oneself. A key element in freedom is to avoid such behaviour, so I am not “one of them”, a member of X or Y or Z. If you get into that mode of thinking, members of “us” will inevitably see members of “them” as being lesser in some way, if not, why not go and join “them”, what makes “us” better and hence worth joining? Then there is the desire to “define” what makes a person fit an “us” or a “them”. All this leads to unnecessary conflict and disagreement.
Such ideas are foreign to the way I want to see the world, so no I am not a naturist nor a nudist nor yet a nakivist, I am simply a human being, often but not always, nude.
I know the words naturist or nudist are a short-hand to other people for “I like to be without clothes in a non-sexual, social setting”, it is quicker to use one word than those 10 or 11 words but that does not mean I am any kind of “ist” nor does it define me in any way at all.
We would all get along much better without unnecessary tribal membership, surely society can now move away from out-moded tribes.

Yvonne’s blog on
http://www.naktiv.net/blog/75/the-naked-woman-within-screaming-to-get-out/
highlights some of the problems women feel about nudity, particularly about body image and the “sense of comfort hiding behind clothes”. This goes very deep.

Yesterday we had Paul and Vicky here for lunch. For years they have taken their annual holiday at naturist locations in Europe. Paul spends the whole time nude at home if warm enough but Vicky chooses not to. My wife has been with me to various naturist locations in Europe and Australia but she does not go nude at home whereas I always do. When they arrived, I was nude as they expected, Paul was also nude very quickly and we had a good lunch. Having known each other for decides and all of us being in stable, long term monogamous relationships we get along very well, as do our kids, they are also close friends with Paul and Vickie’s (now adult) kids.

But still the women stay dressed, even when it is hot. All four of us have been to naturist swims and socialised nude but the girl’s clothes stay on, the habit of staying dressed is very strong.

We have a long way to go.

Modes of social behaviour are governed by memes, i.e. learned ideas and attitudes. A meme is described as "An element of a culture that may be considered to be passed on by non-genetic means, esp. imitation". Richard Dawkins first came up with the idea of memes in his book "The Selfish Gene", 1976.

Dr. Susan Blackmore puts it like this:- "This means that whatever is copied from person to person is a meme. Everything you have learned by copying it from someone else is a meme; every word in your language, every catch-phrase or saying. Every story you have ever heard, and every song you know, is a meme. The fact that you drive on the left (or perhaps the right), that you drink lager, think sun-dried tomatoes are passé, and wear jeans and a T-shirt to work are memes. The style of your house and your bicycle, the design of the roads in your city and the colour of the buses – all these are memes."

There are good memes, those that benefit the holder or others and there are bad memes, those that cause a bad effect on one or more people, sometimes including the person holding the meme itself. An example of a good set of memes is found in nurses, doctors etc. the idea that helping the sick or injured is imperative. Had the same person been brought up in a criminal environment where brutality and violence were the norm, an injured person would not pose a threat so walking on by would be thought normal, even sensible. Both memes are successful. Once identified as bad, a meme can have its success reduced by rational means, but the really successful memes are very difficult to eliminate.

A successful meme lives on in society for a long time, possibly centuries. They replicate by various methods; they may mutate but still live on. A successful meme does not imply that it is good or bad, it is simply able to replicate and survive in a manner similar in behaviour to a physical virus. A bad but successful meme is "smoking is cool". It replicates well but kills off its carriers. It replicates by a number of methods, not generally by being taught, it is more subtle that that. Millions are spent by tobacco companies on these subtle methods to ensure the meme stays alive.

A related set of memes is known as a meme complex, groups of memes mutually supporting each other and replicating together. The lifecycle of a meme or meme complex can be compared with that of a virus. A person that carries a meme, the vector, infects a new carrier. The new carrier either accepts the meme or rejects it, they are either susceptible or immune. The original vector can now die, if the new carrier was not immune, the meme lives.

