Talk:Naturism

Deletions, 21 January
I think the editor involved was simply confused, and accidentally edited an old version of the page instead of the current one. I did that a few times when I was newer to Wikipedia than I am now. I don't think I removed quite this much material, though – really, the entire Naturism in New Zealand section? Most tellingly,, you may not have noticed, but they actually put back quite a lot of the stuff you had removed, which I think you may have thought was what I was doing when I reverted the change. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Article size
The article, at 113,161 bytes, is too long (see WP:TOOBIG). I propose the following: Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove the "Demographics" section;
 * Remove the "Issues in social nudity" section;
 * Condense the "Philosophy" section; and
 * Condense the footnotes.


 * Seeing no objection, I have made the changes I suggested above. I have also removed some unsourced and unreliably sourced material. The article is now under 100,000 bytes. SunCrow (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Related redirects nominated for discussion
Clothing optional (a redirect to Nude beach) and Clothes free (a redirect to Nudity) have been nominated for discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2 respectively. Editors interested in this article are invited to comment in the linked discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The literary movement
The current version of the article has the following paragraph:

Now, the link to fr:Naturisme (mouvement littéraire) was recently introduced. It may or may not be accurate here, but the whole passage leaves me with the uneasy feeling that there may – possibly! – be a mixing up of two meanings of the word naturism – the current one ('lifestyle that involves nudity') an another, older, meaning ('a certain attitude to life and nature'), which presumably was at the base of the literary movement with the name. Does the source explicitly make the connection between the two, that is, did Saint-Georges de Bouhélier, André Gide et al. really advocate for social nudity? – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Images are not representatives of naturists
I feel like most images of this article are misleading because statistics show that most people practicing naturism are people older than 50, and are especially men, and a lot of images here show young women practicing naturism, which is the category of people the least representative of naturists.

Yannicksoulie (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Valid point. If you can upload images to commons and offer links on talk page so that possible changes are discussed first. Edmund Patrick – confer 23:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It seem to me the page already is predominantly portraying men. --Aréat (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There are a few photos showing young women and there are a few young women who practice naturism. The photos do have a bias towards the young but that's because young people are more likely to allow being photographed. --Roly (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree the article needs some photographs of 50+ people of both sexes to accurately represent naturism. This would also distance it from the nudism as porn school of thought. Naturism is more about body acceptance and body positivity than it is about voyeuristic gazing at young attractive people. Lumos3 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added this photo of a mature naturist couple making tea. Nudist tea for two.jpg


 * Showing some photos of young naturists among others isn't portraying naturism as "voyeuristic gazing at young attractive people". Nor would adding more photos of old people suddenly make it some voyeurism for gerontophiles. One of the point of naturism is distancing the naked body from being only shown for eroticism, so I find the comment very uncalled for.--Aréat (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

How about this one? --Roly (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the tea photo is perfectly suitable for this article. The "aging male naturist" photo is borderline; I think it needs a different caption, perhaps something like "Home naturism".  I will shortly remove the other photo recently added to the page, which is not appropriate.  There is an issue with some editors adding photos of young women; there is also an issue with (male) editors adding photos of themselves, with not-so-subtle emphasis on genitalia – to the extent that Wikipedia actually has a specific user warning template for the purpose.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 04:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the caption. --Roly (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hiding unused monograph and journal references
I've gone through the list of monograph, and partly through the journal, references and hidden to ones that are no longer tied to anything in the article text. Since none of these supported anything in the article, it seemed superfluous to have them listed in the References section. Perhaps some of the book citations could be moved to the bibliography section (in fact, a couple already were included there). PLEASE NOTE: I have not deleted or removed the references, merely hidden them by commenting them out. I'm sure they will be useful once it can be determined what previous statements they supported. They can be added again by just copying and pasting outside the commented sections. Texttramp (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge into section
Two articles on naturist organizations could be merged into the section Naturism as a new subsection on organizations as a means of resolving ongoing content issues. The Naturist Society was moved to DRAFT: space after being pared down to stub length, and American Association for Nude Recreation has been tagged as reading like and advertisement; both as a result of there being few reliable sources. As with many membership organizations, there is little published about them by anyone outside, leading to the appearance, if not the fact of not being notable or not having a NPOV.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added Young Naturists America, a stub about a defunct organization, to the merge candidates.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't merge − but do create a "Naturism in the United States" article (such as exists for New Zealand, France, Germany, and a few others), and merge the organization-specific articles into that. Then update that article and the "United States" section of this one as necessary to ensure accurate mutual consistency. That way there's room for detailed information in the separate article, and this article doesn't get too big. —VeryRarelyStable 22:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - That would also be a merge, of the two smaller articles into the larger (AANR) which would be renamed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest that we go with @VeryRarelyStable 's idea of consolidating most of the info into a separate Naturism in the US article, but today the WikiMedia Foundation published new info about something called WikiMedia Enterprise. While perusing the article, I came across this bullet point:

