Family Nudism Controversy in Arizona

Prosecutors have declined to press any charges against an Arizona mother and stepfather for practicing nudism in front of their two adolescent boys. When the 13 year-old complained to his father that the nudity made him "uncomfortable", police were called in and recommended that the couple be charged with a crime.

"You do not know how familiar this story is," said Bob Morton, executive director of the Naturist Action Committee, a non-profit that advocates for nudist legal issues.

He said battling ex-spouses and family members often try to use one parent's decision to practice nudism as an issue in custody cases.

Parents have a right to decide what goes on inside their homes unless there's criminal conduct, Morton said.

Former sex crimes prosecutor Robert J. Campos said that he was "skeptical" of the entire investigation and that the criminal case was a "real stretch."

But more government regulations for parents would be considered controversial in a nation that prides itself on myriad freedoms, said Campos, the former prosecutor.

"Part of being free means accepting the possible harm that comes with it," he said. "You just can't legislate the harm out of the world."

AANR takes a much more conservative stand on the issue.

"We do believe that respecting boundaries and communicating is critical to a successful nude-recreation experience," said Erich Schuttauf, executive director of the American Association for Nude Recreation.

He said parents who decide to try out naturist activities or to visit a resort should talk to their children first. If a child seems uncomfortable, parents should let the child's views dictate their plans.

That could mean enjoying a nudist vacation without the child or stripping down only when the child isn't around, Schuttauf said.

"Parents should let the child's view dictate their plans." As any parent knows, letting the child make the call on family decisions is just plain stupid, otherwise all meals would consist of cake and ice cream, and all vacations would be at Disney World. Children are "uncomfortable" in church, at the dentist, at summer camp, in school, in gym class, etc. It's up to the parent to make the best possible decision for the welfare of the child. With all the benefits of nudism, from improved body image to healthier minds and bodies, nude recreation is good for people of all ages.

This does not mean that parents should drag their kids kicking and screaming to nudist resorts. Common sense needs to prevail, but it should be up to the parents to make the common sense decisions, not the children.

By suggesting that family nudism should be the sole decision of the child, Schuttauf infers that parental nudism in the home, and at nudist resorts, without the full support of the child, is tantamount to abuse, and that police and child protection agencies have the right to step in.

I'm not surprised that AANR would take the "appeasement" route, especially since it abandoned San Onofre Beach, and virtually convicted the "naked coffee guy" in Virginia before the full facts of the case were known. And don't forget that Schuttauf also raised questions about the other Arizona couple who had their children temporarily removed over some nude family photos, and astoundingly endorsed full body scanners at airports.

Nudists and naturists need to advocate clearly for the nude lifestyle and not take these "politically correct" stances which only serve to further stigmatize nudity. Kudos to Bob Morton of the NAC for properly analyzing this particular situation, and boos to AANR for once again failing to recognize the right of nudity in the home.

Further Clarification on "Is AANR Overstepping Its Bounds?"

This is a follow-up to my previous post, which has been misunderstood by some.

I am not criticizing AANR for being cognizant of current events. To the contrary, I praise them for their diligence.

What I am saying is that when the Executive Director of AANR comments on stories about which the organization has no official stance, he is inadvertently injecting AANR into the story.

For example, anyone can pull quotes from Schuttauf's post to make comments like these:

AANR Executive Director Eric Schuttauf speculated in an editorial today that Eric Williamson, the man arrested for indecent exposure in Virginia, could have been standing "spread eagle in open doorways" in a "purposeful display" of his genitals, prompting his arrest.

~or~

Eric Schuttauf, Executive Director of The American Association of Nude Recreation, concluded today that the parents arrested in Arizona for taking nude photos of their children were "probably not pornographers", but also said that reports about the images "reveal aspects of the photos that legitimately would have triggered alarm bells for the Wal-Mart clerk and the police."

By making both of these comments. Schuttauf has made AANR part of the story, and in the latter example, perhaps into the lawsuit as well. He also goes on to say if the parents in Arizona had followed AANR guidelines on nude photography, the "case may not have gone as far as it did."

These are pretty powerful comments from someone who stated emphatically just a few paragraphs earlier that "Responding too quickly, without knowing all the facts for certain, brings peril if initial reports and assumptions turn out untrue."

This is why I say Schuttauf's post, and Carlyn Hawkins' comments to the Washington Examiner, are simply unwise, and a simple "no comment" would have been far more appropriate.

Is AANR Overstepping Its Bounds?

