Nude or naked?

Some of you may know that I write books. Writing books and stories means you have to consider the meaning of words carefully.

Considering the words ‘nude’ and ‘naked’.

They both refer to the state of being undressed, uncovered, clothes-free, yes. Still, to me they have a different charge as it were. Wikipedia’s take on these point to the same thing. Nudity. To me there is however an underlying difference.

What nude is to me.


To me this is nude. You may argue that I’m naked in this picture so let me explain. When I am nude, I’m undressed, I appreciate it to the max and I am ‘in my power’. I am undressed by my own choice and proud of my state of being. When I took this picture it wasn’t warm. There was fog all around. Still I felt wonderful there, in nature, one with the elements of the moment. That is when you are in your centre of power.

What is naked to me.


Here is an example of someone I think is naked. It’s the ‘oops’ moment, the shyness, the not wanting to be seen like this.

It is when someone feels exposed and vulnerable.

Look at it this way: when you are nude and you walk around in the rain when it’s not cold, that’s all fine. You’ll get wet but you won’t shiver, you don’t feel bad.

When that same rain comes over you and it starts getting cold, you’ll feel naked. Exposed and vulnerable because this is not pleasant at all.

Note that this is just one example.

Naked does not always mean you’re weak.

Absolutely not, unless you make yourself weak. Having the courage to make yourself vulnerable is not a sign of weakness. It’s a sign of a different kind of strength. The world live in is a hard place where being weak is frowned upon. You have to be strong, in armour, fast and in control. Daring to be naked means you dare to be yourself, to be a real person who doesn’t want to be strong all the time. Trying to be strong all the time will wear you out on an emotional level or even detach you from your emotions. You become a machine, a robot.

Naturists and nudists, as far as I have met and talked with them, have the deliberate ability to go beyond that trap. They bare themselves. They make themselves naked as well as nude. They want to be vulnerable. Go into the mountains where you encounter nothing but sharp rocks and take off your clothes there.

Me on the rocks in Wales

See? You are vulnerable. This doesn’t mean you’re weak. This just means you acknowledge you’re not made of iron and you understand how thin your skin is, especially when you scrape against that rock.

The vulnerability is where you put it.

As you see, there are more ways to feel vulnerable. Good ways and bad ways. Getting caught in something you shouldn’t do makes you vulnerable, even when you’re completely dressed. The power of allowing yourself to be vulnerable, naked, is something different. You bring that upon yourself. You say to the world, “Yes, this is me as I am. Naked, unprotected.” That kind of vulnerability should gather respect. It does from me.


It’s entirely different from the popular TV series ‘Naked and Afraid’ where people put themselves in danger willingly.

I certainly respect the courage of the people who do this, but I don’t respect their nakedness as the kind I described earlier.

Be nude, dear friend. And dare to be naked. It makes you more complete as a human.


(This post appeared originally on ClothesLifeFree. I thought it important enough to share it here.)

A lesson on nudists. For non-nudists.

Some people believe that there are two types of nudist resorts: 1) All out orgies everywhere, or 2) No touching whatsoever or you get kicked out.

In reality, most nudist resorts are somewhere in the middle.  Most resorts allow, and expect, that couples will show appropriate affection for one another. A small kiss, holding hands, or hugs are not a problem. Going beyond simple displays of affection into the land of sexual displays are prohibited. That’s not what nudism is about, and most people don’t want to see couples making out in public. Activities that cross the line from affection to sexual will be addressed by management, and if the activity continues, would lead to expulsion from the resort.

While nudists agree that nudism is not about sex, we also understand that couples have non-sexual affection for one another that shouldn’t be left at the front gate.

(Original found on Tumblr, posted by, and too good not to share here.)

Landscape Photos Created with the Human Body «TwistedSifter

Born in 1963 in Liverpool, England, Carl Warner attended the Maidstone College of Art originally for illustration, but soon discovered his true passion was photography. He then transferred to the London College of Printing to focus on photography, film and television.

Carl started out in landscape and still photography, eventually working many years in the advertising industry. Seeking new inspiration and direction, he happened upon a market with Portobello mushrooms that reminded him of trees from an alien world. This would become his first foodscape and the start of a new and exciting direction in his career.