"The ‘infoboxes’ or knowledge graphs shown in search engine results"


 * That got me thinking about search results on Google and DuckDuckGo, both of which feature Infoboxes prominently (examples for AANR: Google, DDG). So, I'm thinking that the uses of Wikipedia data by the larger world (where many people just look something up on Google or DDG and call it good without ever coming to Wikipedia) might be something to consider.


 * At this point, my thinking is that, although they are minor articles, we keep the AANR and TNS articles as they are (and make an infobox for TNS), as they do serve a larger purpose. I say this because if we combine and consolidate, the AANR infobox will likely just need to be removed, or if kept, won't be at the top of the article but buried down inside (and then should we make another infobox for TNS in the same article?). Not sure how search engines would utilize the info if such were the case.


 * What do you think? Texttramp (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not make sense to merge two independent organizations into a general topic. Many naturists (or nudists) do not agree that these organizations represent them. They certainly don't control the movement. Yet they are both significant. AANR has been in existence since the early 20th century and is often cited in books and articles. The Naturist Society had an enormous influence on the acceptance of clothing-optional beaches in the USA. For decades they published an extremely influential guide on nude beaches and clothing-optional hot spring. Their magazine, Nude & Natural, frequently contains articles by academics and is often used for scholarly research into naturism/nudism. naturist (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I oppose merging American Association for Nude Recreation (I haven't looked into the other org). The "written like an advertisement" thing is a completely fixable, temporary problem. As for lack of RS coverage, I just don't believe that there isn't even enough information verifiable in RS to at least constitute a useful stub. I say that in part based on my experience creating the article on Sunshine & Health, a publication of said organization (and almost certainly a more marginal topic than the org itself). I get 109 results on Google Scholar for "American Sunbathing Association". Also 17 articles in the New York Times archive. Sources are definitely out there. But I have no opposition to creating a "Naturism in the United States" article with summary style summaries of AANR and other noteworthy naturism organizations. Colin M (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Needs cleanup
I had never paid much attention to this article, but decided to do a little cleanup. I immediately found content that was unsupported, or contradictory to the sources cited.

I edited the opening section to reflect that naturism is defined as social, not individual nudity, else everyone would be a nudist/naturist. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I know it's surprising, but that is not the case. Far more people than you would think keep their clothes on even when they're alone at home, and wear pyjamas to bed. "At-home naturism" is a real thing; often a precursor to social naturism. With respect, I think those particular edits should be reversed. —VeryRarelyStable 23:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are many naturists who prefer nudity whenever it's convenient, not just at the beach or club. There are many naturists who have little or no opportunity for social naturism. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that being naked only with others borders on exhibition. --Roly (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to define the topic based upon the only cited source. All the organizations and all the literature talk about naturism and nudism as a social practice, and none of the current content refers to anything else. It goes without saying that a social nudist is also naked at home, and perhaps there is a place for content about those who are unconcerned with nudity among family and friends; but totally private nudity is what everyone does, unless they are Gymnophobic.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "but totally private nudity is what everyone does" – no, it isn't. Totally private nudity is what many people do, possibly even most people, but not everyone. I don't have reputable sources, I'm afraid, or I'd cite them. What I have is memories of comments on naturist message boards, years ago, many many comments, where people talked about taking their first steps in naturism by starting to go nude alone at home. My family home was one where, although you would not be welcome to barge into someone else's room when they were in there alone, you could confidently expect them to be clothed if you did. Nudity was solely for when you were actually in the bath. As I say, I don't have sources to show which of these lifestyles is the more common. But there are enough people who don't go nude in private alone that it can't be settled without sources. —VeryRarelyStable 10:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So much this. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 19:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nudist-Textile couple in Cabo de Gata, Spain.jpg

