A clothing-optional resort, Paradise Lakes in Land O’Lakes, is sponsoring a “g-string pageant.” It is advertising its event with the following ad:
In response, the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) has suspended the resort’s membership. They claim that the contest “sexualized the nudist experience.” Instead, the AANR promotes “social, family nude recreation” (story here, via).
What a fantastic example of the different ways in which we can interpret nudity.
See also this post and the thoughtful commentary it inspired.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 10
Deaf Brown Trash — September 13, 2009
I agree with their decision. in Europe, nudity is seen as natural and non-sexual. in the United States, nudity is equivalent with Playboy and thongs.
Nataly — September 13, 2009
I also agree with them. To me, it goes against the entire purpose of nudism, which is to naturalize nudity, because clothes and shaming the body are unnatural (the former isn't bad, unnatural!=bad, of course). Having an event that is about "gorgeous" women kind of devalues the point, it puts a judgment where one shouldn't be. If the purpose is to be comfortable in one's naked body, having a competition to see whose naked body is best is only harmful.
Also, the photoshopping of that picture is godawful.
Jenn — September 13, 2009
I totally agree with the AANR's decision. Nudists typically have a pretty strong policy that nudity is not supposed to be sexualized, otherwise nude family events would be ripe grounds for abuse. A g-string pageant is what I expect from Playboy or one of the more sexual casinos in Vegas.
Notice too how the ad features a very narrow version of nudity. It isn't just any person without their clothes on, it's conventionally attractive (white, cis, blond, thin) woman posed in a sexually provocative way with her hair done, lots of makeup, and sexualized shoes. She's draped over a motorcycle, backwards. This pose is obviously contrived. If she was using the motorcycle, she would be sitting on it straight, of course.
Nudists already have a negative reputation as child abusers and amateur pornographers. The AANR would be stupid to allow this to tarnish their reputation, so their decision is obvious.
md — September 13, 2009
Isn't it odd that the people who were going to be sexualized/objectified in this example were going to be wearing more clothes than the ones who were gawking at them? The way I read this, the contestants were going to be wearing g-strings, while the spectators would be completely nude?
It's not just being nude that is sexual. Women are sexy by wearing uncomfortable panties and high heel shoes - not by simply being naked.
Andrew — September 13, 2009
I also totally agree with the AANR's decision, but for a different reason. For people who genuinely love nude recreation, it is supposed to be the exact opposite of a beauty competition. It's about enjoying the body in its natural state, rather than submitting to humiliating rituals based on unattainable ideals.
However, I think the AANR is way to neurotic about the whole sexuality thing. In their desperation to achieve acceptance in a sexually puritanical climate, they insist on acting as though sexuality is not a "natural" part of the human body experience at all, which I find a bit weird.
Here in Berlin, where nude recreation is considered very normal, the presence of mild sexuality often peacefully coincides with family nudism. Parents at nudist parks and beaches do not panic at the exposure of an incidentally erect penis near children; heavily affectionate couples or groups are mostly ignored, respectful flirtation is tolerated, and openly gay people - always a significant portion of the crowd - mingle freely with everyone else. Also, nudist areas are always in plain sight of clothed areas, and in one case even a major city street. Actual intercourse or aggresive behaviour would be considered extremely inappropriate, but this norm manages to enforce itself without any intervention. It probably helps that there are dozens of fully legal venues that facilitate public sex for adults seeking a less family-oriented experience.
But of course, we don't shed our prejudices when we disrobe, and a nudist subculture ("free body culture," Germans call it) is only as open-minded as the greater culture it emerges in. Maybe if America could put down the porn for awhile and work through its old-school sex issues, the nude lobby could relax too.
Craig — September 14, 2009
One of the reasons Germany is my favorite place on Earth to visit is that people there are civilized about nudity: we all get together, male and female, and hit the sauna or the beach as God made us. And if you want to catch some sun in a city park and avoid tan lines, that's your own business. Nudity just isn't such a big deal--with the partial exception that, in many saunas, you are _forbidden_ to wear clothes. We all have to operate from a position of equality.
Of course, they're far more relaxed about sexuality, too. Perhaps the two have to go together. I never seek out nudist experiences in this country, because this kind of nonsense seems to keep coming up.
Chelsea — September 14, 2009
Interesting, before I got to the part about AANR in the post, I thought, "Aren't nudists all about non-sexualizing nudity?" I'm glad AANR chastised them. There are enough outlets for sexualized, mysoginistic versions of nudity; let's preserve the few that aren't.