Is Nudism for All Christians?

[Fresh Air]

Some time ago I came to the conclusion and personal belief that nudity and the practice of nudism itself is not a sin. I still believe this, but have often doubted my own actions. I ran across this article the other day:

Naked for Christ? (http://www.themarriagebed.com/naturism.shtml)

I thought it had some valid points. Some of the points I have strugled with myself and some of the other points I have seen others acting out.

I was just wondering if any other fellow Christian Nudists have any insight and input into the matter.

Is the article making valid points?

Fresh Air

[Fresh Air]

Some time ago I came to the conclusion and personal belief that nudity and the practice of nudism itself is not a sin. I still believe this, but have often doubted my own actions. I ran across this article the other day:

Naked for Christ? (http://www.themarriagebed.com/naturism.shtml)

I thought it had some valid points. Some of the points I have strugled with myself and some of the other points I have seen others acting out.

I was just wondering if any other fellow Christian Nudists have any insight and input into the matter.

Is the article making valid points?

Fresh Air

[Naturist Zoar]

In my humble opinion, I don't see any valid points in the article.

[TXK NUDE]

I read that article years ago when I first began to explore social nudism, and researching it and Scripture for compatability. IF a Christian wants to explore nudism, and their spose does not, then their FIRST priority is to their spouse... in fact, the order of priorities for any Christian should be like this:
1. God (my relationship with the Almighty)
2. Spouse (my relationship with my wife/husband)
3. Family (my realtionship with my children/parents)
4. Nudism (my relationship with myself/my body/my health)

Should any of the other three interfere significantly with the other, then you should always go with the one of a higher priority. An example would be that if your nudism is driving your relationship with your spouse to divorce--then put your nudism on the back burner and focus instead on your relationship with you wife. She may see your sincerity to her and decide to eventually join you at a club or beach!

The article does make some points, but I think it is a little heavy handed, and not very balanced to the truth.

[Trailscout]

Paul and Lori (moderators) said, "We think the Bible is clear that nudity is to be limited to the marriage relationship, but since no single verse says this it's not always easy to "prove" this point".

If they were considering the Torah verses forbidding "uncovering the nakeness of...(near relatives)", you might ask yourself if it meant that the Bible teaches that nakedness itself is wrong, but that would divorce the word "nakedness" from the context of the act of undressing for the purpose of sexual union in a society where people generally wear clothes. In other words, those often-cited passages condemn fornication and incest, not simple nudity. This presupposition of the immorality of social nudity ignores the accounts in the Bible where nudity was treated matter-of-factly with no condemnation, or a case or two where nudity is mandated directly by God.

The guest columnist seemed to recognize the weakness of this argument and proposed instead, the following premise: Social nudism becomes a wedge that drives spouses apart.

The guest columnist cannot directly find fault with nudism, so he proposes that social nudity should be avoided because he regards it as a controversial divisive issue. But I could say the same thing about a couple divided over the issue of becoming a Christian. If one spouse of an unbelieving couple becomes a Christian, it could create division and stress in the marriage, yet no one would argue that coming to Christ is to be avoided if it would in so doing, create the tension of a mixed marriage. The unsaved spouse may be driven to jealousy and anger when his/her newly saved spouse becomes active in a church, and no longer participates in immoral activities the couple once shared.

I know that some clubs ban married people from attending a resort without the spouse, but that really is a separate issue from whether one's marriage is strong enough to tolerate a difference of opinion about the morality of social nudity or if there is enough trust in a relationship for one spouse to take a separate vacation that accomodates his interest in golf, fishing, bowling or any number of things.

The guest columnist suggested that nudist resorts are undesireable because one would be exposed to immoral people. Let me give a non-nudist example of a similar situation:
My father took an interest in community theater and derived a lot of satisfaction from his acting avocation. He ran into a few unsavory characters in the theater group among a generally very genial and wholesome group, but the few bad apples did not tempt him to sin, did not sully his reputation in the community, nor did it prevent him from enjoying his time in the theater.

The guest columnist then discussed the problem of "secret nudism".
He made the mistake of assuming that all members of one's congregation will condemn you for visiting a nudist resort. Gossips can be found in some churches. A visit to a nudist resort is simply one of many things I would not discuss with people I did not know well nor with people who have proven themselves to be unworthy of trust. If I had a wayward son or daughter, I certainly would not tell such people, even though I am innocent of wrongdoing in the matter.

Families that are regularly nude at home vary their wardrobe when company comes. I don't know of any nudist couples who don't invite non-nudist friends over from time to time. They simply dress on those occasions. There is no deceipt involved. I have a non-nudist friend who used to allow his children to frolic nude in the living room when I was visiting, but I was a trusted friend. He would not allow his children to be nude in the presence of a stranger who was doing some home repairs or making a sales call.

I have met quite a few nudists who remained active in their local churches. I know of some who privately, but matter-of-factly mentioned going to a nude beach or camping nude. These people I refer to are pillars of the church and highly regarded.

I realize that some churches are intolerant, but certainly not all are.

I am blessed to be an easy drive away from a nudist resort where the vast majority are monogamous family folks, quite a few of whom are Christian.
I have found that in that resort, some non-Christian nudists are open-minded and that they listened respectfully and with interest as I shared my faith.

I am also aware that some couples are not so lucky as I and they may find that the nearest nudist resort has a sizeable number of immoral people to the point that the place is not a pleasure for a Christian to visit. Then again, I could find workplaces that are just as immoral. I admit that a Christian family, particularly one with young children would do well to avoid resorts with an prevailing atmosphere of carnality. That still leaves the option of trips to resorts that are wholesome, nudity on campouts, nude beaches and household and backyard nudity.

I cannot ignore the claim that the fruits of nudism "tend to be contrary to Biblical teaching".

Many Christian nudists can attest to the benefits of living nude as God intended. Regular nudity helps break the link between sexual lust and the sight of bare skin; nudity glorifies God who created the body while minimizing the false glamor of expensive clothes. There is not space to list all benefits, but there are many.

