(Or Skinny-Dipping in the Stream of Consciousness)
I support nonsexual nudism, but I was just thinking, do we absolutely need to designate nudism as non-sexual? Or can we just delineate a non-sexual nudism versus a sexual nudism? Could nudism not simply be the practice of nudity beyond the bounds of what textile society deems normal? Obviously, a sexual nudist isn't going to constantly be having sex. And if they only EVER get undressed for sex, then that really isn't nudism. But if they like to walk around naked, and also occasionally have sex in public, is the walking around part not still nudism?
Is it a matter of motivation? That if they're walking around naked because they view it as erotic - sort of a form of foreplay - then it's exhibitionism and not nudism? But does it have to be 100% because of that exhibitionism? Or because of exhibitionism 100% of the time? Is it not possible for an exhibitionist to spend a lot of time naked, and discover through that means that being naked is enjoyable for reasons beyond the sexual? And thus become a nudist through exhibitionism? This is what I've always maintained.
But many nudists seem to be of the opinion that if there is even a single percent of your nudity tied to an exhibitionist motivation, then that invalidates the nudist component. But I don't agree. This view is informed by a sex-negative culture which stigmatizes sexuality. If sex weren't stigmatized, and viewed as an exceptional circumstance when it comes to allowing people to gather and recreate, then it wouldn't really matter whether some nudists sometimes engaged in public sex and exhibitionism, any more than it matters now if a nudist engages in an activity that doesn't carry any particular stigma, like playing a certain sport.
That's not to say that nudists necessarily SHOULD embrace public sex, but the idea that nudism and exhibitionism are intrinsically incompatible* (or that there can't be an alternative exhibitionistic nudism) stems from that sex-negative bias. You can still separate nudism from public sex acts - and still have good reason to do so - without drawing the further conclusion that nudists and exhibitionists are mutually exclusive, or that the existence of one inherently threatens the other.
*Frankly, I would have thought that people who like to be naked and people who like to be exposed would have been natural allies, but I guess it's more complicated than that.
---
What is the most basic requirement for being a nudist?
I would argue that nudism encompasses a certain attitude toward nudity. A rejection of the exposure taboo - that our bodies should remain hidden except in specific special circumstances. Although, you can be a nudist in the privacy of your own home, and still be self-conscious in front of others.
Most people in textile culture are rarely naked. They might get naked for sex (and while this is not a requirement, they will at least need to expose their genitals, which is the most guarded part of the body in textile culture). Other than that, they typically only get naked when changing clothes, bathing, or using the bathroom (and there, again, they are usually only partially undressed - the undressed portion critically being the genitals). And these things are typically done in private, or only in the presence of relations with special privileges. Occasionally, a textile might sleep naked or go skinny dipping, but these are usually rare or infrequent practices, and not the norm - the exception that proves the rule.
I think that if you are (1) nonchalant about being seen naked by others, since body shyness is hard-coded into textile culture, then that makes you a nudist. But I also think that if (2) you are private with your nudity, but engage with it more commonly than a typical textile - such as lounging about the house in the nude, even if only when you are alone, or with special company - then that can also make you a nudist. In either case, I think it comes down to comfort. Whether it's comfort in front of others, or just comfort in your own skin, being comfortable instead of neurotic and uptight about nudity is enough for me to consider you a nudist.
Now, this can occur in a sexual context - some people are highly body-conscious even while having sex. Although, I hesitate to label a person a nudist if they are ONLY ever comfortable with nudity during sex (or always interpret nudity as it relates to sex). As long as that nudity extends beyond the sexual environment, even if you are lounging around the house with your significant other (at a point when most textiles would have covered up), that still constitutes nudism to me.
Now, if your comfort with nudity around others is purely the result of an exhibitionist motivation, then I would hesitate to call that nudism, as well. However, having that exhibitionist interest doesn't preclude you from being a nudist. If you only ever expose yourself to others in the course of your sexual practices (whether with consenting others - as I would hope the case would be - or not), then that's not really nudism. But if you still like to go nude when you're not doing it for sexual reasons, then you are a nudist, even if you do think getting naked in front of others can be erotic.