No children, ever.
I know that nudists like to pretend that it is non-sexual, but they are wrong. Nudist colonies have long been a place of perversion and child abuse. No image of a child should be on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankForAllAndBirds (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As well as being false, this is in breach of both WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. —VeryRarelyStable 09:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And WP:NOTFORUM. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The photo in question is not sexual in any way; and as for the comment about "nudist colonies" (what are they?), it is totally untrue and a gross insult to all true naturists/nudists. --Roly (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * All "true" naturists? The NOTCENSORED policy says things can't break US law. Courts have found nudist publications to often be used as workarounds for obscenity laws. Putting a child between two naked people is obviously sexual. It is against NPOV for "naturist" advocates to use a Wikipedia page to promote their point of view.


 * It's also just common sense. Children don't belong on this page. Put all the old naked weirdos you want on it, but not kids. FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Photographs of people, including children, without clothes on, are not illegal in US law. You are not the arbiter of what is "obviously sexual" or "common sense". —VeryRarelyStable 06:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The US has common law. That means judicial precedent is law. Numerous courts have found nudist activity being used for cover of indecent materials. Numerous states have banned some or all nudist camps. Having a naked child between two naked adults is at least in a legal grey area, so it makes sense to keep it off the page. What good is it doing?


 * Further, even the nudist colonies that allow children generally don't let anyone photograph the children besides the parents. Are those the child's parents? Many nudist colonies give discounts to people who bring children, so it could be someone other than the parents. We don't know if that child (now an adult) wants their naked picture associated with a controversial topic like nudism. So again, benefit of the doubt goes to no children on a nudist page.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There are procedures for objecting to photographs being inappropriately used without the subject's consent in Wikimedia Commons. A quick read through this page's editing history will reveal that this happened fairly recently with regard to an image illustrating Spanish naturism. If you believe Wikipedia is in breach of the law, you are at liberty to report them to the appropriate authorities. —VeryRarelyStable 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Read the NOTCENSORED page, it says illegal stuff shouldn't be on Wikipedia. It isn't censored, but doesn't allow for something illegal which child pornography plainly is. The page itself notes that some nudist colonies allow sex, therefore we should be cautious about the sexualization of children and remove images of children.


 * Your personal politics are getting in the way of this. I'm well aware nudist groups spend a lot of money advocating for nudism as a panacea for all of life's problems, but Wikipedia isn't your soapbox. You are the one edit warring, and you've also been harassing me on my talk page. You need to step back and realize your lifestyle ideas aren't universal. Get a towel and have a nice sit and ask yourself why you are so consumed with this. FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sure the number of child abusers who have used naturist communities as cover is not zero, but neither is the number of child abusers who have used churches. —VeryRarelyStable 10:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (Since the relevance of this remark has been queried: I was under the impression that there was an accusation of child abuse on the table.) —VeryRarelyStable 00:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you mention churches? I took it as a personal attack.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I'm pretty sure we can agree that it would be wrong to describe churches as "a place of perversion and child abuse", despite the many documented cases of child abusers using church positions as a mask of virtue. Thus, even if one were able to document cases when naturist communities have been similarly used, it does not follow that naturist communities are by their nature "a place of perversion and child abuse".
 * However, I wrote that comment before I read the Guardian article which was your citation both here and on Naturist resort, and found that it clearly stated that Caliente introduced an age limit when they switched from being a family naturist resort to being a swingers' resort. Which means there is no cited evidence on the table for child abuse occurring at naturist resorts.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 23:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The pages for churches do include examples of child abuse, despite it being only a small minority. Examples include the Catholic Church and Jevhovah's Witnesses, both mention child abuse scandals in the lead, and several times in the body.


 * I'm not suggesting it needs to be front and center, but it also shouldn't be covered up. This isn't an advertisement or advocacy for nudist colonies.