Warner’s foodscapes have garnered international media attention and led to books, interviews and merchandising. The success has allowed Warner to pursue artistic and personal projects like the bodyscape series below.

Rather than food, Warner uses the human form to create fantasy landscapes. Chests, knees, shins and backs form the rolling hills and rocky landscapes in this intriguing series.

1. Shin-Knee Valley

Shin-Knee-ValleyVia Landscape Photos Created with the Human Body «TwistedSifter. Hit the link if you want to see more amazing body art.

The tyranny of the intolerant – Dallas Nudist Culture

It isn’t naturists and nudists who are weird and anti-social. It is actually members of clothed society who cling to archaic social norms regarding morality and modesty who could most benefit from some psychological counseling to rid themselves of their deep-seated ambivalence about something as normal and natural as the naked human body.

Article quoted as is from The tyranny of the intolerant – Dallas Nudist Culture |

In May 2013, WVTM Channel 13 in Birmingham, Alabama, published an article on the news channel’s website, “13 INVESTIGATES: Alabama’s Nude Ranches.” The piece primarily focused on the establishment of a new nudist resort in Blount County, Alabama, by Cindi and Lee Beasley. The new resort had proven controversial and caused a good deal of consternation on the part of the Beasley’s neighbors.

The Beasleys constructed a fence on the boundaries of their property and another around the pool area. They maintained that all nudity was confined to areas screened from public view by the fences but some neighbors maintained that the fences were insufficient and that naked people on the property of the resort were routinely seen from the public road.

Most critical of the resort cited concerns about children seeing nude adults. But based on the interviews conducted with neighbors by Channel 13, at the heart of the controversy was simply the fact that many neighbors simply opposed the idea of having a nudist resort in their community. That is very evident from a few of the online comments appended to the article.

One person identifying as a neighbor wrote, “I am also a neighbor and was friends with the Beasleys. They were great neighbors but this is disrespect when they knew no one wanted this. It’s time for us to speak out. Their property isn’t some tucked away resort. It’s only 3 acres surrounded by children. These parents do not want their children exposed to such immoral behavior. I could care less if they were naked on a secluded spot. That just isn’t the case here. I go to church with those sweet kids and to know they have to go through other children bothering them about this hurts my heart. You want to be naked go ahead. Go somewhere private and don’t push your lifestyle on us.”

Another commenter wrote, “This county & world has enough problems without having people with little to no morals parading around showing our children that as long as you are behind a fence you can be naked.”

This example from Alabama illustrates a couple of things. The good citizens of Blount County, Alabama, who view simple nudity as immoral and indecent on the basis of their conservative moral views charge the Beasleys with “pushing their lifestyle on them” and object. Clearly they don’t see a problem with the fact that they are at the same time pushing their beliefs on the Beasleys and everyone else by demanding that everyone should be subject to their prudish, old-fashioned moral conventions.

The other thing this situation demonstrates is that opponents of nudism and naturism aren’t ever going to be satisfied with stamping out just public clothing optional areas. They also quite clearly feel entitled to try and stop people from practicing nudity on their own property even when reasonable precautions are taken to keep nudity out of the public view.

As alluded to many times, this country is shifting towards greater moral conservatism. The referenced story from Alabama is one example of that. But consider another example mentioned in the article. In 2000 the Naturist Education Foundation commissioned a survey that found that 80-percent of the adults polled thought nude sunbathing should be allowed in designated areas. In a similar poll commissioned by NEF In 2006, that number dropped to 75-percent.

In 2009 another similar poll was commissioned by NEF where adult residents of California were polled and only 70-percent of those polled agreed that areas should be set aside for people who enjoy nude sunbathing and swimming. In addition only 68-percent agreed that people have the right to be nude in their homes or on their property, even if they may occasionally be visible to others.

Reasonable people can concede that people exposed to nudity without their consent might be distressed or offended due to their own prejudices with regard to simple nudity. The questions such unenlightened individuals should ask themselves is why viewing nudity provokes such shock and disgust and whether those are really healthy responses.