[sawdust]

Trailscout. Congratulations on once again making an excellent posting. It was to my way of thinking, well thought out and excellent in its clarity and simplicity of presentation. Thanks too for taking a stand for Christanity, your beliefs and making your outstanding posting.
Your brother in Christ Service, Sawdust

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Naturist Zoar:
In my humble opinion, I don't see any valid points in the article. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. All of its major points were based on how other Christians might react. But "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) Since the Bible never clearly condemns simple nudity, and makes it clear that the body is good, even to calling it a "temple of the Holy Ghost" (I Cor. 6:19) and "the members of Christ" (vs. 15), the writer's argument is a house built on sand.

To answer the topic question, naturism is for all Christians who can accept it. We should not condemn those who cannot embrace our freedom; but we should oppose those who would deny us any exercise of it, always treating them as brothers and sisters in Christ and potential fellow naturists/nudists.

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
If they were considering the Torah verses.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Trailscout,

Excellent post! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I've often wondered how Christianity squares belief in an infallible Creator with the belief that he must have screwed up and made the human body a thing that must be hidden from view. Not to mention that, as has already been pointed out, the Bible never even implies (to my mind) that non-sexual nudity is wrong.

Vin

[Tyco]

I am writing this without having the time to read through the previous replies. If I'm repeating any points already made above, it's because they're my own and I haven't read any above yet.

The article's first point:

"This leads to the first big, big problem with social nudism in general: It becomes a wedge that drives spouses apart."

I disagree with this first point. He makes it sound like an overall problem. It may in some isolated marriages, but I've met several married couples who are both happily into nudism and enjoy sharing it together. He "shotguns" this point too broadly.

His second point about keeping it a secret is valid. I am a Christian nudist, but almost no one who knows me knows it. Is it because I am ashamed of it? No. It is out of fear of being judged, possibly being kicked out of my church, and worse, losing my job which is run by Christians. I know nudism is difficult to understand by folks who aren't into it....I understand that, and respect that, so I just don't choose to tell everyone about it. Actually they don't need to know.

I am involved with Christian ministries, both inside my church and outside. I do not find my nudism to be a hindrance to them. They COULD be a hindrance, if other Christians found out and caused problems for me, but it would be because of them, not me.

"About 40% of nudists are swingers." Where on earth did he get this?? He does not back it up with a referrence. I immediately doubt this claim. This wild point alone seriously damages the credibility of the whole article.

Overall I think this article was written by one person who had bad experiences, and decided to attack nudism out of retaliation or whatever his personal motive was. His writing was of course picked up eagerly by other Christians who disagree with nudism and think it's a sin.

Is nudism for all Christians? Absolutely not. It isn't for everyone, period. But it is for those who prefer enjoying the outdoors, sun, wind, and water, without any clothing, such as myself.

I cannot personally speak for those that frequent nudist clubs. I do not go to those; I prefer a nice skinny-dipping hole or nudist beach. I believe that the writer was more into clubs, and may have had his bad experiences in them...where he perhaps saw swinging going on, and other things that disgusted him. I don't know.

Actually, I think nudism IS for everyone, BUT not everyone is for nudism. If everyone's eyes were suddenly opened and they saw that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with social nudism, many of them STILL wouldn't be comfortable enough with their own bodies , or with other people's bodies, to be nude with other people.

[Leo]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fresh Air:
Some time ago I came to the conclusion and personal belief that nudity and the practice of nudism itself is not a sin. I still believe this, but have often doubted my own actions. I ran across this article the other day:

Naked for Christ? (http://www.themarriagebed.com/naturism.shtml)

I thought it had some valid points. Some of the points I have strugled with myself and some of the other points I have seen others acting out.

I was just wondering if any other fellow Christian Nudists have any insight and input into the matter.

Is the article making valid points?

Fresh Air <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Fresh Air,

I believe that God created us all in his own image, and that everything he created is good!

Here is another site you may find useful....http://www.rejectshame.com/.... this site is very useful and understanding to me. I also have other site that are helpful to the christian nudist. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Ben_m]

By Jon-Marc:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actually, I think nudism IS for everyone, BUT not everyone is for nudism. If everyone's eyes were suddenly opened and they saw that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with social nudism, many of them STILL wouldn't be comfortable enough with their own bodies , or with other people's bodies, to be nude with other people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just wanted to clap for this thought. I like it!

I would also add, as others have, that the issue presented in the article in question is really the (irrational) judgement of others, often fueled by misguided religious ferver, NOT the inevitable results of naturist practice, under any circumstance.

[Fresh Air]

Thanks for all the informative comments.

Just to clarify again. I don't feel that any part of nudism itself is a sin. In my oppinion, the nude body is not sinful in an isolated or social setting.

My issue was questioning wheather it can be a vice, which I suppose anything can be.

Perhaps I fit to well, some of the points the author in the article made. I am a nudist and my wife is not (socially). In the past, before we married, I had told her when I visited nude beaches, but it upset her so I stopped telling her, while continueing to visit when I had the chance. Somehow, it didn't seem "right". So, I stopped going and haven't been for nearly a year.

Another issue that pertains to me is the feeling of being judged by hypocrites (not that I am not immune from the label). Nudism sometimes felt like a secret that had to be hidden. Keeping secrets from fellow Christians is human nature, but not Godly nature.

If they were to find out, what would happen? Certainly some would judge, but whatever the case a paradigm shift would most likely occur. For some reason, I just don't see that situation as neccessarily worth risking church family or spiritual relationships.

The final tie in is that my brother, a nudist for several years more than myself, has ceased going to church. His GF and he are nudists. My fear is that what the author talked about in the article may have something to do with it.

It has strained some ties of normality as well. They never fully participate at pool or beach events (remaining mostly clothed) for fear of tan lines. If they are visiting a nudist venue, no friends or family are invited and that is possibly another reason to skip church (a free day where nobody would be going early anyhow). The worst part might be the burden effect that can be placed or felt. I dont know how else to describe it. It's the "if only you were a nudist, I could be a more full nudist and not have to hand out with one of purdish nature".