Clearly naturism is a meme complex, it is learned behaviour. Naturists would argue this behaviour provides significant benefit and is therefore good but its success as a meme complex is less clear. Although millions have now tried and liked at least some aspect of a naturist lifestyle, counter memes are very strong in their effect. The counter meme is that which causes people always to be dressed, even under extreme circumstances, reinforced by religious memes that cause a feeling of guilt about bodies, enjoyment or sensual experience.

Why is the dressed meme complex more powerful than the naturist meme? Because it is reinforced from childhood and fuelled by inappropriate sanctions. Consider the behaviour of adults when supervising children. If some 2 year olds are playing in a private garden, the adults would consider it quite normal for the children to play nude, even if people outside of the immediate family are present. If other children are brought along, they will happily join in nude and no-one would think a problem existed. As the children get older, both boys and girls will be encouraged to wear some kind of covering but the children will often abandon them as useless. As they get older still, parents will become more insistent, telling the children it is required to wear something, the children eventually accept that as the norm, they will also have seen that their parents are never nude in the garden even if they may see them nude at bath time. By now the children have learned there is something of a problem about parts of their body, an idea that would not have occurred to them had they not been taught. The meme is being reinforced all the time. In this situation dressing is not for warmth, comfort or status, it is for something beyond the understanding of such youngsters, but as they are generally accustomed to obeying their parents, they comply. By now it feels normal to wear clothes when playing in the paddling pool or in the garden. Unless these children are brought up in a naturist environment, the "always dressed outside" meme will rarely be in competition with an "its ok to be nude" meme. The dressed meme is by then firmly established.

Parents will feel that even though they have no objection to children playing nude in a private back garden, they will wonder what the neighbours will say, what friends may think if they visit such a household. Fear will play a part, fear very much increased in the present panic over paedophiles. Paedophiles are dangerous individuals, children must be protected from their perverted behaviour, but this protection must not be at the expense of the children themselves. Sadly this is just what happens, the always dressed meme is reinforced in all manner of ways by parents, neighbours, friends, TV etc. As they grow up, being always dressed will seem normal. The always dressed meme is supported by the "others will think us funny" meme if any nude activities go on in places visible by outsiders.

This has developed into a very successful meme complex, one that self replicates with amazing robustness. Even though when asked, many adults will say they have no argument against nudity from an intellectual point of view, they would not participate for emotional reasons, their memes are more powerful than rationality. To reinforce this and to make their memes even more successful, those who say "I don't mind if other people are naked" will almost invariably say "but I realise that most other people will object". This dual nature of their meme complex is perhaps the central reason it is so successful at replicating. When naturists challenge this view, the results are surprising. In England, about nine tenths of those asked thought naturists were harmless but the second part of the meme will still cause very effective replication, "stay dressed not for me but for others".

Since the start of the naturist movement, the idea of social nudity has increased, even in the face of very successful counter memes. There are two reasons for this, first that from a rational point of view, naturism is enjoyable and harmless so people work out for themselves that nudity is fine, secondly, those individuals who have discovered the benefits of naturism have actively promoted the idea. Such promotion is another means of meme replication.

Susan Blackmore again:- "Some memes succeed in getting copied because they are good, useful, true, or beautiful, while others succeed even though they are false or useless. From the meme's point of view all this is irrelevant. If a meme can survive and get replicated it will. Generally we humans do try to select true ideas over false ones, and good over bad; after all our biology has set us up to do just that, but we do it imperfectly, and we leave all kinds of opportunities for other memes to get copied – using us as their copying machinery."14

It is this idea that humans try to select the good over the bad that has resulted in a rise on popularity of a naturist lifestyle. In competition with other successful memes, a rational selection process is slowly increasing the success of the "its ok to be nude" meme.

In terms of memes, it is interesting to look at cults, if only because one of the very first publications on social nudity was Pudor's “Cult of Nudity". In this sense, a cult is a meme-complex characterised by self-isolation of the infected group, leader-worship, brainwashing by repetitive exposure and genetic functions being discouraged, e.g. celibacy. Naturists certainly isolate themselves but more for the sensitivity of others, not because they wish to be isolated. In what might be called modern naturism, there is no trace of the other four factors that describe a cult in memetic terms. There is no convincing evidence to suggest that all very early naturists were cult members, but in any case, the movement has changed considerably since then.

