sexiest dress up

It is all very well espousing the naturist lifestyle as being natural, but there are some thorny issues.

It is natural to be eaten by a crocodile, die of a snake bite or to fall off a cliff, there is nothing necessarily nice about being natural. What is nice, good or acceptable comes from social conditioning and this conditioning changes over time. It has its roots in antiquity, and in particular, antique attitudes based on religious beliefs. The Judeo-Christian religions come from the same set of teachings, ones dominated by a patriarchal society and the belief that all are born sinful. Shame, especially body shame, is a core element in this system, it embodies the idea that nakedness causes lust and the associated loss of control, which in turn leads to untrammelled fornication and eternal damnation.

The bible reinforces this belief, but as it was believers who translated the bible, body shame dominated their efforts, belief in body shame was already in place well before such translations were made. Translation is a tricky business, it is often hard to describe an idea from one language in another with just a few words, so the core of the translator's own beliefs will dominate the work. References to being without covering became references to naked in the sense of being vulnerable, shameful or being in an undesirable state rather than simply without clothes. "I was naked and you clothed me" could just as easily be read as "I was poor and you gave me warm clothes", a completely different interpretation.

Before the reign of Henry VIII, the bible was not available in the English language of the time. In the early 16th Century, William Tyndale translated the bible directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, but he worked in a regime where expressing particular beliefs could cost you your life. Straying from the path of whatever set of beliefs was being prosecuted at the time was dangerous. He did indeed lose his life because if it. Notwithstanding this, the bible, and in particular the book of Genesis, is taken as proof that nakedness in the sight of others is sinful. Passages in the book of Genesis seem to speak of the condition of nakedness as being disagreeable or sinful, but if other translators work on the same original text, the outcome is completely different. Such ideas were not lost on Tyndale, he wrote "They have ordained that no man shall look on the Scripture, until he be noselled in heathen learning eight or nine years and armed with false principles, with which he is clean shut out of the understanding of the Scripture."

Centuries of religious dominance, guided by numerous interpretations of the bible and often enforced by violence, has resulted in the conditioning that nudity in a public place is in itself sinful. Some would take it as axiomatic that public nudity should be illegal, but would be at a loss to say exactly why. Even those who have made what they think of as a complete break from religious dogma, unwittingly continue an essentially religious practice. It is not practical for each of us to re-learn or re-invent every aspect of daily life, however, it is desirable to question systematically some of the ways in which we live in the light of campaigning or the example of others.

So, Is naturism natural? Is the nature in naturism the right word to use? Leaving out the social conditioning, of course it is, we were born nude without an automatic or even obvious source of clothing. The only reason that naturism is an issue at all is that social and religious conditioning has been widely taught. The issue then becomes, "is social conditioning natural?" In the animal world, it is natural for dominant individuals to force their will on others so in that sense it is natural that religious and social "leaders" have pursued their outlook on life and have made others follow. It is also "natural" for breakaway groups to challenge the status quo, so it is natural for naturists to challenge the Judeo-Christian inspired belief that nudity is sinful. In the sense that the word natural is used in modern society, naturism must be considered natural, it uses little or none of the earth's resources, it harms no one, it is not a threat to anyone, it enhances a sense of freedom and well being in those practice it and helps to reduce or eliminate some of the body image problems that so plague our very unnatural society.

Paedophiles are a hateful bunch of people. The damage they do to children is very severe, long lasting and completely at odds with practically all human feeling. Perhaps less obvious is the damage they do to families, but the damage that is forgotten altogether is the damage done to society at large, both by the actual crimes and the means adopted to the counteract the perversion.

The need to protect children is obvious, and the means to provide that protection must be freely available, but we must not "throw out the baby with the bath water". Children must be protected because abuse damages them, but society must also be protected, it is made up of individuals and these individuals are every bit as valuable as a child, each is a person in their own right. Over zealous application of rules and procedures can damage innocent individuals as severely as a pervert can damage a child. If a system can bar someone from a simple accusation alone, that system cannot be right. It took years to develop the Bill of Rights, the right to a fair trial, legal representation and the right of appeal. To lose that to a knee-jerk reaction to high profile cases we see in the media will be to shame all those who suffered and died to create a fair and equitable country. Lock up the perverts, but leave society at large to be free from the oppression of the pointed finger.

