Any naturist who’s at all aware of naturist opportunities in other countries besides their own has certainly noticed that there are large differences in social acceptance of naturism and nudity from one country to the next. This is true even when consideration is restricted to countries with modern economies, democratic political systems, and tolerance for social diversity. This is also true between different regions of such countries. For example, between states in the U. S.
There are a number of variables that could help understand the reasons for such divergences. These include such things as social attitudes that are favorable to tolerance and diversity, benign climates that allow for outdoor naturist activities, relative lack of religious strictures against body exposure, and sometimes just flukes of history that enabled naturists to achieve a critical mass of acceptance within the country.
And then there are economic factors that allow private businesses to profitably offer venues and services for naturists. Relative population density may be a factor. Consider two countries or regions that are similar in terms of the percentage of population interested in naturism and social nudity. If one country is more densely populated than the other, it should be easier to operate naturist businesses and resorts profitably, because there will be lower costs of travel to such businesses. It’s expensive and time-consuming to travel relatively large distances to enjoy naturism on a regular basis. So people who live in more densely populated areas are more likely to have a “local” business that caters to naturists – and are therefore more likely to patronize the business. I’ve done some simple checking to find out whether that’s a plausible hypothesis.
I should mention that there’s another possible factor that relates population density to naturist activity. Sociological research shows that the average adult has only, perhaps, 5 or so close friends (not counting family) – people you’d go well out of your way to help if they need significant assistance. Beyond the close friends, there are others, such as people one works with on the job, neighbors, and people who are active in the same social organizations (sports leagues, gardening clubs, political groups, etc.) Many of these will also be considered as friends, who might visit each other’s homes, go out together for dinner, etc. This might be another 20 to 30 people (or more). Then even beyond that, there will be people with whom one interacts less frequently – such as people who work at the same place (but maybe in a different building), or use the same public facilities (gyms, for example), or are good friends with closer friends that one has. It’s known that the number of people one might recognize and interact with socially and amicably on occasion is generally at most 100 or 150.
Now, suppose that in a given population only something like 1% or 2% might be fairly active naturists or at least have favorable attitudes towards social nudity. Then there’s less than a 50-50 chance of having a reasonably good friend who’s an active or potential naturist. And even if one of those people is in the naturist category, they may not have disclosed that to you (unless you are open about being a naturist yourself). But in the larger number of others you may be casually acquainted with, the odds are that at least one is in the naturist category. The number of people in this third group that one is likely to interact with will probably be larger the more densely populated the area is in which one lives. So there’s a greater probability that one of these people will be naturist-friendly. You might, for example, learn about your shared interest in naturism with them, perhaps in a casual encounter in a gym’s locker room where both of you have all-over tans and don’t try to hide your nudity. Or if there’s a clothing-optional beach nearby, you might recognize one of these folks enjoying nudity there too. Once you both discover this common interest, you might well want to become closer friends and participate together in naturist activities. This is all a more speculative possibility, and I’ll probably write more about it some other time.
Returning to the main theme here, the idea is to look for information on the number of clubs and businesses in different locations that welcome use by naturists. That doesn’t include only traditional naturist resorts and campgrounds. Other things to consider include non-landed (“travel”) clubs, naturist-friendly guest houses and B&Bs, as well as saunas, spas, and the like that are open to the public and allow naked use. The general idea is to identify places that welcome naturists and aren’t strictly private, and also groups that are organized to visit such places.
Beaches, rivers, hot springs, and the like on public land that can be used by naturists, even though they’re not businesses, should also be easier to visit in more densely populated regions. Such places tend not to be well-known, since people who use them are often reluctant to have the locations publicized. In relatively densely populated areas there will also be more people who are opposed to naturism in “public” spaces. So I won’t try to include such places. However, even without considering places like beaches that are suitable for naturism, it’s not easy to discover the real number of good naturist venues.
Although the places and groups of interest may be eager to be patronized by people who enjoy non-sexual social nudity, getting known by this target audience isn’t easily done for places and groups that are small or relatively new. But obviously the naturist community at large needs this information. No doubt many people who might be interested in social nudity haven’t been able to become involved, for lack of information on where they can go. So keep in mind that the available numbers for naturist businesses are probably underestimates – but by how much is very difficult to figure.
