I posted a tweet [NSFW] on Twitter a few days ago, and it absolutely exploded. It's been a challenge just keeping up with the discussion it has generated. I've enjoyed it, to be sure, but it's kept me preoccupied for days. The tweet asked the simple question, can there be a sex-positive nudism? The response was largely positive, although certainly also represented was the sort of attitude my own tweet had been responding to: nudists who push too far in the direction of antagonizing sexuality in an effort to legitimize their lifestyle. It's always been hard for me, as I'm sure you can understand if you've followed my writing for any length of time, to limit my thoughts to the relatively short limitations of the Twitter format - even as they are double what they used to be (I also dislike how confusing it sometimes is trying to follow a thread of discussion on Twitter - it drives my organized mind nuts). I'm trying to learn to take advantage of the power of a pithy and distilled response (indeed, the original tweet in question was the distillation of a much longer stream of consciousness that I decided would be more effectively reduced to its central essence), but sometimes my mind just requires more space to make my point. So, since I can't post this there, I'm posting it here on my blog - a discussion of my concerns re: the issue at hand, specifically regarding nudism's place in the world, the troubled relationship between nudism and the swinger or hedonistic lifestyle, and the relative priorities of legitimizing nudism versus healing our society's sexual dysfunction.
---
If so-called "hedonists" are appropriating nudism as a strategy for legitimacy, that's a mirror image of nudists disavowing hedonists for the same reason. We have the upper hand in that exchange, because nudism really isn't hedonism, whereas hedonism isn't really nudism. But we should be reaching out to the hedonists to be their ally. As long as we are enemies, they will strike at us, coveting the potential for legitimacy that we have. If there is space for hedonism in the world, then they wouldn't need to drain our lifeforce, and then there could also be nudism in the world, without needing to exert so much effort into reassuring the public that we really aren't hedonists. I suspect that many nudists view nudism as more legitimate than hedonism, same as the rest of the population disavows the legitimacy of anything related to sex (especially "alternative" expressions thereof). But that's a flawed and inhumane perspective. It's simply not the case that hedonism must be ignored while nudism finds its footing, only for society to then turn to consider the legitimacy of hedonism. That'd be like saying racism must be eradicated before we can consider the issue of sexism.
We exist in a sex-negative world. Nudism can see itself fitting into that world so long as it can convince the world that it's not a sexual lifestyle. I support this strategy because it's a true portrayal of reality - nudism is not a sexual lifestyle. But I am not just a nudist, and I am certainly not a sex-negative nudist. As important to me as nudism (and nudism is very important to me) is the fact that I am sex-positive. I don't just want to live in a world where nudism is an option. I want to live in a world healed of its sexual dysfunction. And so I am cautious, in the effort to "legitimize" nudism by distancing itself from sex, not to disparage sex in the process. I absolutely do not object to the accurate portrayal of nudism as a non-sexual lifestyle. But I refuse to engage in any kind of sex-negativity in the process of "purifying" nudism, even if doing so stands to further legitimize nudism in a sex-negative society. Saying that nudism isn't sexual is accurate and truthful. But allying nudism with a sex-negative perspective is not, and that's where I draw the line.