There are three fundamental reasons why most people feel uncomfortable when confronted by unexpected nudity, says Brian Ferris, a psychologist from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

  • “It is the fault of our parents. When we were children, our parents discouraged us from showing our genitals at a certain point, and made us uncomfortable with running around naked. That’s parental teaching and we never quite overcome it.”
  • “Nudity causes conflicted feelings. At one level we want to accept it, and at another level we want to condemn it. When we have conflicting feelings inside us that causes stress that leads to anxiety.”
  • “Nudity forces us to make the connection between nudity and sex. Young children will not feel the least bit self-conscious at a nude beach or a nudist colony. But then when they hit their teenage years, suddenly it becomes very weird. At that point the nude other person can potentially provoke feelings. And we become anxious because we’re pushing down our feelings. What makes us anxious is not the feeling of attraction but trying to get rid of the feelings. It has little to do with morality.”

It isn’t naturists and nudists who are weird and anti-social. It is actually members of clothed society who cling to archaic social norms regarding morality and modesty who could most benefit from some psychological counseling to rid themselves of their deep-seated ambivalence about something as normal and natural as the naked human body.

Those who enjoy and practice clothes free living and nude recreation don’t try to push their lifestyle on anyone. There are a number of religious sects that go uninvited to people’s doors and attempt to push their philosophies on others but nudists don’t do that.

Aren’t there a few more pressing matters to occupy the minds and energies of people who spend so much time worrying about the fact that some people enjoy relaxing without clothes on? Pervasive violence and intolerance often cloaked in politically correctness to make it appear palatable are a couple that come to mind.

There is a word for those who self-righteously condemn nudists and naturists as immoral. The term is intolerant. Intolerance is an unwillingness to accept view, beliefs and behavior that differ from one’s own. The tyranny of intolerance is really what’s immoral.

De tirannie van de intoleranten

Dit is oorspronkelijk een artikel genaamd The tyranny of the intolerant – Dallas Nudist Culture, als gevonden op Eventuele vertaalfouten zijn aan mij te wijten.

Het zijn niet de naturisten en nudisten die vreemd en asociaal zijn. Eigenlijk zijn het de leden van de geklede gemeenschap die vasthouden aan hun archaïsche sociale normen betreffende moraliteit en schaamte die het meeste voordeel zouden kunnen halen uit psychologische begeleiding om zich vrij te maken van hun diepgewortelde tweeslachtigheid over iets normaals en natuurlijks als het naakte menselijk lichaam.

In mei 2013 zette WVTM Channel 13 in Birmingham, Alabama, een artikel op de website van het nieuwskanaal: “13 INVESTIGATES: Alabama’s Nude Ranches.”(Artikel in het engels.) Het stuk focust hoofdzakelijk op het stichten van een nieuw nudistengebied in Blount County, Alabama, door Cindi and Lee Beasley.Het nieuwe park bleek controversieel en was de reden voor heel wat consternatie bij de buren van de Beasley’s.

De Beasleyshadden een hek om hun grondgebied gezet en een tweede om het zwembad. Ze hielden vol dat alle naaktheid onzichtbaar was vanaf de publieke weg maar sommige buren zeiden dat de hekken niet genoeg waren en dat ze vaak naakte mensen zagen op het park, ook vanaf de weg.

De meesten die problemen aandroegen zeiden dat kinderen naakte volwassenen konden zien. Maar gebaseerd op interviews die Channel 13 met de buren had bleek het probleem simpelweg te zijn dat veel buren gewoon tegen een nudistenparkje in hun buurt waren. Dat werd gestaafd door de velen commentaren die op het online artikel werden geplaatst.