What I’ve done for a start is to consider a small number of U. S. states and the country of England – for which there are some statistics, however incomplete, on the number of things in the category of interest. I’ve combined that information with the facts about size and population numbers of the selected area and put together a small spreadsheet.
Here it is:
The only data there that’s not fairly certain is the number of clubs in a given region. It’s quite possible the numbers are low, maybe even by a factor of 2. There are legitimate questions about how small a particular place is or how much it’s actually used by naturists. The size of even the larger places also matters. Is the number of visitors or active members 100 a month or 1000? However, in spite of all the uncertainties, I think this data provides some interesting food for thought.
Here’s an explanation of the different columns. Population is given in millions of people. Area, and other quantities that depend on it, is in terms of square miles. So the population density is people per square mile. (England is notably more densely populated than U. S. states.) The number of clubs is based on figures from the relevant naturist organizations: British Naturism in England, and AANR in the U. S. I’ll say more about the numbers later. The population per club is the total number of people in a region divided by the number of clubs. Active naturists may be only 1% of that number, or much less, but there’s no way to tell from existing data. Clubs per person (Column G) is just the reciprocal of the numbers in Column F (but scaled by a factor of one million).
Column H is the total area of a region divided by the number of clubs. It may be thought of as the “service area” of a particular club – the size of territory from which a club may draw members, assuming no overlap. That would be the case if people went only to the nearest club. Of course, that’s not so for many reasons. But the value of this number will be evident in a moment. Column I gives the number of people in a “service area”. It uses the population density of the whole region (Column D) to estimate how many people might use a club – if all were naturists and didn’t go to any other club in the region. This gives some idea of how important the population density of a region is to how many people might use a club (if they were naturists). In many cases an assumption of no overlap isn’t valid. A naturist might well participate in several different clubs. But the number is still interesting to see.
Column J is especially interesting. The area of a circle with radius R is given by the formula A = π×R2. Using the value of A from Column H (the “service area”) and solving the equation for R gives the value in Column J. This is, in some sense, the average distance a naturist would need to travel to visit the nearest club. In practice, that might not be very close to accurate, if the population isn’t evenly distributed in the region. For instance, most of the population of a region may be in one small part (one or more urban areas), while the clubs may be elsewhere. This appears to be the case, for instance, in Oregon, which has the highest number of clubs per regional population in the table.
However, other regions where naturism is popular, such as England and Florida, also have relatively high numbers of clubs relative to their population. It makes sense that more people will go to naturist clubs – and more often – if they don’t have to travel “too far”. So short travel times – and more opportunities for enjoying social nudity – may be a side effect of population density. On the other hand, if people in a given region are more likely to be naturists, more clubs may be established. More people in an area means more naturists in the area – and then more clubs in the area. So obvious, so simple. But sometimes the simplest explanations have much to recommend them.
Still, the direction of causality isn’t clear. Even when two regions have similar population densities, they may have large differences in the availability of naturist opportunities. Or two regions may be comparable in terms of naturist places, in spite of different population densities. There must be other factors that are important.
Climate is certainly one of those factors. For example, Florida has considerably less population density than England, but it has a very favorable climate for naturism most of the year, so the existence of many clubs isn’t surprising. The “travel radius” there isn’t much larger than in England, and Florida has an even higher ratio of clubs to population, probably because of climate. Although England doesn’t have nearly so benign a climate as Florida, the higher population density may make up for that. Also, it’s possible that more clubs in England are able to use indoor pools, saunas, etc. – all year.
Arizona also has a benign climate, especially in the southern part of the state where most of the population resides. So that may help explain its value in Column G, in spite of the low population density overall. But what’s the explanation for Oregon having the highest number of clubs relative to population in this table? Most of Oregon is rural, away from Portland on the northern border. However, much of the northern part of Oregon is scenic and forested, and it has a moderate climate during the summer. So the distance from Portland isn’t too far, and the area is well suited for clubs providing a “back to nature” experience. And indeed, according to AANR, most of the clubs are in the northern half of the state, so the effective population density is higher than indicated in column D. In fact, 4 of the 8 AANR clubs are close to Portland.
What, then, what can be concluded from this small data sample? One thing’s fairly clear. Although population density isn’t the only factor, it’s still important, so that travel time for enjoying social nudity is low. Even in California, where the number of clubs relative to population is surprisingly small, most of the clubs are located in the outskirts of high population density areas. So travel time within the area isn’t too high. There’s just a lot of wide open space between those areas. Texas has a similar situation.