Case in point: My wife and her friend (nudist) went on vacation. Three events pointed to what I'm talking about. One was the hotel. There is subpreceptive tension, when the nudist is self-forced to wear clothes around the 'textile' because it would (in their eyes) make them feel uncomfortable which would make the nudist feel uncomfortable. Another situation was at the spa. My wife went in the hot tub, a clothing optional area. Her friend, did not choose to join her, possibly because she did not believe in doing that event in a restrictive bathing suit or care to practice nudism in front of a non-nudist. Another nude lady later joined my wife. The last event is "laying out". My wife and her friend went to the pool. My wife laid out normally, the friend laid out in her clothes, under a tree for shade, to prevent tan lines.

I guess my post is getting too long.

I've just been thinking about nudism and how it pertain to my life lately. I am not going to deny nudism or disassociate from the lifestyle entirely. I just want to approach it with more caution in how it affects people around me and myself. I'll certainly be seeking advice from my friend Jesus too.

Fresh Air

[Elton]

Christianity is all about liberty in its most basic sense, Fresh Air. Nudism is a part of liberty, it's being liberated from the Victorian Prudishness that permeats our culture.

The U.S. Constitution grants us the basic rights to claim Justice and Liberty, to live our lives, and to persue happiness. Nudism is an expression of these basic rights, so the U.S. Constitution grants everyone to enjoy nudity. Nudism is just one expression of liberty. As a Liberal in the right sense of the word per my Christian Beliefs, I've adopted nudity as my expression of that Liberty.

It's just that other Christians express their liberty in other ways. Unfortunately, however, people are people and if you don't fit their perfect worlds, they feel that you have betrayed them somehow.

Betrayal, yeah, that's the right word. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Fresh Air]

I suppose the a simplified view is this. Which is more important to be a physical or spiritual nudist? By that I mean that we are easily convicted and see the benefits of shedding our physical clothes and having fellowship on a level of equality that is rarely matched. Is this not the same thing God asks of us to do with our Christian family spiritually?

How can we "hide" who and what we are in one context (spiritually) and have no problems with hiding anything physically? It seems the mind set should apply in both domains. If it is not possible to apply both then should we choose one or the other to live by?

I'm trying to unify the two, but I wonder if I should lean more towards my spiritual convictions rather than denying them for physical convictions.

Fresh Air

[nudeinfl]

I liked the part about the congregaton judging the open nudists. Doesnt the Bible state something about leaving the judgment to God.

It is completely hipocritical for any Christian to condemn nudism. One of Jesus' main teaching was acceptance. This not only includes of others, but also oneself. Unfortunately, this society does not promote body acceptance. Nudism is a wonderful way for people to break through their misconceptions of self. My opinion is that Jesus would be at the nude beach with the rest of us.

[P.J.]

Q: Is nudity for all Christians?
A: No.

As a Christian and a nudist, I believe that nudism is definitely not for everyone.

Some children adapt well to a naturist lifestyle while some adults don't, and vice versa.

Some people are aroused by the sight of a naked body, while an ankle bracelet attracts the attention of some like a lightning rod.

As we all know, textiles from some of the skimpy bathing suits to some three piece dress suits (especially slit skirts) can fire up the libido of others.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that there is no simple answer, but a great subject for years of debate!

Maybe there will be the need of an altogether new web site, which would exclusively deal with this question.

[Bob S.]

I saw this site last year and was able to actually contact "Paul" with my own concerns. I actually received a response which I will post next. First, I will post my reaction to the article.

The first argument is about driving a wedge between spouses. This has already been wonderfully explained by TXK and Trail. Anything can become a wedge between spouses. The biggest reason for discord in marriages is money. Another problem is child-rearing disagreements. But nobody would suggest that the couple should give up their wealth or their children in order to save the marriage.

I agree that someone should decide which is more important, nudism or the marriage. Since they took the vows, if otherwise the marriage is healthy, that should come first. The reluctant spouse should also make an effort to support her husband (or his wife) for the benefit of the union. Comprimise is part of making a marriage work.

The second argument given is that being a nudist can deter someone from fulfilling being a good Witness. That, as others have pointed out, is the result of Christians who are being very unChristianlike and actually judging others. The problem in not being a good Witness thus comes from those who are being judgemental and not "accepting the sinner."

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

This is the email I and a number of other Netnuders (www.netnude.com (http://www.netnude.com)) received after responding to the "Naked for Christ?" article. It is from Paul, one of the creators and moderators of the site.

Bob S.

Hello all,

I have recently received a number of e-mails about the "Naked for Christ" article on our web site; an article written by a former Christian Nudist. I have now learned that the article has been linked to or posted on one or more nudist boards, which explains the sudden interest. Normally I try to respond individually to e-mails, but giving the number of you and the length and similarity of the messages, I feel a mass response is better stewardship of my time. BTW, this is being sent to at least three continents, you folks are everywhere ;-)

A couple of notes. I have spoken with the fellow who wrote the article, so I can clarify some of his points. While I have no personal experience with social nudism, I would not personally be embarrassed to engage in it, nor do I think I would fall into lust if I did. This does not mean I think it's without sin, and it does not negate my main concern, which is causing others to sin. I say this to eliminate the prude, uptight, and embarrassed issues from my personal motivations here.

Several of you complained about the sex ration mentioned by the author of the article, and also the percentage of nudists who are "swingers". The man who wrote the article said the sex ratios came from his personal experience, and the swingers percentage from a newsletter for a regional nudist association. These figures were true for his experience, but he is quick to concede that the situation may be very different in other countries, and even in other locations in the States.

Another criticism was that the author choose to remain anonymous. He points out that anonymity is a huge concern for many nudists at least in the US, and it seems to me that this makes criticism of his anonymity rather hypocritical. I would point out that one of the concerns he mentioned in his article was "I have seen nudism wreck a person's witness". This man has chosen to put his witness for Jesus ahead of all else, and he feels that this requires him to remain anonymous on this issue.

