The Naked Child Growing Up Without Shame
<< Chapter V >>
The children of the nude beaches
The children of the nude beaches are the vanguard of a new morality
Dennis Craig Smith
The lone fisherman parked his car near the cluster of others that were huddled just off the highway at the widest section of the shoulder, like boats in the shelter of a small cove. He was looking, as usual, for another spot, another fishing beach he hadn’t tried before. After unloading his gear and putting on his warmest and luckiest jacket, he headed down the well-worn path toward the rocky shoreline.
He expected to find other rod-and-reel devotees strung along the beach in both directions. But the path he climbed down had not been worn smooth by the shoes of fishermen. Nor did he descend to a fisherman’s paradise. What he found was not a good fishing spot at all. What he saw as he rounded the last curve in the rocky descent was a wide, sandy beach that ran for three hundred yards north of the trail. And although about thirty people were there, sunning and playing on the bright, clean sand. There was not an angler in sight.
At least one could not tell by just looking, because to the lone fisherman’s utter surprise and amazement he had stumbled upon one of the many nude beaches that have come into existence along the coast of California over the past few years. He was a bit astonished, even shocked and just a little embarrassed by what he had come upon. But he wasn’t about to leave. The fisherman felt he had as much right there as they did, so he unpacked his gear and fished. Although fishing wasn’t very good, he began to feel more comfortable about having a beachful of totally naked men, women, and children around him. He stopped and talked to some, and when he left, it was with an entirely new attitude toward nudists and social nudity.
Pirates Cove, near San Luis Obispo, California.
This man who experienced a private change of attitude is certainly not alone today. Many others are altering their opinion of social nudity because of a major shift in the way nudity is presented to us. In November of 1967 Newsweek magazine ran an article that said the American moral system was changing. “The old taboos are dead or dying. A new, more permissive, society is taking shape.... Its outlines are etched in the sexual openness that the public is demanding in the movies...and in the increasing acceptance of nudity.” Since then, in spite of small backlashes and occasional lawsuits, the shift continues.
Bonnie Johnston, whom we mentioned in Chapter One, became one of the “beach children” whose first outside-the-family exposure to naked adults and other children took place at what has become known as a free beach. These havens for social nudity are appearing all over the country, wherever water in the form of lakes or oceans can be found and where some privacy exists. On these beaches, open and casual nudity is nearly unanimous and accepted, even by those few who do not themselves undress. The threat of arrest at the hands of local police does not stop the determination of these naked sunbathers, cannot deter the naked sun-bathers from leaving their clothes. They leave their clothes folded on their blankets and they play or doze on the sand, confident of the rightness of their behavior.
Casual nakedness outside an established nudist club was unheard of until the mid-to-late sixties. Then the open rebellion of that era caused many social changes. Individuals who had finally liberated themselves from many of the inhibitions imposed upon them by society were not willing to join conservative nudist camps in order to enjoy social nudity. A by-product of the need to explore and express their rights and their individual freedom was the growth of the free beaches.
In 1972, a California Supreme Court decision almost overnight changed the nude beach scene from a secretive recreation enjoyed by a daring few to a popular activity shared by literally thousands of devoted “free beach people.” In that decision, the Court said that nakedness was not, in itself, lewd. A person arrested for being naked on an isolated stretch of beach could no longer be tried as a “sex criminal.” As for the people who had already begun to create nude free beaches by simply occupying them, the ruling seemed to open the door for legal clothing-optional beaches; whether or not it did legally, the nude beach goers felt it had.
Today, there are literally hundreds of free beaches along the West Coast, ranging from Black’s Beach in San Diego, California, to Wreck Beach in Vancouver, British Columbia. The same phenomenon and situation is taking place in the East. Hot springs, mountain streams, and lakes are also attracting those willing to leave their clothes on a blanket. On a Sunday in 1976, a national nude beach organization had its members take a count at various beaches throughout the United States and Canada. Highlighted by Black’s Beach in San Diego, which drew 20,000 nude bathers, the counters registered 248,000 naked bodies on beaches on the West Coast alone.
The remarkable thing about that figure is that, when taken, it was one hundred times as many nudists as the American Sunbathing Association reported as holding membership in their clubs throughout the Western United States, and over fifty times as many as were thought to be in the entire country. In other words, the philosophy of nudism (or of going naked among friends) was much more prevalent than even the national nudist organization realized and was aware of. Nudists themselves were unaware of the extent to which their philosophy had grown and spread to the beaches. But, in spite of this evidence of the popularity of nude sunbathing presented to them through newspapers, “society” seemed shocked and not at all prepared to deal with this new morality. Few people were aware and most Americans had been unaware that thousands of their fellow citizens preferred swimming and sunning without clothing of any kind.