Beyond that, it’s harder to draw conclusions. Good climate is one factor. (New York isn’t strong in that respect.) Also, it probably helps if a region has good beaches, at least a few of which where clothing is optional. England appears to have that, based on information provided by British Naturism. Florida does, too, of course. Although California has a very long coastline, the beaches, especially in the northern part of the state, are often cold and foggy in the summer. And most beaches in the south are too close to large populations to be clothing-optional.
It would be great if there were better information on the types of clubs and facilities available for clothing-optional use, especially in the U. S. For instance, AANR lists many other places besides “official” clubs”, such as guest houses and B&Bs, but apparently not day-use spas and saunas. TNS, the smaller U. S. national naturist organization, has its “approved” list of “participating groups, parks, and resorts”. It doesn’t entirely overlap with AANR’s list, but I haven’t yet checked the differences.
This is a subject that still needs much more investigation.
Good market research is expensive or extremely labor intensive or both.
I notice that California which has a perfect climate for naturism and liberal attitude toward nudity in the past has a simply horrid clubs to population ratio and a high average distance to a club. I know from my own experience that many clubs have closed and almost all the nude beaches we once used are gone.
The Bay to Breakers used to have 4-500 nudes participate. Now there are less than a hundred.
Portland had 10,000 participants in their Naked Bike Ride last year. LA had maybe 300.
There is a declining interest in social nudity in CA, in both club and free-range nudies. It is a shame because the legal hurdles here are fairly small. If a lifestyle is fading in an ideal setting for it to flourish, it would be useful to find out why.
Personally, I think it is because we spend our time preaching to the choir and not promoting it to the masses. I remember when CSU Northridge had a campus nudist group with a hundred members. Today even the Young Naturists’ meetup out here has disbanded.
The “mass” we need to be promoting it to are young adults – because nudism as a whole is aging. OTOH, retirees are where what little promotion is directed at because that’s where the money is. Look at the costs. Nearest landed club takes me 4 hours round trip and $40 in gas plus whatever the gate fees are. Because of that, I pass on most events and I suspect it would be too great an obstacle to a newbie to even start. The local base may have deteriorated to the point where we can no longer invest enough to grow.
I have an idea of what nudies need to do to turn this around but I don’t see a lot of local drive to do so. We have our little enclaves and figure that is good enough.
One effort I applaud is Alen Levin’s occasional nude theater nights at the Two Roads Theater in Studio City. The cast is nude, the audience is nude, a fair number of young people and a fair number of women. He gets entry-level professionals as hosts, lots of audience participation, and a great time is had by all. Most important. it is a new idea and pulls in people who aren’t part of the “club” crowd. Growth requires newbies.
Thing is we need many efforts like this and at best we get one every couple months in one location.
Fred,
My apologies for not approving your message for so long. I’ve been dealing with various problems. However, I agree mostly 100% with what you’ve said.
My memories go back to the 70s on the Stanford campus, when many students – sometimes a majority – used the campus lake nude. Honest. And to the 1980s when the large parking lot above San Gregorio Beach (the nude part) was packed on sunny days. But by the 90s almost all of that was history. Can’t recall my first visit to Black’s Beach. Probably in the 80s sometime. There were nudes, but nothing like the crowds I’d read about that used to be there.
You observe, “There is a declining interest in social nudity in CA, in both club and free-range nudies. It is a shame because the legal hurdles here are fairly small. If a lifestyle is fading in an ideal setting for it to flourish, it would be useful to find out why.”
Understanding why is the critical question. There are plenty of suggested answers. Society, especially among the young, has become more suspicious of the kind of open nudity natural to nudists and naturists. Women are afraid to get involved. Everyone has “body-image” issues. There’s the fear of having erections. Males who’re interested only in sexual thrills spoil everything. There’s an abstract fear of “pedophiles”. Club policies are too restrictive. The two major U. S. naturist organizations are weak, feeble, and ineffective. Naturists aren’t organized to use the Internet and Web effectively. Etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
So, what happened? While all of those problems take their toll, I think the main problem is a lot simpler. Basically, it’s that those of us from those early times simply failed to work hard enough, doing the right things, to carry the ball forward. We depended too much on our existing organizations (which were always kind of hinky and never especially robust), or on “marketing”, or simply on “other people” to do the dirty work. Those of us from that era simply did way too little – clearly less than sufficient – to recruit others who were younger. Without new blood, all you have is attrition. Seems like it’s almost too late now? Hopefully, it’s not.
