Nudism and naturism
Nudism in the home, health aspects,
in public, nudism on TV, toplessness
Dr. Benjamin Spock, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and some other leading psychologists and
pediatricians believe that nudity in the family can be damaging to children. This is
certainly true if the parents feel awkward; the children will readily pick up feelings of
shame, guilt and embarrassment from their parents. On the other hand, other professionals
take the opposite view. The president of the Swiss School for Parent Education is Dr. Marilyn Fithian, a sex therapist and psychiatrist. In her book "Show
Me" she says:
"A child who has never been allowed to see his parents and brothers and sisters
naked sees nudity as something shocking. Children will only have a sense of their bodies
as something 'good' if they receive much tenderness and devotion from their parents from
birth. In order to enjoy sex fully, it is necessary to enjoy one's own body
Dr. Lee Salk has said:
"Being natural and matter-of-fact about nudity prevents your children from
developing an attitude of shame or disgust about the human body. If parents are very
secretive about their bodies and go to great lengths to prevent their children from ever
seeing a buttock or breast, children will wonder what is so unusual, and even alarming,
about human nudity."
Dr. Lloyd de Mause, Director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training,
"There is no evidence supporting claims that exposure to nudity produces a
higher number of psycho sexual problems in either children or adults who were raised in
such an environment."
The difference of opinion among mental health experts about the advantages and
disadvantages of naturism will probably continue for the foreseeable future. What is
needed are longitudinal studies which compare the sexual deviancy, social deviancy, sexual
adjustment, and general mental health of adults who were raised in naturist and textile
homes. We have been unable to locate such studies. If any readers know of any,
we would appreciate learning of them.
In late 2000, the local government in the Simi Valley, CA area passed
an ordinance that could forbid nudity in an individual's back yard, even
if the person is shielded from view by neighbors and the rest of the
In 1997, The US Health Service carried an article about sea
lice in Florida beaches. These lice are microscopic jellyfish which have become
trapped in swimsuits. While struggling to get free, they often sting the person. A severe rash
can result. They are the larval form of "Linuche unquiculata", popularly known
as a thimble jellyfish. 1
One Journal commented on the
don't know whether it is obedience to social mores or a commercial link to fashion
industry that has prevented the authors from suggesting an important preventive strategy
for seabather's eruption in an otherwise excellent article. In the interest of good public
health research and practice, we feel compelled to note that abandoning swimming garments
altogether, usually referred to as "nude bathing" or "skinny dipping"
might go a long way to reducing the occurrence of this disease."
The 1997 story was carried in a wide variety of local newspapers including Florida
Today (JAN-17), The Miami Herald (JAN-17), The Orlando Sentinel (JAN-17), and the
Large concentrations of lice appear from March to August each year on Florida's Atlantic Ocean
coast. One source estimated that 10,000 people were affected in 1992. 2 A sample of
1433 people who swam near the apparent center of the outbreaks found that one out of every
four were bitten. The solutions are obvious: swimming nude or staying out of the ocean.
||Nude sunbathing obviously exposes more body surface area to sunlight and insects. A
naturist needs to take care that the additional surfaces are well protected with sun
screen and insect repellent.
Nudity on Television:
In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has
been enforcing a relatively new obscenity and indecency regulation, 47 CFR
73.3999 which controls television content between 6 AM and 10 PM when
children are most liable to be watching. To be banned, material must meet both
objective and subjective standards:
"...material must describe or
depict sexual or excretory organs or activities. Once the Commission
determines that the material aired falls within that definition, we must
then evaluate whether the broadcast is patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium...The full context
in which the material appeared must be considered in determining whether
material is patently offensive." 3
On 2000-JAN-11 the FCC issued a ruling which dismissed a complaint by an individual, T.B.
Nort,h about a broadcast by WPBN and WTOM in Michigan on 1997-APR-30. He was
distressed at a scene in the movie Schildler's List which showed full
frontal nudity. This is a movie about the Nazi Holocaust. He stated in his
submission that it:
"cannot be disputed with any amount of
intelligence...[that] there is nothing in human existence, short of death,
severe injury, or legal obscenity that is more disturbing to the mind or
emotions that [sic] the uninvited sight of adult frontal nudity."