Some people, searching for their identity after a traumatic discovery have been heard to express the sentiment that "In order to understand my future, I must understand my past.". In terms of memes, what they are saying is that they have missed out on assimilating the memes of their past. If they do not feel part of the social group they feel they "should" belong to it is because they have yet to gather all the memes of the group. Going back to a mother country or culture helps to absorb such memes and hence to reduce the contrast between themselves and that culture, they feel more at home.

More here:- http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/memetics/about%20memes.htm

I have often wondered if it is possible to take photographs that show WHY people go nude. There are plenty of photos of nude people taking part in activities such as sport, sun bathing etc. but if the people had been wearing a swim suit would the essence of the photo have been lost? Suppose you saw a photo of people enjoying a walk whilst nude, would an almost identical photo of dressed people doing the same lose anything apart from the obvious detail of clothing? OK, we know the joys of walking nude but does the photograph actually convey that idea or do we just know that from experience? Could such a photograph be used to help explain why we go nude? Does it have an essential Naktiv message over and above the simple nudity?

The reason I ask is that I have avoided all naturist photography because it looked far too difficult. I take photography very seriously and am always amazed at the poor quality that many people put up with, made worse recently by reliance on phones as cameras. But even if these photos were sharp, had good colour, framing, composition etc. would they “say” naturist/nudist/naktiv? The great majority do not.

Some of the photos on http://www.nude-soul.com/ go some way to show what I mean although they are of a solitary person so lack the social aspect. Some do convey a good idea of nudity in nature.

The photo of a woman riding her bike with a police officer framed by one of her arms speak volumes, it is about half way down http://www.vivrenu.com/article.php?sid=825#.UYpjTcrNtMk. It also says without words that the police are doing nothing daft and she carries no clothes in a bag, free and fun in London. Some of the WNBR images show some of what I mean, especially ones that show the reaction of the public.

A trawl with Google Images for naturism yields some good images (and it seems Google is at last getting the idea that naturist does not equal porn), but few say “join in, it’s fun nude” rather than “join in, we are having fun”.

Words, words words. Useful things words, but they convey different meanings to different people. There are seemingly endless arguments over the words nudist and naturist, nude and naked, ship and boat, etc. etc.

The trouble is, words do not have a “meaning”, there is no immutable attribute possessed by a word, it only takes on a meaning when used in context. As a result, there is no source of definitive English word meanings. That may come as a surprise to some.

The first mistake people make is to reach for the OED, the Oxford English Dictionary. Surely that has the definitive meaning of English words? After all it is quoted all over the place as an authority. It is indeed an authoritative work, but not for definitions, it only lists word usage. When James Murray began work on the OED in 1857, he along with the Philological Society of London and the Oxford University Press decided on the deliberate policy that the dictionary should never be written or attempt to be a source of definitions, this was seen as being to didactic. It made sound commercial sense, such a dictionary would not recognise the unstoppable changes in English and quickly become of date. Instead they chose to list all English words as found in use, both historical and contemporary and to show them in context by quoting where they had been found. They enlisted the help of a large number of people to submit “cards”, each card had a word and the context in which the word was used. These cards were assembled to create the first edition of the dictionary. The work continues and they still report the usage of words rather than trying to define them. Even the Concise editions contain words in context although the full edition is required to see all such quotes.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

The Kindle edition of the OED lists two uses of the word naturist, first “a person who goes naked in designated areas, a nudist” , second “a person who worships nature or natural objects” . Clearly, according to that, the word has meaning only in context. It also shows a real problem for those who seek to make a difference in the words nudist and naturist, one is used to help show the meaning of the other, i.e. the dictionary shows no clear definition or difference. It lists the word nudist (from the word nude) as “a person who engages in the practice of going naked wherever possible” , naked and nude used in the same “definition”.