You observe: “Personally, I think it [naturism not flourishing] is because we spend our time preaching to the choir and not promoting it to the masses”.
That’s quite correct as far as it goes. The choir is exhausted anyhow. But it will take some VERY smart planning to figure out the best ways to “preach” to the masses. In my opinion, trying to use mass media like traditional news media or new options like Facebook are not going to do the job, at least not by themselves. There’s just too much noise and absolute misinformation about nudity out there now. It’s like spitting into a hurricane. Writing posts on Facebook or personal blogs feels satisfying – but the posts are totally invisible to nearly everyone (even to most of the “choir”).
The only approach I can see working is a direct person-to-person approach. Most of us have children, nieces, nephews, in-laws, and assorted other relatives. Same is true for people we consider reasonably good friends. It’s basically our responsibility to turn them on to naturism. We’ve got to walk this lonesome valley. Ain’t nobody else gonna do it for us.
Of course, most of us are afraid of “coming out” as naturists to many or most of our friends and relatives. But that’s a personal matter we need to come to terms with. We just need to shoulder the risk. The risk is inversely proportional to our sense of how persuasive we can be. Putting personal effort in other directions seems like just a waste of time (at least for most people). We might as well just spare the effort and sit under a tree and read.
Is there a way this could work? Actually, I think it could. But it has to be done deliberately and done right. Among many other things, one has to be prepared with plausible arguments for why others’ fears of nudity are overblown. And one has to be prepared to assist anyone who shows interest in taking the initial steps to naturism. Quite a lot needs to be written on the best ways to do such things. But it all starts with the individual, what works for him or her. For instance, if Deep Creek is your thing, or nude hiking, or whatever, try never doing it alone. Bring someone new along whenever possible.
Thanks for your insightful comments, Fred! I might posit that one of the main reasons naturism has declined in California and, indeed, many areas of the United States, is not necessarily a decline in interest. The political climate in certain areas of the country has resulted in a lack of interest in the lifestyle. Ignoring the landed clubs and, by extension, their members is resulting in declines of membership. If the government continues to pretend nudism is not an interest in this country, participation will become harder and harder. At least, in my case, I can practice naturism at home. Living in a household of non-nudists, it can be challenging, but I cannot not shed my clothes at every opportunity. Thanks for your post!!!
Society is a very complex organism. Dozens of trends, large and small, affect outcomes. I wouldn’t deny that political climate is one factor. However, it’s worth noting that the political and social tolerance of once disfavored minorities (e. g. LGBTQ) has risen somewhat over the past few decades. Then, why not for naturists? I think that economics is a big factor. Since the 1970s (roughly) income inequality has risen dramatically. Lower and middle class people today have seen their incomes hardly keep up with inflation, if not actually decline. Younger people these days have much less income available for leisure activities, like naturism. Expenses of travel and grounds fees at naturists place may be unaffordable. The result is not only fewer visits to such places, but also the fact that most of the visitors are on the older side (if they’ve been able to save enough money over their lifetimes).
You are quite right in pointing out that the LBGTQ community has found political favor as of late. In fact, the meteoric rise of the group began over fifty years ago with the Stonewall Riots in 1969. Much can be said about the recognition resulting in such violence. Despite the limited exposure I have had in the naturist world, it is apparent to me that political recognition and societal acceptance is based more on activism rather than a “live and let live” (naturist) philosophy. And, unfortunately, with today’s Covid environment, many of us must be content to practice naturism in the comfort of our own homes.
Agree 100%. The problem is partly that naturists are concerned (sometimes rightly) about repercussions if they were to “come out” publicly as naturists. But then, that was true (and sometimes still is) for LBGTQ people.
Another problem is that many people agree that naturists have a “right” to practice their beliefs – but only as long as they do it out of public view. The idea of people going naked in public places really bothers most non-naturists, I think. In part, there’s some basis for that concern, since there are people (exhibitionists) who want to go naked in public for the shock value. They, of course, aren’t real naturists.
I would certainly like to see more naturists become “activists” for the cause. There’s a whole lot they could do simply by advocating publicly (but wearing clothes) for naturism in their communities. For instance, they could hold informational meetings in places like public libraries to explain what naturism is. But even ideas like that are on hold because of the Covid problem.