Most of the letters I've received say that nudism is not sin, and the problem is the folks who view it wrongly. Okay, lets accept that premiss for a moment. That really does not change what the author of the article said. He did not stop being a nudist because he felt it was sin, but rather because he became convinced it was a hindrance to him being a faithful servant of the Lord. (This is my understanding of what he said, not his own words).
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul talks about our responsibility to those bothers and sisters who's consciences are weak. After saying it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian to eat meat, even meat sacrificed to an idol, Paul says "... if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. " (1 Corinthians 8:7-13 NKJV). If Paul advocates abstaining from this, which he has said is not sin, should we not also abstain from other non-sinful things which causes significant numbers of our brothers and sisters to stumble? And does not nudism CLEARLY fall into that category?
So, even if it's not inherently sinful, nudism is something that a Christian needs to avoid for the sake of his/her weaker brothers and sisters. Sin or not, the opinion of so many who follow Jesus is such that the choice is clear - practice nudism, or devote yourself fully to Christ - you can not do both!!

A couple of you suggested that if we could change how society looks at nudity we would end all kinds of problems from pedophilia to pornography to rape. Cultures where nudity is common were mentioned as examples. But what would it take to change any Western country from where we are to the examples given? The time and effort would be massive, and I would suggest to you that putting such energy into something which is not going to lead to the Salvation of anyone is bad stewardship at best. We are here to promote Jesus, not nudity!

Finally, in studying this whole thing, I have found some very disturbing connections between nudist and pornography, including child pornography. I am not suggesting that most nudist have any connection to these things, but I am a firm believer in cleaning your own house, and the nudists of the world have a large and growing problem that they are not dealing with.
It is becoming increasingly common for pictures from nude beaches and resorts to end up on Internet porn sites. High power telephoto lenses and mini spy cams make it easy to do this, and almost impossible to prevent.
Far more disturbing is the selling of pictures and videos of nude teens and children. These images are not illegal because the children are not being filmed in explicit poses or seen engaged in sex acts. But pedophiles do not limit their perversion according to the law - any image of a naked child is fine with them. When a video of a six year old's nude birthday party sells for many times what other nude videos sell for, is there any doubt who the market is? When the cost of nudist videos on a site is indirectly proportional to the age of the people in the videos, can anyone claim that other nudists are the primary audience?
Rather than sending letters trying to convince me that nudism is good, clean, healthy fun, I suggest you put your effort into rooting out the folks in your movement who feed images to pedophiles and pornographers! If nothing else you might want to do this as self preservation. You could receive in your snail mail or e-mail box an image which violates the child porn laws in your area and end up in jail for it. California now has an over the top law that has jailed folks for far less, and for things they did not even know were on a second hand computer.

In closing, let me make my main point once again - if something you do causes weaker brothers and sisters to stumble, then you should not do it. This is the truth of God's Word.

<>< Paul, bedroom nudist

[Trailscout]

Bob, you have done us a great service providing Paul's response and your comments were thoughtful and to-the-point.

Paul did not explain how someone at my church could potentially fall into sin if he heard that I attended a nudist resort. The last time I went to a nudist resort, I shared my Christian faith with someone who wanted to hear about it; I cooked steaks over a grill; I talked about baseball; I swam in a pool; played a game of petanque; met a fellow Christian and offered him my prayers and enjoyed listening to news of his family. I defy my critic to find fault with any of the activities I engaged in. I would be quite happy if he imitated me!

Paul repeats the assertion that some immoral people attend nudist resorts, implying that it is sufficient reason not to go. That doesn't sound like the example of Christ, who reached out to people who had a bad reputation, even visiting their homes. Sure, there are some places with "nudist" in their banner that are not appropriate for families, but the same could be said for plenty of textile functions like Spring Break at Daytona Beach. Besides, Paul seems ignorant of the family parks and nudist venues that have chapels and weekly worship services in the summer.

Paul seems to be setting up the argument that we should avoid this controversial thing called social nudity, and stick to the morally neutral practice of wearing clothes. This premise is faulty.

I would contend that wearing clothes when they are not needed is not morally neutral. It has led to all sorts of sin: body shame, sexual titillation with hidden parts, denial of the goodness of God's handiwork as evidenced by our bodies, and sensory deprivation as we live and breathe and walk through God's creation.

Paul doesn't even like for us to advocate nudism!
He has confused the error of openly flaunting our freedoms in Christ (being seen naked by people who mentally link it with sex), with the virtue of publically proclaiming those freedoms to those who need to know. By that standard, the Apostle Paul would himself be guilty of "causing his brother to stumble" simply by preaching the freedom to eat meat that was given in sacrifice.

Paul claims that one can't be a nudist and offer his full devotion to Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A lifestyle of discrete nudism coupled with bold advocacy of body freedom is a marvelous legacy to leave to the next generation.

Paul also contends that all effort to improve society (promoting social nudity for example) is effort taken away from leading people to become Christians. Excuse me, but one of the most valid criticisms of modern Christians is that they are so eager to win brownie points with God by saving souls that they don't stop to LOVE people! I contend that if you are not loving people to come to God, they aren't really coming to him. And one way to love people is to participate in social nudity and advocate it, because of its beneficial effects on our attitude about a lot of things.

Paul says that "most nudists do not have any connection (to pornography), but he turns right around and blames us for Internet porn because we are being filmed playing volleyball and swimming. Paul is confused again. Porn merchants put the word "nudist" in their Web site headers or page titles and somehow that links them with us? We are not the ones being filmed in sex acts. It is the porn industry, which is largely a textile industry that uses our good name to push their product.

It's not just a problem for nudists, women at textile beaches are not immune from high power telephoto lenses and mini spy cams. Some spy cams have been put in public toilets. Paul, please don't tell me to "hold it" until I get home!

Yes, we should stop some of this invasion of privacy, but that's no reason to stop enjoying a day at the beach.

This guy thinks he is objective, but his preconceptions about us go on and on. But enough said from me!

[Bob S.]