 * But the original matter was the naked child featured on the page. It's a picture that doesn't connect with anything in the body and is therefore unnecessary. There are plenty of other pictures of naked people to choose from that don't potentially harm an unknown child. FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * A black-and-white photo from 1983 is at least more appropriate for the History section than a recent photo. Since this image is from 1983, that child is at least as old as I am. They are now an adult and fully capable of objecting to the use of the image should they wish to do so. You might also notice that the child is immersed to the waist in the water; their nudity, as such, is not on display. Additionally, I must point out: part of the distinctive character of naturism, as opposed to some other reasons people might get naked in company, is that it is non-sexual and family-friendly. The best way to illustrate this is with an image of family naturism.
 * If there are concrete examples, with sources, of child abuse scandals attaching to particular naturist groups, and in particular if there is a pattern of such scandals, then of course that would be appropriate material for the page. But I'm going to reiterate: that's concrete examples with sources. The fact that many non-naturists have sexual feelings about naturism does not justify any presumption about the occurrence of child abuse within naturist contexts. Again as an analogy for clarification: breastfeeding has unfortunately become sexualized in some Western societies in the last decade or two, but it would be absurd to consider breastfeeding an exemplar of child sex abuse.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 07:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Child Abuse in FKK and Naturist settings is listed as one of the issues in social nudity. From a documentation standpoint, it is irrational to say that there are no child naturists, or that naturism isn't for kids, but children do not make up a large portion of the naturist culture (the avg. age is around 50 or so). As far as I know, the nudity of children is not censored anywhere else on Wikipedia (Napalm Girl, for example, one of the most famous pictures of the Vietnam War, is on Wikipedia).
 * The concern of the abuse of children is valid from a non-naturist perspective. However, this controversy is mentioned multiple times throughout the article (in Controversy and Media), and there are only two (as far as I know) of children, both of which with their privates obscured from view. As it stands, I don't see a reason to remove these pictures. As a consenting adult, if they find problem with their implied nudity on a Wikipedia page, they may go through the deletion process which Wikipedia provides. However, any picture, in general of a naturist, not necessarily a minor, should not be overt, sexual, or emphasized. Anything to that effect is, in this wiki's definition of naturism, disingenuous of itself and porn (in the case of a minor, child porn).
 * The controversy section should also link to "Issues in social nudity" page. For a NPOV, this issue is one that non-naturists will generally think of, and should be forefront, for both their disillusionment and their understanding that an overwhelming majority of naturists don't diddle children, just like an overwhelming majority of the regular population. KKDIV (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Modern intersections of naturism
I appreciate the work that has been going into this page, it is becoming a good resource. I would like to suggest, though, that it is missing a lens of modern intersections, and that those are critical to keeping naturism alive. Issues like #freethenipple, body acceptance, feminism, LGBTQ+, and more are very relevant to naturism. I would like to discuss either a section or a new article on these. This is not to say that every person who is a naturist has a uniform view on them but to highlight the relevance and interrelatedness of some of the key items. Mira.Medusa (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these suggestions. They're all good, and I agree, would serve the development of the article.
 * There are pages for some of these topics already (Free the nipple, Topfreedom and Body image - the redirect for Body acceptance), so they could be looped in using summary style sections. I'm not familiar with the breadth of either feminism or LGBTQ+ coverage on Wikipedia, so I don't know if there are existing articles that could be looped in, or if new sections would need to be written from scratch, but either way, if you're interested, by all means, please contribute!
 * And if this is a subject area of interest to you, I'd invite you to consider joining our WikiProject. Texttramp (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent reversion
Re the reversion of a previous reversion done in my name. I'm more than a little confused. I don't remember making that edit! I can only think that I inadvertently undid the wrong edit and I hope my account has not been hacked. --Roly (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

New lead image
The picture of Florida Young Naturists is inappropriate for two reasons. The FYN no longer exists, and it isn't representative of the culture. Seniors are the majority, and even at the family-oriented places there are few people in their 20's. Teens tend to wear clothes when given the option. This page suffers from a desire to "sell" naturism to the normies, when it should be an informative article about a culture.