Een persoon die zich een buurman noemde schreef: “Ik was ook een buurman en was bevriend met de Beasley’s. Ze waren prima buren maar dit is respectloos terwijl ze wisten dat niemand dit wilde. Het is tijd dat we ons uitspreken. Hun gebied is niet ergens ver weggestopt. Het is maar 3 acres (1,2 hectare) en er lopen kinderen omheen. De ouders willen niet dat hun kinderen worden blootgesteld aan zulk immoreel gedrag. Ik zou het prima vinden als ze bloot zijn op een afgelegen plek. Maar dat is dit niet. Ik ga naar de kerk met die lieve kinderen en als ik zie wat ze moeten doormaken, dat doet pijn in mijn hart. Als je bloot wil zijn, prima. Maar ga naar een afgelegen plek en val ons niet lastig met je levensstijl.”

Een ander commentaar: “Dit land en deze wereld hebben genoeg problemen zonder dat mensen met weinig tot geen moraal onze kinderen laten zien dat je in je blootje rond kunt paraderen als je maar achter een hek zit.”

Dit voorbeeld uit Alabama illustreert een aantal zaken. De goede burgers uit Blount County, Alabama, die eenvoudige naaktheid als immoreel en onfatsoenlijk zien gebaseer op hun conservatieve morele inzichten betichten de Beasley’s ervan “hen lastig te vallen met hun levensstijl” en klagen hierover. Klaarblijkelijk zien ze niet dat ze hiermee tegelijk de Beasley’s en alle anderen lastig vallen met hun eigen levensstijl door te eisen dat iedereen zich aan hun preutse, ouderwetse morele opvattingen moet houden.

Het andere wat deze situatie demonstreert is dat de tegenstanders van nudisme en naturisme nooit tevreden zullen zijn met het verbannen van publieke plekken waar kleding optioneel is. Ze voelen zich duidelijk geroepen om iedereen ervan te weerhouden om naakt te zijn op hun eigen grond, zelfs als er redelijke maatregelen zijn genomen om het naakt uit het publieke oog te houden.

Wat ook vaak is aangetoond is dat dit land (Amerika dus) naar een groter moreel conservatisme schuift. Het verhaal uit Alabama is een voorbeeld. Maar kijk naar een ander voorbeeld in het artikel. In 2000 deed de Naturist Education Foundationeen rondvraag waaruit kwam dat 80 procent van de volwassenen vonden dat naakt zonnen toegestaan moest zijn in aangewezen plaatsen. In eenzelfde poll door NEF in 2006 was dat gezakt naar 75 procent.

In 2009 was er nog een rondvraag onder volwassenen in Californie en toen was er nog maar 70% voor naakt zonnen en zwemmen in geëigende plaatsen. Daarnaast vond maar 68% dat mensen het recht moesten hebben om naakt in hun eigen huis of op hun eigen grond te zij, zelfs als ze daardoor af en toe zichtbaar waren voor anderen.

Redelijke mensen kunnen snappen dat sommige mensen het niet prettig vinden om opeens met naaktheid te worden geconfronteerd, vanwege hun eigen vooroordelen met betrekking tot eenvoudig naakt. De vragen die deze onverlichte geesten zichzelf zouden moeten vragen zijn waarom het zien van naakt hen zo schokt, en of dat eigenlijk wel een gezond iets is.

Er zijn drie fundamentele redenen waarom de meeste mensen zich ongemakkelijk voelen wanneer ze opeens met naakt worden geconfronteerd, zegt Brian Ferris, een psycholoog uit Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

  • “Het is de fout van onze ouders. Toen wij kinderen waren werd ons op een bepaald moment afgeraden om onze geslachtsdelen te laten zien, en daardoor werden we onzeker over naakt zijn. Dat is aangeleerd gedrag via de ouders en dat is moelijk te overwinnen.”
  • “Naaktheid roept conflicterende gevoelens op. Op een niveau willen we het accepteren, op een ander niveau willen we het veroordelen. Als we conflicten hebben dan roept dat stress en onzekerheid op.”
  • “Naaktheid dwings ons de verbinding te maken tussen naaktheid en sex. Jonge kinderen hebben helemaal geen moeite met naaktstranden of een naturistengebied (geen zelfbewustheid). Maar in hun tienerjaren wordt alles opeens vreemd. Op dat moment kan een ander naakt persoon opeens gevoelens oproepen. Wat ons onzeker maakt is niet het gevoel van aantrekking, maar het proberen van die gevoelens af te komen. Dat heeft niets met moraliteit te maken.”