A couple of points on Paul's rebuttal:

He talks about the hypocrity of anonymity. First, on all official papers, I use my real name, that includes at White Tail, for AANR, for my ISP, etc. But for informal times such as the internet, friends, etc., I will be more anonymous, using my first name only, and that is especially true of the internet.

He also says that we should avoid anything that causes others to stumble. If we were to follow that advice, we would all be living the most boring, mundane lives. We cannot use the weaknesses of others to determine how we should live.

For his argument against changing other's minds to solve the problems of pornography, pedophilia, and rape, he says, "But what would it take to change any Western country from where we are to the examples given? The time and effort would be massive..."

So he is basically saying that we should not try to alter others views to something that we feel is much healthier because it would be taking away from Witnessing. But wouldn't those things such as porn, pedophilia, and rape also go against and prevent others from Witnessing?

He has another problem with facts when he claims that videos of naked children (nudist) are more expensive than other nude (nudist) videos. I have not found that to be the case. At enature.com, helios, etc., the prices of all videos are basically the same, around $50-$60.

One thing that he doesn't even get into is those who judge others. Does he not realize that doing something to prevent your own Witness is just as bad as doing something to prevent someone else from Witnessing? And judging others to the point that they cannot Witness is sinful.

Bob S.

[Elton]

I still assert that Christianity is more liberal than people think.

Christianity = liberty.
Nudism = liberty.

They really aren't exclusive to each other. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Bob S.]

There are some great Christians. There are some terrible Christians. That can be said about any religion or group of people.

There are just some people in this world who are closed-minded about many things. These people are the cause of most of the problems in the world.

Bob S.

[Elton]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
There are some great Christians. There are some terrible Christians. That can be said about any religion or group of people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's sad, but you are quite correct. Some Christians don't know how to be Christian.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elton:
[QUOTE] Some Christians don't know how to be Christian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And people who CLAIM to be Christians but AREN'T bring a lot of reproach upon Christianity.

Unfortunately, real (and not pretend) Christians are just people trying to do what is right and live the kind of life God expects. We sometimes fail and suffer the guilt of our failure. Fortunately, God is forgiving even when people aren't.

[Jochanaan]

"In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul talks about our responsibility to those bothers and sisters who's consciences are weak. After saying it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian to eat meat, even meat sacrificed to an idol, Paul says "... if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. " (1 Corinthians 8:7-13 NKJV)."

That passage has been used by all manner of legalists to justify their legalism. How can we "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (II Peter 3:18) unless such things as nudism are discussed openly, and true Biblical teaching discerned and disseminated?

Besides, Paul says elsewhere, "...one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" (Romans 14:2-4) And, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (Galatians 5:1)

It's a shame that, on this one issue that the Bible neither condemns nor commands, there is so much blindness and closing of minds.

[Buzzer]

According to the King James version Jesus wrapped a towel around himself, got a bowl of water & washed his deciples feet, drying them with the towel. I take this to mean that he presented himself naked and found no shame in it.
As far as all Christians becoming nudists, I belive that is a choise we are given. To me it is not hamrmful or degrading. Our thought processes and c misbehavior are what really matter. What's in our hearts is far more important that what's on our bodies.

[Prometheus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elton:
I still assert that Christianity is more liberal than people think.

Christianity = liberty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is an interesting statement. Can you perhaps explain it to me? My 19 years as a Christian seemed to be filled with people saying "don't do this, and this other thing, and so on, or you'll go to hell." I must say I don't exactly see the liberty in that. How has your experience with Christianity been so different from mine?

[Nude in the North]

Ok, Let me get this straight.

Paul says we should not take part in anything that may or may have caused another to stumble.

Priests have molested children.
Should Christians no longer become Priests?

Teachers have molested children.
Should Christians no longer become teachers?

The President of the United States has done immoral sexual acts right in the Oval Office.

Should we Disband Congress ??

A good Christian Nudist doesn't lead others to sin. The sinners are already there.
Jesus would have mingled with the sinners and guided them back to the Lord.

Steve

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Prometheus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elton:
I still assert that Christianity is more liberal than people think.

Christianity = liberty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is an interesting statement. Can you perhaps explain it to me? My 19 years as a Christian seemed to be filled with people saying "don't do this, and this other thing, and so on, or you'll go to hell." I must say I don't exactly see the liberty in that. How has your experience with Christianity been so different from mine? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's a bit of a difference between the Christianity of the Bible and Christianity as it has evolved over two millenia. Fortunately, throughout its history there have been those such as John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, and many others who dared to call Christianity back to its Biblical foundations. Yes, there are many churches today that try to dictate how their members should act and think, and there are others who don't seem to stand for much of anything; but there are others that hold to Biblical truth while allowing liberty on non-essential issues (and being liberal about defining what is and isn't essential). My own denomination, the Seventh Day Baptists, is a fine example of this. It has a 350-year tradition of encouraging its members and congregations to study the Bible for themselves. The first clause in our statement of faith (itself hammered out by consensus, not imposed from above), says, "Seventh Day Baptists cherish liberty of thought". Our children learn Bible stories, not lists of rules. The first two passages I ever memorized were Psalm 23: "The Lord is my shepherd..." and John 3:16: "For God so loved the world..."

After the first rush of enthusiasm that often forms new churches or denominations fades, one of several things might happen: The leadership may enforce by fiat things that its members did freely at first, setting the foundation for legalism; or the church may drift from its first love and righteousness into relativism. It's a rare organization that can maintain its vitality for a hundred years or more, and the ones that do usually experience periodic revivals, often stimulated by people from outside.

I see the Christian nudist movement as a possible stimulus for revival in the churches. Certainly my own faith has deepened since I embraced nudism.

[brzl66]

Trailscout and Jochanaan have some well-thought and thorough rebutalls to this article, but I would like to add my two cents worth. My wife and I took a hard look at the Apostle Paul's instructions in Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8 and Galatians 5 (among others) when we were researching whether nudism was a valid choice for us two years ago. Given the knowledge I already had of Biblical interpretation and of these passages, several things stood out, but one of the strongest was this: the issue of "causing a brother to stumble" has often been seriously twisted in order to strangle our Christian liberty in many areas of life.

