Preaching to the Choir

Still a lot of chatter going on about my post yesterday, which was a reaction to The Academic Naturist's post here.

A surprising number of people actually think that censoring nudist and naturist publications, such as removing nude photos from the cover and on the inside, is a good idea.

In replying to the Academic Naturist, CGHill said, "Perhaps TNS should consider an edited or stripped-down (sorry) version of the book for distribution to libraries and schools and such."

Regin said, "The point of the book is information, right? Travel and destination information. Not nekkid pictures. The book can be just as informative without the pictures. And without the added expense of reproducing the additional pictures, it may even cost less."

Rick at MojoNude chimed in with, "The answer is probably somewhere in between but it’s nebulous. There’s plenty of discussion and materials within the nudist/naturist community but what guidance do we have for promoting and presenting our lifestyle to non-nudists?"

Naturally Nude added, But the question remains: how do you disseminate information about naturism "to their level" (non-naturists) without offending or aliening your intended audience? Do we self-censor and not show any nudity? Or do we show our lifestyle as it really is?"

And Dr. Paul Rapoport of TERA and the Federation of Canadian Naturists, in response to my post yesterday, said:

The most encouraging part of The Academic Naturist's engaging report on this is the last paragraph, where, he explains, with NAC's support, he intends to fight the library's censorship.

Of course it's necessary to do some things you don't want to do to get other things done. Wearing clothes in general society is an example. Stephen Gough is a good (bad) example of how to stay naked all the time, win a battle or two, and lose the war.

Each type of case needs its own evaluation. Sometimes I agree that information with no nudity is a good idea. In other situations it falsifies naturism. If censorship isn't needed, it's a bad idea, and the more of it there is in one place, the worse it gets. Lee Baxandall used to refer to faux nudity in the matter of hiding body parts, which the media are rather good at. If it happens rarely, it may not matter. When it becomes policy, it matters a great deal.

I agree that a library is no place for censorship, only managing its materials properly. I hope Academic Naturist and others continue to take TNS's book to libraries.

Physical censorship with black bars, pixellation, etc. provides the ironic result of often drawing more attention to body parts than there would be without it. It also often ruins an image, violates the original intent, and in a paternalistically moralistic fashion is supremely presumptuous and condescending to viewers.

OK. let's go back to the what prompted this discussion - a public library's refusal to carry a copy of The Naturist Society's book, "The World's Best Nude Beaches and Resorts." In his frustration with the library's total censorship of this material, The Academic Naturist considered taking a marker and blacking out all the naughty bits in an attempt to make the book more palatable to whatever prudish librarian made this awful decision. After some advice from bloggers and the Naturist Action Committee, TAN came to the conclusion that fighting the censorship was the wisest path to take.

Anyone considering self-censorship as an acceptable means of appeasing a distrustful public needs to do some research into the history of book burnings and bannings. Check out Judy Blume's site, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Library Association's page on banned and challenged books, as well as their page on Banned Books Week, and the one for their Office of Intellectual Freedom. The ACLU works to defend the freedom to read:

The ACLU is dedicated to the protection of free speech and free expression. When a small group of individuals tries to keep the rest of society from reading a book or viewing a painting they are impeding that freedom by attempting to dictate what is and is not acceptable expression.

The freedom to read is guaranteed to all Americans by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Period. A public librarian who takes it upon him or herself to decide whether or not a particular book is acceptable is acting contrary to the basic principles of the American Library Association, which states, "ALA actively advocates in defense of the rights of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment. A publicly supported library provides free and equal access to information for all people of that community. We enjoy this basic right in our democratic society. It is a core value of the library profession."

An online search of the Columbus, Ohio, public library returns 422 matches for the word "nude", 58 for "Mapplethorpe", 1264 for "Hitler", 52 for "KKK", 530 for "erotica", and while the words "nudism" and "naturism" returned a few results, I could find no meaningful books on the nudist lifestyle, or nude recreation.

I had better luck online with The Ohio State University Libraries, where "nudism" brought back 22 results, including Mark Storey's "Cinema au Naturel", and Dennis Craig Smith's "The Naked Child: Growing Up Without Shame."

In both of these incidences, I doubt if censorship is an issue, but rather that they simply don't have the materials.

Not a problem at all on Amazon.com, where the word "nudism" returns 2436 results (not all of them completely relevant, but a lot of books nonetheless).

So if libraries don't have nudist and naturist books, is that due to censorship, or simply the lack of materials? Are we all just preaching to the choir when it comes to the nude lifestyle, and failing to spread the message to the public at large?

One thing that I am convinced of is that self-censorship is not the answer, for all the reasons Dr. Rapoport outlined above. To block out, or remove images of nudism from AANR or TNS materials is not only self-defeating, it's a tacit admission that there is something dirty, shameful and downright wrong with the human body.

Censorship is a giant step backwards in the fight for acceptance.

How about this idea: The Naturist Society develops a program whereby members are encouraged to purchase naturist books and donate them to libraries. The Academic Naturist took it upon himself to do this, but there should be some sort of organized effort to spread the word.

As Rick noted above, "what guidance do we have for promoting and presenting our lifestyle to non-nudists?" Any grassroots effort needs guidance from organizations and experienced activists. In this proposed "naturist book drive", there would need to be guidelines for individuals who want to take these materials to their local libraries, how to deal with librarians, what to do if the book is refused, etc.

I think that many nudists and naturists online are looking for ways to become involved. There's a lot of untapped enthusiasm out there. Social networks, chat rooms, forums, blogs, etc. are all means to bring people together, and perhaps now it's time to give them all something to do.

UPDATE: An online search of The New York Public Library returns 72 results for the word "nudism", including some nudist magazines like "Naturally" and "Nude and Natural", all categorized as "adult". And they do have two different editions of Lee Baxandall's "World Guide to Nude Beaches and Recreation", but not the newest edition. There are 12 results for "Jock Sturges."

UPDATE 2: Lee's guide to nude beaches is also in The Library of Congress, and a search for "nudism" returns 133 results.