The Washington Post Magazine is a weekend insert that comes with the Sunday papers. Yesterday's issue for Sunday, May 13th, had an article about a lady who lives around here (Annandale, if you know the area) and is a long-time nudist. She's also president of the Society for Nude Recreation, or whatever the name is. She's 61. The short article was completely neutral and included her photo. She was nude, of course, and seated in a chair but it wasn't "full frontal."

Such articles show up from time to time and even on television now and then, always in a completely neutral bias. The one television news item I recall was when a local non-landed group was renting a pool and exercise facility. I imagine the intent of the program segment was to show something that was off-beat, which is probably the way most people see nudists to begin with.

Another news item from several years ago, so long ago I don't remember many details (which means it could have been last week as well), was about a local nudist group, possibly the same one who rented the pool, that was collecting clothing for charity purposes. I think that was around the time of the Yugoslavian civil war.

Well a neutral bias is how nudity should be looked at. I'm not a fanatic about nudity as some are who want to be nude as much as possible- even for such bold adventures as skiing and skydiving, on the other hand, for some activities, clothes are not only unnecessary but a nuisance and I think it's silly- and harmful- the fuss people make about the human body. The only "harm" that comes from seeing a naked body is what people have programmed into their head.

Neutral is the word I used but really, I think when such things appear in the paper or the news as these did, I think they are viewing or showing nudism as a curiosity. I've always thought the general public saw nudists as harmless eccentrics. That isn't to say that those with big mouths do not see nudists as perverts that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and if there isn't a law, there should be. Nudism is actually illegal in some states, you know.

The only national TV program I can recall that even mentioned nudism was from Robert Stack's old program, which I think was America's Most Wanted or whatever preceded it. Some one moved into town and joined a local landed nudist club, then somehow managed to steal some sports memorabilia from a local store. I don't recall the connection between the two things. But they were interviewing some residents of the club, who were shown with towels wrapped around them, which is better than showing them with pixilated parts, at least. I'd hate to have my parts pixilated.

Some people still get a little more than uptight about the possibility that some people are nudists. There is a good article on Wikipedia about "clean living movements" that seems appropriate and informative.

Well these days gymnophobia is the worse I've ever seen it. Since the infamous Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Superbowl stations and cable networks fuzzed or pixilate even the slightest hint of nudity. The fine that the FCC gave CBS for this incident was absurd, and the new requirement that every live remote be buffered through a delay causes stations all kinds of technical problems as well as the expensive of the delay equipment. And all this because of a half-second glimpse of a nipple that you had to run is slomo to even see! This would be funny if it wasn't so damn costly and stupid but that's how it is now.

ABC just did a news story on a nudist family on their Xtreme Parenting show:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/t/video/ream ... g-16283741

Well these days gymnophobia is the worse I've ever seen it. Since the infamous Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Superbowl stations and cable networks fuzzed or pixilate even the slightest hint of nudity. The fine that the FCC gave CBS for this incident was absurd, and the new requirement that every live remote be buffered through a delay causes stations all kinds of technical problems as well as the expensive of the delay equipment. And all this because of a half-second glimpse of a nipple that you had to run is slomo to even see! This would be funny if it wasn't so damn costly and stupid but that's how it is now.

. . . . .

You are correct on that point, I believe. The irony is the ready availability of naked bodies on the internet and in some movies, not that I've been to the movies lately. Even so, as far as the movies go, it isn't quite the way it was in the 1970s and 1980s but then, what is?

ABC just did a news story on a nudist family on their Xtreme Parenting show:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/t/video/ream ... g-16283741

I couldn't see the article or video but I noticed it a few days ago (and didn't look at it then either). Pure sensationalism.

You are correct on that point, I believe. The irony is the ready availability of naked bodies on the internet and in some movies, not that I've been to the movies lately. Even so, as far as the movies go, it isn't quite the way it was in the 1970s and 1980s but then, what is?

Yes, there is plenty of nudity on the net- if you know where to look- but that's the only place. There was a lot of nudity in movies in the '70s and early '80s. For a time it seem almost mandatory that every movie have a nude scene even when it seem superfluous. Now hardly any do, and the older ones that did have been re-edited to remove the nudity.

I have no problems with nudity in a film if it is necessary to the story. But a lot of the nudity in the early 1980s was just for titillation purposes.

Yes, no doubt a lot of it was for titillation. But if we didn't treat anatomy parts as taboo and sexualize them they wouldn't have this titillating effect. There was a time women' legs were considered too titillating to be seen in public. Women's had to hide them in black stockings even at the beach-

. . . .

Today we see women's bare legs all the time and think nothing of it.