This is not a new problem, people have been damaged by simple accusation for years. Whilst the English Civil war was raging across the land in the 1600s, the famous self-appointed Witchfinder General, Matthew Hopkins was doing just that:- as John Gaule wrote in his 'Select Cases of Conscience', "Every old woman with a wrinkled face, a furrowed brow, a hairy lip, a gobber tooth, a squint eye, a squeaking voice or scolding tongue, having a rugged coat on her back, a skull-cap on her head, a spindle in her hand and a dog or cat by her side, is not only suspect but pronounced for a witch". In 1581, one Margaret Simons of Kent rebuked a young man for chasing a dog whilst he was armed with a knife. (There is nothing new in knife crime!). The next day, the boy fell ill and she was accused of witchcraft, it being thought she had made him ill. Luckily the jury at her trial failed to establish her guilt, but others were not so lucky. If this had happened in the modern era and in the context of an accusation of Paedophilia, even if acquitted, the accused will be barred for life from all sorts of jobs. Their standing in society will be damaged beyond repair, their families may well shun or reject them, in short, they will have been severely damaged by a simple accusation.

The disease is spreading. As an amateur photographer who delights in taking pictures of wildlife and hence uses a long lens, I feel threatened by the current craze of suspicion. Not just suspicion of Paedophilia, now we have to add terrorism. If seen in public, even places where the birds fly, carrying a posh looking camera, I can be stopped by a police officer under suspicion of carrying out a terrorist reconnaissance. If I am not doing that, I must be spying on children from afar, otherwise, why would I want a long lens? Now add my naturist lifestyle, the talking heads will go into overdrive. A naturist who has a long lens on his camera, he must be a pervert! Oh dear, when they find I also have a telescope and binoculars, proof positive, lock him up or at least take away his computer and examine every part of what is found there. Never mind about the missing evidence of real suspicion, plain old prejudice will do. Suspicion is ruining the peaceful business of taking simple photographs of the world I see before me.

We need a better system. We need a system whereby the decision to bar suspected perverts is open to inspection and challenge. If the suspicion has been caused by scurrilous, lazy or malicious intent or plain old fashioned prejudice, the person making the accusation should themselves be barred from any occupation requiring integrity, and that includes police officers. Perverts need to be locked up for the protection of children but we must not ruin the society in which they are growing up. Each protected child should grow up into a safe and fair society, not one in which they in turn have their lives ruined by unwarranted suspicion.

It seems to be common practice for members of large or majority beliefs to ridicule or disadvantage those who hold a minority belief. This is the reason Tolerance International was set up, to help put an end to it, but who are the real guilty parties?

There are the big issues such as the war in Afghanistan or the inter racial wars in Africa. With these, we can feel comfortable sitting back and blaming governments and extremists for the trouble, nothing to do with us. We can say we didn't ask for it, would have voted against it had we been given the chance, but it has been done out by "them". Remote, we can feel justified by our indignation. Whilst it is true that as an individual we can do very little, sometimes even a large number of people can do very little. For example, Blair ignored the huge anti-war march past Parliament and the perceived anti-war feeling in the country.

So what can we do? Are we to blame? Is intolerance only a practice of governments or large organisations? Is it only concerned with issues in the news such as intolerance of Muslims in a western society or anti-Semitism? Not at all. Intolerance exists at all levels, person to person.

As a member of a minority, I keenly feel the hand of intolerance even within a peaceful society. Every day I live the results of that intolerance, fear of ridicule, fear of misunderstanding or even prosecution. Those who belong to large belief systems feel quite safe, even justified in belittling my beliefs. After all, what will happen to them should they do so? They have only to turn to other members of their belief system for support, and with no surprise, get it.

Intolerance is an every day issue that affects individuals and their relationship with others. It is not just the brutal treatment handed out by the Interahamwe Militias or religious extremists, it encompasses every day living, how you treat other people.

This is not a comfortable thought. Imagine you are a Christian living in a Christian or at least western suburb. A family of devout Muslims move in next door. How do you feel? You know intellectually you should welcome them and respect their beliefs, perhaps you will. Now instead, suppose the family that moved in next door belong to a small minority, but one whose belief system hurts no-one? Will you feel the same way? Will you still feel you have to respect their beliefs, welcome them to the neighbourhood?

So what could this minority be? In practice is does not matter, all small minorities suffer the same treatment at the hands of individuals like you and me. Suppose I moved next door to you, would you welcome me, respect my beliefs? I wonder, I am a naturist.