The problem becomes acute when people speak of “true” naturists. This is just a way of saying “do they conform to my definition of the word” (there being no universal definition). That approach is not helpful to the rest of us who will of course hold a different view of the word. The arguments go back and forth over these meanings and all that is achieved is the taking of sides. There have been arguments over whether the WNBR, the World Naked Bike Ride is naturist or not. The facts are clear, most people ride without clothes and sex is not an issue. Does it really matter if one word does not encompass that behaviour and that of people who are members of naturist clubs? I do not believe it does matter except in one very narrow sense, the sheer utility of having one word that describes being without clothes in a non-sexual context (and avoiding the use of naked or nude!).

So if the words naturist and nudist cause trouble, is there an alternative? As Richard wrote on www.naktiv.net/naktiv.html, “Naktiv is the belief that being naked is acceptable in any context. Naktiv does not mean that people must be naked, naktiv means that people can be naked. Naktiv people may be naked in all public and private spaces, at all times and places, in all society contexts. Naktiv people are often strongly influenced by the original, enthusiastic and inspiring Gramers” . So could we use the word Naktiv? Of course, it would be very useful, but then we have to supply the text to put it into context then wait until it comes in use common enough to make it useful. We may have to wait some time.

To me naturist means “……” oh no, I will not fall into that trap, my meaning may not be the same as yours. As far as possible, I live without clothes, ride in the WNBR, join in debates over such a lifestyle, have friends who profess themselves to be naturists and other friends who go without clothes and insist they are not naturists.

As internet writer Robert Tedder wrote (link lost), "For me to regard myself as a nudist, I would also have to be a breathist, walkist, eatist, blue-eyesist, for while a motorist is someone who does driving, being without clothes is not something I do. It is my supposed natural state."

As well as promoting the Naktiv lifestyle, let’s end the definition wars.

Seeing the word wounded in Robert’s post made me think ( http://www.naktiv.net/blog/122/naturism-and-healing-the-wounded-soul/ ). There are three main reasons to stay shielded from the gaze of others if nude, the risk of aggro/police action, what other people may think and one’s own feelings. The first is much discussed and varies from country to country, it is the issue of one’s own feelings that rang a bell with the word wounded. It may be an amazing admission for a life-long naturist but in some circumstances I feel vulnerable, embarrassed or awkward being nude. Such feelings are the result of upbringing and life’s experiences.

I have had the desire to be nude for as long as I can remember, certainly from early childhood, but as I thought no-one else in the world felt that way and everyone else stayed dressed, I kept it very secret. Being brought up as a Catholic, body shame and guilt were part of the school curriculum, we were taught that bodies were sinful in their own right and that touching one’s own body “in certain places” is a sin. When a teacher (a nun) was asked how one went to the toilet or washed thoroughly, she told us that we should “touch” ourselves to the absolute minimum. She then went on to say that the holiest people would bathe in special smocks to avoid the sin of seeing or touching their own bodies. As children we all thought this was very odd but it demonstrated the level of guilt felt and taught in Catholic schools.

It took some years to throw off the idiotic feelings of guilt taught by these people, or at least that is what I thought. I have now come to realise that the effect on my outlook on life was and still is significant, I feel damaged, wounded. It did not help that I was the victim of a homosexual assault as a child. The assault in itself is not really the issue, it would now fall into the medium category of offences, the real damage is the body shame that forces people to keep it secret. I did tell my mother about it at the time and she stopped the person involved from any further unsupervised visits, but apart from that he got away scot free, shame protected him. Much of the current news shows this was commonplace, victims have kept secret the damage done to them by perverts, but all the time absorbing the damage caused.

The key to me was the teaching of the Catholic church, “child abuse with good intentions” as some have described it. Having realised as a young adult that all this teaching was utter nonsense I started to think about the rest of the Catholic teaching and realised it suffered from the same fundamental flaws. Logic says that as we are born nude and supposedly “in the image of God”, that nude bodies cannot be sinful of themselves but religion does not work by logic, it works by irrational emotions, guilt and fear of punishment.

So am I still wounded? Yes. Participating in the naturist world helps but the real benefit is showing to everyone as far as possible how liberating and wound-healing naturism can be and how wrong, harmful and wounding is the deliberate, systematic teaching of body shame. Sadly, Catholics and many other Christians are still at it.