Het zijn niet de naturisten en nudisten die vreemd en asociaal zijn. Eigenlijk zijn het de leden van de geklede gemeenschap die vasthouden aan hun archaïsche sociale normen betreffende moraliteit en schaamte die het meeste voordeel zouden kunnen halen uit psychologische begeleiding om zich vrij te maken van hun diepgewortelde tweeslachtigheid over iets normaals en natuurlijks als het naakte menselijk lichaam.

Zij die plezier hebben in het kledingsvrije leven en naaktrecreatie proberen niet hun manier van leven op anderen over te brengen. Er zijn een aantal religieuze sectes die ongenood aan de deur bellen om hun ideeën aan ons op te dringen maar nudisten doen dat niet.

Zijn er niet dringender zaken waarmee mensen zich moeten bezighouden terwijl ze zich druk maken over het feit dat er mensen zijn die het prettig vinden om zich zonder kleren te ontspannen? Stijgend geweld en intolerantie, vaak vermomd in politieke correctheid om het acceptabel te maken zijn een aantal zaken die me zomaar te binnen schieten.

Er is een woord voor diegenen die het op zich nemen om nudisten en naturisten als immoreel te bestempelen. Dat woord is ‘intolerant’. Intolerantie is de onwil om de overtuigingen en het gedrag te accepteren als dat afwijkt van de eigen overtuiging. De tirannie van intolerantie is wat het echte immorele is.

Topless Co-ed Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society Wants Women to Know Their Reading Rights


By Alison Gaylin

They crop up in New York City’s public parks when the weather gets warm: clusters of bold young women, poring over volumes of crime fiction, horror, sci fi, erotica— whatever books they can get their hands on—chatting, snacking, soaking up the sun. All of them are completely naked from the waist up.

The group is known as the Outdoor Co-Ed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society. It’s just three years old, but continues to grow exponentially, in both notoriety and numbers. To date, OCTPFAS has swelled from around a dozen to 100 regular members, while its blog has racked up more than 8 million hits. They’ve received fan mail from columnist Dave Barry (who also blogged about them) and a carton of free books from the late Elmore Leonard. They’ve dined with authors Lawrence Block and Christa Faust, sparked newspaper headlines and myth-like rumors (Did Bob Dylan really paint one of their meetings in Central Park?) and have found themselves, more than once, playing the role of muse. “Authors have written about us,” says the group’s founder, an avid reader who goes by the name Alethea. “One wrote us a poem recently. It’s fun.”

It all started with Getting Off. Back in 2011, Alethea was talking to her friend, publisher Charles Ardai, about Lawrence Block’s steamy new crime novel, an upcoming release from Ardai’s company, Hard Case Crime. Getting Off was causing some in-house concern because of its cover. “Is it too much?” Ardai asked Alethea, holding up the proposed book jacket, which depicted a completely naked woman walking in on a lover, long dagger clasped behind her back. “Would you read this in public?”

It was a legitimate question for Ardai to ask a female reader. This was 2011 – the same year that Fifty Shades of Grey first leapt onto the scene and skyrocketed, largely due to the fact that, as an e-book, it lacked a cover. As numerous breathless articles pointed out, Fifty Shades could be safely read anywhere: on a commuter train, waiting for your kindergartener’s school bus, working the cashbox at a church bake sale – anywhere. And no one would be the wiser.

More in the original article at

The Naked Woman Within Screaming To Get Out – The Nook


The Naked Woman Within Screaming To Get Out

As a female nudist I wonder why it is in a world where we have fought throughout the years for equality that there are not more female nudists? Some women have fought for our rights to bare our breasts in public just as our male counterparts do and won the fight, however we don’t go out in public bare breasted. WHY?

So after a great deal of communication with women I thought it best to put these issues in writing. Now please do not shoot the messenger. My only objective here is to create a more comfortable and understanding message to let the ladies know that it is ok to be nude.

Read the entire post at The Nook.

This website is using cookies to improve the user-friendliness. You agree by using the website further.

Privacy policy