AANR Executive Director Erich Schuttauf in a blog post today addressed two hot button issues - the case of the nude coffee guy in Virginia, and the parents arrested for taking nude photos of their children in Arizona.

I’ll acknowledge that with most such cases, AANR faces a significant obstacle that must be overcome to respond to the news story properly: like all “merely mortal” readers, viewers, and listeners, we often do not have first-hand knowledge of the facts. Did the parents of the young girls take photos that came too close to the line? Did Mr. Coffee simply stumble around the kitchen preparing brew, or did he stand spread eagle in open doorways and a large plate glass picture window at 8:40 in the morning-and were mother and son taking only a small shortcut between two very public sidewalks from which one could have just as easily seen a purposeful display as has also been alleged?

Responding too quickly, without knowing all the facts for certain, brings peril if initial reports and assumptions turn out untrue. Yet the early innings of a story are usually the stage where our blood is boiling at its hottest. DAMN IT. If AANR knows about this it should be DOING something.

The media likes to hear us say “damn it.” “Damn it” makes us buy newspapers. “Damn it” keeps us listening over the commercial break.

I want all our members and clubs to be assured that AANR hears the frustration in your phone calls and e-mail messages. I cannot promise you that we will be goaded into premature action because doing so can all-too-easily detract from a reputation of providing a credible voice of reason for nude recreation.

But I do promise you that AANR will continue to track events, to take the extra time that it takes to research the facts, or find out what the jury determined so that we can continue providing reliable guidance. And that we WILL speak out in cases of clear injustice to nudists.

Yes, news stories like these have an affect on nudists and naturists because they are reflective of public perceptions and societal shifts, and they should be discussed openly and frankly by all concerned. This is why I write about strip club ordinances, child pornography, sexting and other issues involving the human body and sexuality, which are not directly related to nudism, but speak to trends and attitudes.

And I'm glad that the powers-that-be at AANR are also concerned about these issues, and keep track of laws and ordinances.

BUT (and you knew this "but" was coming), I think it's disastrous public relations for the Executive Director of The American Association for Nude Recreation directly linking his organization with potential crimes involving indecent exposure and child pornography. While it's perfectly OK for bloggers like me to raise these issues, or even for AANR members to discuss them in a forum, it's a huge mistake, in my opinion, for Mr. Schuttauf to take them on himself.

It's a good thing that AANR has not taken an official stand on these stories, but by even discussing them in an official capacity associates nude recreation with crimes involving nude people.

The public perception can only be that AANR is open to defending flashers and pornographers. Yes, when all the facts are known and the issues are found to have a direct bearing on nude recreation, issue a statement, but open speculation and "thinking out loud" is not wise. When contacted by the press about these sort of news stories, it's best to issue a "no comment" on the basis that there is no evidence that these people are practicing nudists, belong to any nudist organizations, or that their alleged crimes have any relationship at all to nude recreation.

[UPDATE: Clarification - when I recommend a "no comment", that's what it should be, just "no comment". The bases I described are reasons for keeping mum, not meant to be given out as part of the "no comment". Otherwise the "no comment" becomes a "comment." See my previous post on this issue, where spokesperson Carlyn Hawkins declined to comment on the specifics of the naked coffee guy case, but added some general defense of nudism in general. By making her "no comment" into a "comment", her words got into the news, and linked AANR with a guy arrested for indecent exposure.]

My guess is that members of the Naturist Action Committee cringed when they read Mr. Schuttauf''s public post, which devoted 15 paragraphs to these current news issues, while a post made on 10/24 about the San Onofre lawsuit defeat was only two paragraphs. There's plenty of work to be done on the public lands issue, and valuable time and resources should not be wasted in chasing down every hot button story that comes along. The NAC chooses its battles wisely.

In addition, there is no evidence that the story of Naked Coffee Guy or the one involving the parents in Arizona will result in any changes to any laws. If anything, the public appears to be far more sympathetic to the people arrested in these cases, and outraged that they would be charged with crimes over things we've always taken for granted. Chances are these already overblown cases will quietly go away on their own.

Again, I'm glad that AANR keeps up to date on current events involving nudity issues, but unless there is some direct affect on nude recreation, nudist rights, or changes to anti-nudity laws and ordinances, officers in the organization should avoid making unnecessary public comments, in my opinion. The general population is already confused enough with the merging of swinging and nudism at some clubs, and AANR needs to remain focused on promoting positive nudist family values, and not be distracted by every viral story that comes along.