The summer 2007 edition of Going Natural magazine includes the conclusion of a two-part article titled A paradoxical attitude towards sexuality by Jacqueline Shoemaker Holmes. The article she authored was based on research she undertook as a Master of Arts student at York University in 2003. She chose a nude beach and spent the summer mingling with people there in order to study both the people and the activities there.
She emphasises that the conclusions apply only to that beach and the people who frequent it, but the tone of her article is such that she has risked making a few generalisations about naturism as a whole.
Right from the first day she received much attention, both as an unaccompanied woman and as a researcher. She had been told by many that nudism is not inherently sexual. But both the behaviour on the beach and her interviews have revealed links between nudism and sexuality. The two are intertwined in the sexualization of women and the hypersexualization of gay men by the dominant population, namely middle-aged men.
Males were far more numerous than females, and most females were accompanied. Therefore, the banter was from a male perspective. There was a lot of talk about the potential for sex even if this was supposed to be officially a naturist beach. Much of the talk had to do with the physical attributes and sexual desirability of the women who frequented the beach. Many wanted to know if the women were sexually willing, especially the unaccompanied ones. As one of the few unaccompanied females, she drew a lot of attention—flirtatious attention.
(My thoughts: If being at a naturist locale is not supposed to elicit sexual thoughts, then maybe this locale wasn’t quite naturist…?)
The males also had definite opinions about people at another section of the beach—the gay section. Apparently that was the place to go to see sex take place. The author believes that by sex, they meant more sex than would occur at the “family” section. After all there were stories of things happening “after hours”.
According to her research at the beach in question, there is a sexual component to naturism. Unaccompanied women are viewed by users, especially heterosexual men, as opportunities for sexual encounters. As for gays, they are treated as "hypersexual" and said to not be "real" naturists.
Her main point, to use her words, is that it is incorrect to say that naturism is “no more sexual than anything else.” The sexuality is simply hidden and, in the case of this beach at least, oppressive. By denying the part that sexuality plays in naturism and by denying full equality to those whose sexuality would be different from the norm, the possibility for alliances—with the gay community for instance—is very low.
Since we can’t know which beach it was, we’ll never be able to compare and see if behaviour and attitudes at this beach are the rule, the exception or somewhere in between. Indeed the author emphasises that she doesn’t say naturism as a whole is patriarchal or homophobic, perhaps because the “sample size” is too small.
What of our established naturist locales, resorts and otherwise? Are they as “clean” as we’d like to think? Are we deluding ourselves to think there is no sexual component to naturism?
For so long we’ve limited our thinking about sex to overt sexual activity, i.e., sex in public. That may be a failing we can no longer afford. The author doesn’t advocate public sexuality either. However, she does propose a few questions:
• Why are there separate “family” and “gay” sections to a beach, or indeed entire beaches that are either “family” or “gay”?
• Why do some clubs exclude people based on their sexual orientation?
• From a political and personal perspective, what does it mean to exclude sexuality from naturist values?
• If there is room for sexual expression within naturism, where can we find it? And if not, why isn’t there?
• How can naturism be made more inclusive and egalitarian?
Who wants to take a crack at them?
No comments:
Post a Comment