I suggest using instead the FKK image from the Germany section. It is a good representation of nude recreation. Also, while there is nothing in the rules against having full frontal nudity in the article, it might be advisable to avoid it, at least at the top of the page.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I made the change and replaced the German pic with another one from the Naturism in Germany article.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The current photo illustrate naturism very well : a group of casually naked people. I don't see a need to replace it, and the picture you propose show them in the distance, all from behind, as if it was trying to hide their nakedness. Naturism isn't restricted to old people, and we've got sources on the page about it being more and more younger nowadays. Young people not being there is very far from the norm. Wikipedia isn't censored, and the naked people aren't show in a sexual way at all. They're not top models either. It's not sexual.--Aréat (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two French sources saying there are young people doing nudism, but other sources that nudist communities are actively trying to recruit young people because they are aging communities. It is very common for permanent nudist communities to be at least half retirement community. And when it isn't elderly people, it is usually families. There are rarely groups of young people. Again, sources point to that being the trend.
 * The picture you prefer is of the Florida Young Naturists, a group that was founded to encourage young people to try nudism. They shut their doors several years ago exactly because it isn't popular with young people. Maybe they go to nude beaches sometimes, but "nude recreation" is mostly for the older crowd and to a lesser degree families. If you've been active in nude recreation you should already know this, but if not read the History section which repeatedly mentions declining youth participation in the recent era.
 * It also mentions numerous efforts to attract younger people and families. Efforts that, like the FYN, often fail. Using this page as part of that effort is wrong. There is no reason to have a defunct, unrepresentative group photo as the lead image of this page. Young people posing in a group does not represent Nudism.
 * The picture I put forth, of a range of people relaxing on the beach, is much more representative. People bathing nude is a hallmark of nudism. Wikipedia is for information, not advocacy.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We use it as a photo showing a group of naturists. Trying to take it down because of an alleged sociological discrepancy to replace it with a photo not showing what the page is about make no sense. On the Swimming page, would you be taking down a picture of black swimmers because the sport is majority white, or replace it with people walking in the water in the distance? Of course not. The photo has been on the page since years because it illustrate naturism well.


 * Whilst I don't agree that the FYN photo constitutes "advocacy", I do take the point that it's not as representative of the naturist lifestyle as other photos might be. The people depicted are from a narrow demographic band and it's a posed group photo rather than illustrating naturist activity. And I don't think it's been there all that long; the lede photo used to be a beach photo from Haulover, I think it was, and it was changed maybe two or three years ago.
 * Might I suggest, if there is a will to change the lede image, the current lede photo from Nudity? It shows naturist activity rather than people posing, and there's a a bit more diversity among the people depicted.
 * [[File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1989-0710-419,_Berlin,_M%C3%BCggelsee,_Sonnenbad.jpg]]
 * —VeryRarelyStable 05:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with that one. --Aréat (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * agreed a much better image.Edmund Patrick – confer 07:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Any comments on this new suggestion? —VeryRarelyStable 08:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @VeryRarelyStable I chose a better lead picture. I also rearranged some pics in the process, taking care to delete none. Please don't roll back. If you have any objections, reply to me first. Anirudh131819 (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the old lede image we had before the FYN one. It has the same main problem noted with the FYN picture, namely, it's a posed photo which doesn't illustrate naturist activity. It would be just fine as a lede image for Nudity but I believe the one above is better for this page. If you're going to ask people not to revert you, at minimum you should at least give some kind of explanation as to why your selection constitutes a "better lead picture". —VeryRarelyStable 11:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @VeryRarelyStable Wow, if that was the original lead image, let it be. That's much better than the FYN picture. Btw, I don't think it will matter if my selection was a posed image. The image that I selected, in my opinion, is more aesthetic than the FYN pic and than that German pic (your selection). I believe that the aesthetic appeal of the pic of my selection will compel visitors to read further. However, I also gave your German pic a second position. It looks good there.
 * I have some experience with nude aesthetics. So I made those changes based on that experience. Anirudh131819 (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @VeryRarelyStable Please restore my changes. I have now made a clear statement explaining my changes. Anirudh131819 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Anirudh131819 the lead image was agreed by consensus, so should remain unless another consensus is reached in the future. Any future change is extremely unlikely to be the image you are trying to revert to, as it was agreed that that image was "posed", so was inappropriate. - Arjayay (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Arjayay In that case let the consensus seek a different image from Wikimedia Commons. I do NOT consider the agreed image as having aesthetic value. Anirudh131819 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "More aesthetic" is no more explanatory than "better". If you want to reopen this conversation you need to explain (a) what's more aesthetic about it, and (b) why aesthetics should override the concerns outlined above. Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia rather than a zine or blog site, is not in the business of "compelling visitors to read further"; the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide information that readers are already interested in learning. —VeryRarelyStable 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not dictate what the consensus does. That's the opposite of what a consensus is. —VeryRarelyStable 12:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @VeryRarelyStable Noted. I express my utmost gratitude for your tutorial on.
 * I likewise hope that my inputs on this talk page will prove helpful for the others seeking to improve the content in the future.
 * Thank you. Anirudh131819 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Female genitalia
A lot of the pictures used do not show the genitals of females while the genitals of males appear more prominently. I can only see two where the genitals of the women are clearly visible and one looks more like a model on a mostly clothed beach that's rather out of place. Another it's slightly obscured and in another she has pubic hair. I don't object to any of the pictures but the ones of males are not only more numerous but more front and foremost and contain more men while the number of females are limited and more indirect from the side and back. Men have their legs open while women do not.