The FCC disagreed with his assertion. They also upheld an earlier
ruling by the Mass Media Bureau (MMB) that the material was
acceptable. The FCC described the MMB as ruling:
"that material which
may be patently offensive in one context may not be so if presented under
other circumstances. The staff concluded that although this airing of
Schindler's List did contain incidental frontal nudity, the material
broadcast depicted a historical view of World War II and wartime atrocities
which, viewed in that context, was not presented in a pandering, titillating
or vulgar manner or in any way that would be considered patently offensive
and, therefore, actionably indecent." 3
United States: The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally under the law. A case
might be made that any law which allows men to go topless while requiring women to cover
up is unconstitutional. However, to our knowledge, no such ruling by the Supreme Court has
ever been made.
In the United States, the right to go topless is thus currently determined by state or
local laws. Some of these specifically criminalize exposure of the female breast or nipple
or areola. Other statutes refer generally to exposure of genitals, "private
parts", "the body" etc., and may allow women to bare their breasts. One
source listed the following states as permitting topless clothing: Hawaii, Maine, Ohio, New York and Texas. 4 The accuracy of this list is unknown. However, the ultimate decision whether to cite or arrest is left
up to the police officer. He/she might decide that a generic bylaw or state law banning
disorderliness or "creating a disturbance" or "lewd and
lascivious behavior" might apply to a topless woman. There are no guarantees of
safety unless you are at a naturist facility or are on your own property and not visible
from any location beyond your property.
Canada: In 1991, a University of Guelph co-ed, Gwen Jacob, walked topless in the
streets of Guelph, ON, on a very hot summer day. She was arrested and convicted of
indecent exposure. But her conviction was overturned in 1995-DEC by the Ontario Appeal
Court. The court ruled that "There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what
the appellant did." That theoretically makes toplessness legal for women as it is
for men anywhere in the Province of Ontario.
But some municipalities do not appear ready to accept this ruling. On April Fool's Day,
1997 the city council of Cambridge, ON passed a bylaw requiring any female over the age of
5 to wear a top that "covers the female breasts". This bylaw appears to
criminalize the wearing of most bikinis, which usually only cover part of the breasts.
Fatima Pereira Henson, 34, complained: "We've got potholes in the streets that
need to be filled, and they're dabbling in an issue that's not in the municipal
jurisdiction." She decided that city council was discriminating against women. So
she went for a swim in the municipal pool without a top. Lifeguards asked her to put on a
top, but made what is probably a serious legal error: they did not ask the same thing of a man who
was also in the pool. She refused and was arrested for trespassing at the public facility.
Her lawyer recited a basic legal principle that one law or regulation cannot be used to
prohibit what another law allows, and the Appeals Court has already decided that women
cannot be prohibited from being topless in non-sexual situations in public.
In the summer of 1996, there were four "topless situations" in Toronto, ON. In
the true Canadian tradition of compromise, the police settled the incidents by asking the women
to wear a top, to leave or at least to wear a top next time.
A public opinion poll in 1997-JUN by the Angus Reid Group showed that 17% slightly
disapproved and 48% strongly objected to women going topless in public. Forty
five percent of men and 21%
of women said that it is all right. Thirty eight percent of those 18 to 34 years of age approved; 20% of
those 55 years or older did. (margin of error: 3.2%)
- An article "SEA LICE or Seabathers Eruption" is at: http://www.fau.edu/barton/sea-lice.html
- "Public Health Reports: Journal of the U.S. Public Health Service,"
Vol. 112, 1997-JAN/FEB, Page 59-62.
- "Memorandum opinion and order," Adopted 2000-JAN-11,
Federal Communications Commission.
"Women are legally allowed to be topless," Funny Junk, at: http://www.funnyjunk.com/
Copyright © 1996 to 2013 by Ontario Consultants on
Latest update: 2013-MAR-06
Author: B.A. Robinson
This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only
After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.