(For those who have doubts about how their actions may affect fellow believers, these must be resolved in your own heart, before the Lord, based upon your best understanding of His Word. To obtain that, you must study it in its literal, historical and grammatical context. That does not mean you have to know Greek and Hebrew, but you do need to use the study resources which provide an explanation of the meaning of the orginal texts, and their cultural/historical settings which affected the early churches and the Hebrew people. We also must be quite careful not to separate any one passage from its surrounding context and misuse it.)

What did the Apostle Paul mean by "causing someone to stumble"? When you look at what he was addressing in both broad passages, it becomes clear that he was dealing with dueling factions within those churches. Some argued for lifestyles with few limits (those taught by Paul previously) while others demanded strict adherence to all of the Jewish Law (including the rabbinical additions). In this context, Paul told those who understood the extent of their freedom to make sure that they did not cause a weaker brother (one who must support his moral fiber with rules) to fall into sin (stumble); whether actual or only in their conscience - by doing that which they believe to be wrong. Paul gives several examples in these letters to the churches, and others can be inferred. I like to use one which we are culturally sensitive to - alcohol. Its moderate use is not condemned in Scripture, while its abuse is warned against quite strongly. If I consume an alcoholic beverage (in moderate quantities), knowing full well in my Christian liberty that it is allowable before God; that is not forbidden. If a legalist knows that I do so and gets upset, that is not causing him to stumble in the manner Paul addresses (see Galatians 2:1 - 3:5, and Acts 15). If however, I flaunt my freedom (whether by word or deed) before a brother (or sister) who has yet to learn Spirit-based self-control, and they partake (contrary to what their conscience is screaming), I cause them to sin. It could be either by their becoming drunk, or simply by offending their own conscience. The instruction then, is to set aside our freedom (sometimes permanently) when necessary for the sake of one who must be taught gently and carefully due to their foibles. On the other hand Paul makes it quite clear that we are to resist those who would restrict legitimate freedoms for the sake of controlling others.

So then, our conclusion was that we will exercise this freedom, without flaunting it. If at any point it is brought to our attention that we are truly in danger of causing someone to sin as described above, we will voluntarily restrict ourselves as long as is necessary to help this brother or sister into maturity. There are some caveats though; should they refuse to accept that it is possible to hold differing viewpoints and practices on issues which are not specifically commanded or forbidden, it is time to evaluate whether they are truly weak, or simply controlling. Can we agree to differ, and know that we disagree in thought and practice without condemning the other? Can they accept that we hold a view which they disagree with (though we may or may not be practicing it out of their sight?) My main disagreement with the tone of the article which was questioned in previous posts is this; there does not appear to be an ability to disagree without condemnation on the part of either the author of the article or the host of site. They take the all-or-nothing approach, arguing for restriction at every possible disagreement, which the apostle refuted.

In the King James it says in 1 Cor. 8:13, "if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while he world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

If this means what I think it means, that Paul is saying that even if something that is not wrong offends another believer, that we shouldn't do it. In that case, we wouldn't do ANYTHING, because no matter what you do someone will be offended and think it's wrong. I had a relative who thought that coffee, comic books and TV were all sinful, and that was 40 years ago! I don't know about coffee, but comic books and TV were very clean then.

I knew a man who thought that any game involving cards was sinful. So my playing cards would be offensive to him. According to Paul I shouldn't play cards because it would offend a brother. I'm not talking about poker where gambling is involved--just a simple game of canasta or spades.

[Trailscout]

Brzl66, I can't say enough how important your comments were. Clearly Paul, (the forum host, not the apostle) is going outside the guidelines of scripture in his distorted interpretation of "not causing a brother to stumble".

In general, I think we should be leading the newbie Christians toward greater freedom and not letting the naysayers dominate our congregation if we have any influence amongst them at all.

There are two unrelated issues involved in going public with our opinions about nudity:
1. Those of us who are members of the most rigid negative churches will probably not have to worry about "causing our brother to stumble" if we are overheard talking about a visit to a nudist resort. Usually the pastor, deacons or elders are not tempted to "fall into the sin of nudism" if someone in their congregation "sins" in that way. They just quietly ask the nudist to repent or leave the church. It can be sad or embarassing at the time, but in the long run it's probably better that we do leave a church dominated by legalism.

Likewise outed nudists in conservative small towns are sometimes victimized by anti-nudist gossip. I can see the need for greater caution, but I don't really see this as leading the weak into sin either. It's a problem, but unrelated to the issue we are discussing.

2. If someone in your church puts you up on a pedestal and has a mistaken concept of what goes on at a nudist resort, then if your nudist ways become public, it is possible that he might be disillusioned that you, his spiritual mentor, have "fallen into sin" and he consequently falls into sin himself. That sounds like kind of a longshot if you ask me. And it doesn't mean that you can't sit him down and set the story straight at some point.

If we let the tail wag the dog in our churches, we will fall into far worse problems than offending a weak brother.

[brzl66]

Thanks for the comments and expansion on what I said. Jon-Marc, I think (if I'm reading your comments correctly) you grasp the problem with reading 1 Cor. 8:13 at first glance in the KJV. I used the NASB translation - stumble - subconsciously, as that is what I grew up with. The NIV, which is often clearer (due to its more modern language) reads "cause to sin". Of course if you look up the old-English meaning for the word offend/offence, it was commonly used in the legal sense of transgression. And that can be backed up (and should be as I pointed out in my previous post) by looking up the meaning of the Greek in which Paul dictated. You are absolutely correct, if we attempted to refrain from every action or viewpoint which could cause offence (in the common modern usage of the English word), we would do nothing - even some very good things, as someone will always find fault somehow. Common sense (or what my grandmother called horse-sense) alone would refuse that as being what the apostle meant.