This might be consciously or subconsciously done and the images chosen for aesthetic reasons but it gives the impression that women somehow have their modesty protected which is contrary to the idea of nudism/naturism. All of the activities and positions men are found in women would also be found in and it seems unnatural that so many would hide or obscure their genitals in some way so some bias seems to be at play here. Biofase flame | stalk 13:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Having skimmed down the photos in the article, any bias towards males is not particularly apparent to my eye. Nor is it apparent to me that any conscious effort has been taken to either show or hide the subjects' genitals. After all, this article is not about nudity per se, it's about naturism, which is specifically non-sexual social nudity. What I see is pictures of people undertaking everyday social activities without clothing, without reference to whether or not their genitals are visible. In those conditions penises will be more prominent than vulvas because penises are more prominent than vulvas.
 * Speaking from my own experience of social nudity, most of the time you don't see people's vulvas just because from most natural viewing angles they're out of sight underneath the person's body or between their legs – not to mention the fact that in naturist settings you mostly look people in the face. I don't see a problem here.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 23:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While that is the case this isn't just about who's are more visible naturally. A lot of the photos are from the back or side view. Incidentally those photos also feature a lot of women where the front views don't. There's at least two photos featuring 5 men with prominent penises and not just because they are naturally but because of the pose. No women are found here in those poses. You can look that up and verify if you don't believe me.
 * I'm not saying that nudist/naturists women are inclined to keep their legs mostly closed where I know for a fact they don't. To put the theory of natural visibility to rest here off wikipedia you can find a multitude of images of women with open legs where the vulvas are clearly visible but on wikipedia and in this article this isn't the case. I'm not saying it's a conscious effort and it's not just about the genitals being visible or not but the chosen images definitely convey the impression that women are more modest in what they show while men aren't which is completely contrary to nudism. Biofase flame | stalk 02:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the images here don't convey any such impression to me. I've gone through them twice now. There are maybe three where people are posing for the camera rather than going about their business; one is of some men, the others are of mixed groups. They're posing, but they don't give (me) the impression of having been especially arranged to either hide or display their genitals. If you've gone through and counted carefully, I don't disbelieve you, but it's the sort of thing that you would have to go through and count carefully, not the sort of thing that leaps out.
 * I don't see the point of your reference to pubic hair, as pubic hair is just as forbidden in mainstream society and just as acceptable in naturist society as genitals themselves, and thus illustrates the distinction between the two just as effectively.
 * One can, indeed, find on the internet a plethora of photos of naturist women sunbathing with their legs open, taken from a perineal angle. Generally, however, one finds them on voyeur websites and other places that sexualize naturism. I don't believe such images accurately illustrate what naturism is about.
 * In my country most naturist resorts are clothes-optional, and by observation it tends to be women rather than men who go around in sarongs and T-shirts. Why this should be, I don't have the data to speculate, but I can report it as a fact. I have seen an argument made (in one naturist club newsletter) that this is contrary to naturist philosophy and should be banned; I have also seen the response that argument got from dozens of members of the club in question, and it wasn't supportive.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 03:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Images #1 & #2 is fairly representative as an impromptu photo so can be left out. Once we get to #3 it's where things change. We can still consider this a fluke though that the male is in a more gratuitous pose in the moment if it wasn't for the other photos. It's at image #4 that things go awry and repeated again at #15. Image #6 is another non standard stance.
 * I know what you're saying that these portray people in a natural setting but I don't agree. #15 is not the way people normally pose and neither is #6. You don't have to analyse the images for these 3 to stick out as overly gratuitous compared to the female images. So either the selection resulted in the impression that men are more gratuitous compared to women or it is that women are more modest which from my experience they aren't.
 * Wrt to the voyeur sites true voyeur sites would be unposed and thus portray women in a natural setting. They don't further your argument but the opposite. Indeed it is also my experience that women would regularly be found to sunbath with legs open but none of the images here show that. Again #21 shows the men in a more natural setting while one I presume to be a woman is completely obscured, another is wearing a bottom, two are laying on their front with one of them shown from the back. That is not typical of a nudist scene. #22 is more typical of the way men are shown but again only from the back.
 * If your argument is that the men are posed in typical fashion then it begs the question why NONE of the women are. If it would be considered gratuitous for the women to be then it must be asked why it isn't for the men. If you see this as balanced in some construed way you wouldn't have a problem with the images being replaced by women in similar positions and I'll be searching flickr. If you consider that "sexualising naturism" then you need to explain why the same isn't true for the 3 images of men. Biofase flame | stalk 11:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have just gone through them yet again, and I'm sorry, I cannot see what you're talking about. I mean, I can see some of the photos have been posed for artistic effect, and I can see the guys in the group photos are kind of hamming it up for the camera, but not in a way that emphasizes their penises unduly. (We do get that kind of photo put up here from time to time, believe me.) I'd appreciate input from other readers so it's not just my opinion against yours.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 12:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

