Just because I don’t like it…

Doesn’t mean that it’s a bad design.

Since deciding to remove the pressure of having to come up with a weekly blog, there are times when I fear that I have nothing left to say.  These days, the inspiration to put pen to paper is more often than not triggered by a response to someone else’s naturist social media post or some naturist-related event that makes the headlines.

This morning, I read a post on Bluesky asking what people thought of a new, re-imagined naturism symbol that a contributor had come across on Reddit.

My initial reaction was that the symbol did not represent my naturism or what naturism means to me.

Having said that, and in the interests of fairness, I feel that I should paraphrase the thinking behind the logo before any further discussion.

Based on a stylised lowercase letter “n”, which represents naturism, nudism, naked, nude, etc., and incorporating a stylised four-point compass rose to reflect the worldwide connection to naturism, the positive space makes a pair of stylised butt cheeks something common to everyone irrespective of gender or identity.

So far, so good.  I can get behind all those ideas as a rational and reasoned approach to an inclusive symbol.

There is a difference, however, between the best intentions of a design and its execution.

My first reaction on viewing the logo was not that it represented naturism but that it was more sexualised than many naturists would be happy with.

That is not to say that it is a bad design.  I think it could be a great emblem for some to use to represent a lifestyle that perhaps includes nudity but has more of a sexual component to it.   

I can appreciate the logic behind the design, but it doesn’t change my initial thoughts. I think the message it sends is ambiguous, overly sexualised and open to misinterpretation.

My interpretation might be wrong, and I may be the only one who sees a sexualised logo.  Perhaps it is my mind that is corrupted, and everyone else simply sees a logo that represents naturism.

If you didn’t see anything sexual in the logo before reading my comments, I apologise if I have ruined it for you.

There is a constant discussion within the naturist community between those for whom naturism and social nudity is a largely non-sexual pastime and those for whom sex is an integral part of their nude activities.

My naturism falls into the non-sexual category.  That is not to say that I am against sex, quite the opposite.

I am a heterosexual male in a committed relationship with my female partner, and our sex life is something that we enjoy privately.  We can both separate simply being naked in the company of others from the need to engage in sexual behaviour whenever people are naked.

That is not to say that others who enjoy a more open sexual lifestyle are wrong, they aren’t.  Sex is something that should be enjoyed by everyone, in whatever way does it for them.  I consider myself sex-positive, but for me, my naturism is separate from my sex life.

There are some naturists and nudists who enjoy sexual activity with people outside their primary relationship, with or without their partner's involvement.  These connections are not just enjoyed by some naturists, a number of clothed people take pleasure in the same lifestyle.  Call it what it is: swinging, not naturism.

There are single or ambiguously attached people who think that naturism is about hooking up.  I wonder if they think signing up to a naturist website will present them with a smorgasbord of beautiful people from which to select an intimate partner.  I imagine their disappointment when the reality is that most nudists and naturists are just normal, average people and that the number of men on such sites far outnumber the number of women.

Those of us for whom naturism is non-sexual are often frustrated by the number of people who use naturism as a gateway to try and connect sexually.  It astounds me how many people, often men, are surprised that I don’t want to engage in intimate activities with them.  They seem unable to comprehend that because I prefer to spend time naked, I am not ready to jump at the chance to help them get sexually satisfied.

Given the number of people already confusing social nudity with sexual activity, I don’t feel that a symbol that looks like someone bending over, as seen from behind, conveys the philosophy of naturism as I understand it.

Apparently, the original Reddit post with the design has been removed, and perhaps it was just an interesting exercise in design.  I don’t think it is a bad design; I just don't think it represents naturism for many people who already have a symbol in use.

Perhaps it could be used by those wanting a more sexualised element to their naturism and help create a distinction between sexual and non-sexual naturism.

Maybe they will do non-sexual naturists a favour and stop hijacking the existing naturist symbol.

Symbols carry different meanings in different settings.
-Dan Brown, from The Da Vinci Code.

Thank you for reading.  Have a comfortable day.