TS, I quite agree with your post, and hope that what I said did not imply that I think we should hide our views as if ashamed of them. I do think it is desirable not to stir up hornets nests unnecessarily if we know that someone will vehemently disagree with us, nor do I advocate antagonizing a legalist by exercising our freedoms in any area just for the purpose of tweaking them. On the other hand it is sometimes necessary to confront them (as the apostle Paul did) in order to prevent a newer Christian from being coerced into the error of forever renouncing their freedoms in Christ. I have attempted to (and continue to) expose newer (and older) Christians to the concepts of living by Grace rather than Law. That includes weaving in the idea of body/clothes freedom as appropriate. As for leaving a church dominated by legalism; we had to take that step last year, after spending years trying to effect change. The ultimate set of issues which led to our decision was not nudism; it would have been pointless to introduce that into a situation where so many larger doctrines were in dispute.

[Trailscout]

brzl66,

Again, I am grateful for your insight.

I love the majesty of King James English, but a lot of well-meaning people have built doctrinal positions, even their entire lifestyle based on faulty understanding of our language as it was spoken 500 years ago across the Atlantic.

I think we can agree that most nudist Christians would be better off leaving a congregation or even a denomination that has entrenched legalism. If the pastor, the deacons or elders and the Sunday school teachers are all real hardshell ultra-conservatives, we would have to ask such a nudist, "What? Are you still there?".

I am a conservative or moderate Christian and I would not be happy in a church where the Bible is not regarded as the divinely inspired source of our ethical system. There are some "anything goes" churches out there and they are not for me.

I think it would be safe to say that most of us find ourselves in churches that are middle-of-the-road evangelical or Roman Catholic.

And it is also safe to say that most church-going folks in the USA were raised to believe that mixed-gender nudity is indecent and could lead to sexual sin. I would think that most such people don't have a clue what goes on at a nudist resort or knows the history of family nudism and the FKK movement. As a kid, I "learned" that nudists were weirdos who kept to themselves in colonies. Talk about them was usually a naughty joke. And I was raised in a middle-of-the-road church.

I like what you said about fostering a church that is grace-oriented. The struggle between grace and legalism is the root of the problem with acceptance of body freedom and many other things.

If you are in a church where the pastor and the leadership are solidly committed to living by grace, then you have the necessary climate for introducing the concept of body-freedom to people who are worthy of your trust. There are some people in a church who should not be trusted with any confidential information and caution is due.

There's an old Marine corps or Army saying that everyone dies, but you should, if you can, choose the hill you die on. I hope no one thinks of gun battles with my example. I simply mean that I go out of my way to avoid fights with contentious hardheads at my church, but there are times when we have to dig in our heels and oppose someone who would destroy the freedom of the church if he were unrestrained.

If we in a position of leadership, or at least influence, I think we both agree that it would be a sin to stand idly by while a legalist in our church begins discipling young Christians into his negative world view. Your pastor or other leaders should join you in stopping the poison and either guiding him back onto the path and asking him to find another church home if he refuses to be a team player.

I would love to attend a church where Sunday school teachers taught body-freedom as part of a multi-week study of grace. You'd have to have your pastor solidly behind you on that one. And perhaps a pastor might regard a Sunday school class as the more appropriate place to teach body-freedom than from the pastor's pulpit at the main hour of worship.

Try to imagine a day when it will be a common thing on Saturday summer mornings at nudist resorts across America for church buses to pull up and unload a busload of families with kids for a day of nude recreation at their nearest nudist park or resort!

[brzl66]

TS, I couldn't agree with you more. We are now (for the past year) in a middle-of-the-road evangelical church which appears to be very grace-oriented. The church we were members of until then called itself evangelical, but was rapidly becoming very legalistic. I don't know that we are quite ready to introduce the concept of body-freedom in the class settings (we're not in a leadership position, as I was in our previous church), but I would like to sound out some of the folks on this once we have established a solid rapport and trust. I think there may be some who would be at least non-condemning.

I also love the majesty and poetry of 16th and 17th century English, and I think most of the Psalms are more beautiful in the old KJV than in some of the more modern translations. However, most people today have trouble understanding it unless they are taught language analysis, which no longer appears to be part of the core curriculum in most schools. Therefore I believe a modern version to be more useful, and in many passages 400-500 additional years of scholarship provides for more accurate renderings of the original intent.

[P.J.]

I consider myself a very conservative Christian.

As for my view towards mixed gender nudism, I have no problem with being in a group.
It's being alone with an attractive member of the opposite sex where I might be tempted.

As for discussion of naturism within the fellowship that I belong to, I see no need to advertise that I'm a nudist. That probably would not accomplish anything other than perhaps draw unwanted attention or cause distraction/disruption in the church which I attend.

If I encounter a church member at a nudist beach or resort, then we would probably have plenty of interesting discussions.

Until then, I will continue to keep a somewhat low-profile.

[Trailscout]

P.J.,

I don't advocate getting up on the podium on Sunday morning and announcing to your entire congregation that you went to a nudist park yesterday. That is no one's business but yours.

If you are in a small south Georgia town and go to a hardshell Baptist church, some place real negative you may encounter so much hard-headed hostility to nudism that you would be run out of town. I don't know what you're up against in your corner of the state.

Brlz66's point is worth considering, the underlying problem is legalism in the church. Now if you don't want to mention nudism that might be wise in your situation, but I hope you are not stuck in a harsh negative legalistic church. In some little rural areas, that's the only flavor religion comes in.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by P.J.:
As for my view towards mixed gender nudism, I have no problem with being in a group.
It's being alone with an attractive member of the opposite sex where I might be tempted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So would I--whether she was naked or in a nun's habit! /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif Clothes don't clothe our imagination!

[Fresh Air]

Just an observation,

Deciding, based on legalism, what is good or bad about a church seems to be putting nudism in front of christianity.

It might be better to change our lives based on a church than to change a church based on our lives. If anything, a church keeps us in check. Like any other social environment, nudism has it's temptations.

I suppose church is supposed to be a mini taste of heaven. Our church family is a reflection of our heavenly family. Will we still keep secrets and judge eachother in heaven?