International Naturist Symbol
I have moved this image to the head of the article where its a more fitting accompaniment  to the lede than a photo of bathers which has dropped down a few inches. It emphasises that this is a movement and an idea. Its a flag for an for an international movement. Just about every social movement described on Wikipedia, whether its political, cultural , religious or anything else starts off the article with its emblem somewhere at the top of the page. Lumos3 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Lumos3 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It has now been reverted with the comment that its not fitting for naturism as it just a logo.  This is an encyclopaedia article not a promotional piece for naturism. We are here to describe naturism as we would any social movement. We should fit in with the norm for any social movement on the project. I repeat - Just about every social movement described on Wikipedia, whether its political, cultural , religious or anything else starts off the article with its emblem somewhere at the top of the page.   Anyone agree?  Lumos3 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

My only concern with the image is whether or not it is universally accepted. I can't find any info on how widespread its use is and whether there are objections to it. Just like many nudists don't like the term naturism and there should really be a separate article for it, which there isn't, naturism isn't a huge organisational umbrella where everyone fits in with everything. While there are organisations the majority simply feel they just are and don't see naturism as anything special that should be separated and celebrated but just another way of life. For them it's like choosing to wear corduroy pants instead of jeans where it would be nonsensical to brand such people under a particular symbol. Biofase flame | stalk 17:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with this time, at least on the symbol. It's a very new symbol and I gather it was chosen by Twitter poll. Let's first check and see if the INF or any other naturist organization is actually officially using it.
 * I don't agree, however, that we need separate pages for "Naturism" and "Nudism". The content would be virtually identical. We don't have separate pages for "Naturist resort", "Naturist club", "Naturist camp", "Naturist community" and "Nudist colony", because even though some people are quite adamant about the fine distinctions between them, they essentially describe variations of the same phenomenon.
 * —VeryRarelyStable 22:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The symbol has been released into the creative commons for anyone to use without charge. It is not the property or design of any naturist organisation but was the result of a global competition and consultation including anyone who identified as naturist.  There are no competing symbols . So its free to use and has the broadest possible backing across the worlds naturists.  It should be used to identify naturism and naturists wherever it is found . There is an explanation of its creation here. https://www.naturistsymbol.org/more/history/  .  We should use it alongside the lede with an explanation if one is needed.
 * Lumos3 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That does not make it universally accepted. It would need to be used by just about everyone and every organisation without major objection. I can't find that it is and is more optional with every organisation still using their own logo as well. As for Twitter that can't be regarded as being representative of every naturist just as it's not regarded as representative of anyone in general so it can't be claimed to have had global consultation. Most naturists probably didn't even know about the process going on at the time. Its acceptance would depend on its use in the future. Biofase flame | stalk 22:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Page size again
The tag which proposed merging the article Issues in social nudity was placed without consideration that the article was created to reduce the size of this article. However, the article has continued to grow, and I see no obvious remedy. Perhaps there is too much said about each country, only a few having their own articles. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Female toplessness in Canada which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)