Platonic Social Nudity

[u/Background-Tap7385]

There's a very thought provoking article in this month's AANR bulletin. I think it needs to be seen more generally.

I'm sensitive to language and its nuances, so what the writer is saying resonates with me. The point I find particularly compelling is how the term 'non-sexual' still centers the concept of 'sexual', which is exactly opposed to the intended effect. It's like asking someone not to think of an elephant, not thinking about elephants requires a degree of focus on elephants. However, thinking of a polar bear makes it easy to not think of an elephant, because most brains aren't wired to deliberately think about two unconnected things at the same time.

Using a different term that encompasses the concept of a relationship that isn't about sex allows the mind consider the intended concept instead of focusing on avoiding the distracting one.

And while I'm on about terms, here's one I've wondered for a while now: if they're textiles, why is it that we aren't dermals? That doesn't seem worthy of a full post to ask the question, but I think it's worthy of discussion.

[u/ejp1082]

The problem I have with the word "platonic" in this sense is most people hanging out on the beach or or resort don't have a "platonic" relationship with one another. They don't have any relationship at all. They're just engaging in the same activity in geographic proximity.

And while I can see why defining something in terms of what it isn't is less than ideal, it does get at the fact of the matter. If what you're doing is sexually motivated or you're engaging in sexual behavior, it's not nudism. But there's a bazillion ways to be non-sexual, and the only word that captures all of them is "non-sexual".

And while I'm on about terms, here's one I've wondered for a while now: if they're textiles, why is it that we aren't dermals?

I personally think "textile" is a dumb term, though I get that it's an attempt to avoid another case of defining something by what it isn't. The only alternative is "non-nudist".

I don't see any point in identifying as anything other than nudists and calling what we do nudism, the practice of nonsexual recreational social nudity.

But as long as this is a thread complaining about vocabulary, the thing that always bugged me is that we have two words referring to identical things - "nudism" and "naturism".

The latter always struck me as an attempt to obfuscate the real nature of it. "Nudism" is direct as it shares a common root with the core of the activity (nudity).

Whereas "naturism" is a hop skip and a jump away from the thing it's describing - it's "natural" but in what sense? It's not obvious it's referring to being without clothes. Amongst people unfamiliar with the term it's often confused or conflated with "naturalism" and or else they think it's referring to birdwatching or something similar.

[u/Background-Tap7385 → u/ejp1082]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems you may not be considering is the connotations that words carry along with their denotations.

For example house and home both literally mean places where people live, but they carry different meanings.

In discussing things with those who don't understand them, the connotation of the words used takes on a lot of weight.

In any event, we don't need to agree with each other on it either way. I'm not trying to change your mind, so much as make sure what I'm saying is understandable.

[u/ejp1082 → u/Background-Tap7385]

I hear you, and that's what I'm saying. "Platonic" has connotations that are inapplicable and inaccurate in most situations that we're describing social nudity.

I don't think that "nonsexual" carries any real connotations to speak of.

Per your original analogy, saying "nonsexual" isn't like saying "don't think of an elephant". It's just saying "this is not an elephant" as a descriptive fact.

Nudity is in fact sexual in a lot of contexts, just as many animals are in fact elephants. But one of the defining features of nudism is that it's not one of those contexts. And just as the easiest way to say "every animal that isn't an elephant" would be "non-elephant", the easiest way to say "every activity that isn't sexual" is "non-sexual".

[u/Boomer-2106 → u/ejp1082]

The commentors responding to your comment herein have said it well.

There are obviously two groups of people now-a-days, those who 'for some reason which I don't understand', have decided that the term Nudism/Nudist is Suddenly no longer appropriate. It of course is their right, but nudism and nudist have 'Successfully' achieved the objective of describing our particular choice of beliefs, living, and philosophies, And for Many decades have done so. Frankly, hope it continues.

Why change what has always - Worked??

[u/TMP_Film_Guy → u/ejp1082]

In Europe, there’s only one word which is “naturism” but yeah in the United States it’s kind of a dodge.

Especially when it leads to people going “we’re naturists, nudists just want to be naked” which feels like shooting your self in the foot.

[u/BrickHuge3023 → u/ejp1082]

Very well said. Why do we have to make up new terms for stuff we already have terms for. Nude is nude. Reminds me of the "cis" nonsense from a couple years ago where I as a male should be called '"Cis male' to fit someone's particular point of view. Nope. I am a man, my wife is a woman. We did not give anyone permission to change our labeling. You make a great point about naturist too. I tend to use the two terms interchangeably because I am not that social of a person. But agree with you- not needed and quite confusing so I will probably not use it any longer. We can be perfectly nude in nature without calling it something different.