Dan

[Bob S.]

"Our church family is a reflection of our heavenly family."

Dan, if that is true, then why are they being so judgemental? Are you going to be judged harshly in heaven?

Churches are man's invention to act as a fellowship to worship G*d. These fellowships should be acting in your best interest and should not have people who will judge every thing that you do.

As chuches are man's invention, they are also fallible. You should always be seeking out the church that fits you best with the right kind of fellowship. You should be seeking the church that will allow you to worship G*d in the fullest. After all, it is not which church you attend that makes the difference, it is your personal relationship with G*d that matters the most. Churches should be there to guide you in your own path.

And just as an observation, if clothing causes someone weaker to stumble, should we then remove all clothing?

Bob S.

[Trailscout]

Dan,

Legalism is the problem, a very old problem. Jesus condemned it, the Old Testament prophets condemned it. There's always a certain amount that we have to put up with, but if it dominates a church, you should consider leaving for the sake of your soul and the furtherance of the gospel. Seeking a new church home is not a sin! Nudity is just one of many things a church can get legalistic over.

[tigerwong]

"--"Our church family is a reflection of our heavenly family."

Dan, if that is true, then why are they being so judgemental? Are you going to be judged harshly in heaven?---"

To say that our church family is a reflection of our heavenly family is an idealistic viewpoint, i think. It is what we Christians would definitely LIKE to be the case, but unfortunately, since we are all only human, there are going to be some problems. So there is a fairly good chance that we will be judged harshly by other members of our respective congregations.

Along those lines, i recently sent an e-mail to the pastor of my church regarding the idea of Christian nudism. His response was, as one might expect, not what i would have liked to hear, and reflected an ignorant mindset about nudism and nudist ideals:

"Suffice it to say for now that nudism is NOT the plan of God for Christian behavior. It is wrong. And it promotes an unclean spirit. The great question is why would anyone want to walk around naked with a lot of naked people. It is not a return to innocence, but a desire to view others. It is a new voyeurism." Yeah, pretty harsh.

To put things in perspective, my pastor is a very anti-legalistic man. He left the catholic church at a young age and strives to avoid the hard nosed legalism he had encountered back then. So i'd have to say that his response has more to do with the cultural mindset regarding nudity. After all, he asks "why would you want to walk around naked with other naked people?" and dismisses it as voyeurism (and probably, mentally, exhibitionism; does that mean the parents in nudist families are incestuous pedophiles because they see their children nude?).

This being the case, i'd say that he, even after possibly doing some looking around, and learning that nudism ideally has nothing to do with voyeurism or exhibitionism, would still disagree with the practice because of negative cultural associations with nudity itself (like he said: "promotes an unclean spirit"), as discussed in the article.

He'd mentioned in his e-mail to me that he plans to bring this up in service on sunday (leaving my name out of it). I hope that by then, he'll have given the issue some time and research before laying that blanket statement out for everyone, or at least explain *why* he thinks the way he does, whether it has to do with the effect on one's witness or otherwise. Here's hoping...

[Trailscout]

tigerwong,
Last year I met a blind woman at a nudist resort. Is she a voyeur? If you are in a room with 50 other nude people, which one is the exhibitionist? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[MichaelJB]

I think Nudism IS for all christians because its our default state as god intended us to be because its in his image and I think that it would actually be respectful to him if we were all naked before him because we would be showing ourselves as being created in his image and besides then we wouldnt be so ashamed and shocked of the nude body that we have been given. Nudity is good for everybody and those who it isnt theres ways for them to get help so that it is good for them. I dont really think there is anybody that nudity isnt good for. I think christians above all should be nude as much as possible.

[MichaelJB]

Even though god doesnt specifically state weither he wants us to be nude or not I think he would prefer it but in reality its probably a non-issue to him and he just leaves that up to us to decide as we see fit but I think he would be pleased if we were nude before him. Ive always thought that being nude is more respectful than wearing a suit, i think it shows more respect for a person and themselves than wearing some fancy outfit does.

[Trailscout]

Mike, I think you are right on target. Being nude is showing respect to the One who made us and shows self-respect for your body. We were deposited in the Garden of Eden in our birthday suits and God had no plans to do a thing about it. When Adam and Eve decided that they needed to hide their bodies, God said "Who told you that you were naked?". The implication is that to God there is no such thing as being naked (lacking something). The body is enough!

Now I know that come winter, I'm going to wear a few things to keep warm, but as much as I can I am going right back to my Garden of Eden formal wear and I won't have a single fig leaf to detract from God's original design.

[tigerwong]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
tigerwong,
Last year I met a blind woman at a nudist resort. Is she a voyeur? If you are in a room with 50 other nude people, which one is the exhibitionist? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, such a point is perfectly valid to *ME* but i doubt he'd let an exception like the blind woman, or your example of 50 nudists in a room change his stance so quickly. He's a very thorough kind of guy. If he decides to do any kind of research on the topic, he'll do so exhaustively and only after that may his opinion change.

At this point, though, my guess is that he feels much like the writer of that article; since nudity has such negative cultural associations, it can negatively affect one's witness to someone not firmly grounded in their faith, or a would-be convert. I'm betting that in the final analysis, that would be most important to him.

[Trailscout]

tigerwong, funny you should mention this. Recently we had a discussion on this forum about misapplication of the admonition to "not eat meat sacrified to idols".

Here's a link to our discussion: Legalism (http://www.clothesfree.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000136;p=2#0000 31) or Bible study on this yourself, but to summarize what we concluded: although the apostle Paul would not eat idolater's meat in the presence of people with a weak conscience, he did not refrain from expressing his opinion that it was okay. By the same token, I would not be nude in front of someone who did not understand, but I would not be sinning in explaining why I believe that social nudism is not sinful, but good. The legalists don't even want us to advocate our freedom in Christ! They are completely misinterpreting the apostle Paul in doing so.

There are some excellent Christian nudist resources on the Web. I made a list of the better ones here: Here's my list of Christian nudist Web sites: (http://www.clothesfree.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000181#000010)