It was during this time that the groundswell of opposition began to grow. People like Benjamin Spock and Joyce Brothers expressed their readers feelings of hesitancy and negative reactions to nudity in their columns. They cautioned parents who might be considering adopting the new, more open attitudes about family or social nudity that it was very dangerous. Possibly inspired by them, more and more articles began to appear in national magazines, many of them very much against nudity. Finally, Dear Abby letter writers began to ask quite frequently (Dear Abby began getting letters asking) “Is this healthy?”
But the appearance of anti-nudity articles did not diminish the ranks of organized nudism. Neither did it stop the growth of the free-beach movement. Those people who wanted to enjoy nude recreation without joining any organization continued to increase their numbers. And with that growth, even they began to develop an established organization.
In order to understand the rise of the free-beach movement in America, one has to first look at the history of organized nudism in this country and in Europe. Shortly after Anthony Comstock — the man responsible for most of our laws regarding obscenity — was drawing blue lines through America’s weak attempts at growing up sexually, Europe experienced, was getting ready for the emergence of two men, important to the nudist and free-beach movement — Richard Ungewitter and Paul Zimmerman. Ungewitter, a German writer, thought people should associate together totally nude, and he wrote a book (which he finally had to publish himself) saying so, in which he explained his views. The book was called Die Nacktheit. By the standards of 1903, it was quite sensational. But Ungewitter was not aiming at sensationalism. He simply wanted to give the idea of nudism its genesis in the modern world. And he succeeded.
Zimmerman, that same year, became the world’s first proprietor of a nudist resort, near Klingbert, Germany. Possibly to the surprise of his detractors, the camp became popular as a place where overworked Germans could go to refresh themselves and improve their health through better diet and adequate exercise. Zimmerman’s camp was followed by others. Nudism in Germany, inspired by Ungewitter and Zimmerman, continued to increase in popularity until World War I swept it aside. But all was not lost. The idea, however, had acquired a name Freikorperkultur (Free Body Culture) and some considerable notoriety.
In 1918 it began to revive, partly nourished by the stark poverty that overtook Germany after the war. But there was partly another reason, as well. A need existed among all the people for recreation and some respite after and from a harsh and brutal time, the harsh brutality out of which they had so recently emerged. At that time, however, recreation that cost money was prohibitive. Shoppers were carrying wheelbarrows full of bills to buy bread. But the woods and country were free. When young and old alike went swimming, and, out of necessity, they swam au naturel. In this unstructured nudist activity, they discovered that sexual emotions were not aroused by this kind of communal recreation and activity; an anxiety that has plagued interested bathers and societies in general for centuries. This is a discovery made over and over again by people who, despite their fears, take that short step toward self-acceptance.
Organized social nudity came to the United States formally on Labor day of 1929, when Kurt Barthel held a meeting in a secluded area, piece of land a few miles north of New York City. It was the first meeting of what was then called the American League for Physical Culture, which later became the American Sunbathing Association.
For whatever reasons, the philosophy of nudism attached itself firmly to the back of American non-conformists and through those loyal and devoted few began to dilute the puritan well, until the 1970’s when it became widespread, reaching outside the private clubs to rivers, lakes and beaches throughout the country.
For many years, nude recreation was controlled by the owners of nudist parks. Most people believed, and the existing law proved them right, that individuals would have no defense were they to be arrested for nudity outside those sheltered areas. To reinforce that belief, the American Sunbathing Association’s legal defense fund was available to anyone arrested for nudity within a camp, but generally was not accessible to “freelance” nudists. When, in the 1960’s, nude beaches began to increase in popularity, camp owners demanded that the ASA policy be continued, even if a beachgoer was also a registered nudist. Some even objected to the establishing of nude beaches at all.
In an article in the Los Angeles Times, a nudist camp owner was quoted: “This new permissiveness is killing our business. Who wants to come here when they can go to a beach close to home for nothing?” But such protests did not hamper the beach movement. It has grown to such an extent that going to a “free beach” at no cost has become a political issue many places in California and throughout the United States. For example, in May of 1972, Isla Vista City Councilman Al Plyly proposed that Santa Barbara County designate public beaches along the Isla Vista coastline as “nude” and “straight” beaches. The county declined. At that time, at least, the government was on the side of the camp owners.
Although, by the late 1960’s, nudity along the California coast had been steadily growing in popularity, it wasn’t until a nude girl was struck and injured by an outboard motorboat while swimming off a Santa Barbara beach that the media gave nude beaches much attention. The accident occurred in November of 1970. From that one incident, news of “free beaches” in Santa Barbara spread. Word was circulating about other places, as well. Black’s Beach near San Diego and Pirates’ Cove in Malibu were becoming other famous nude beaches.
At this time, however, there seemed a general trend toward the acceptance of nudity as a legitimate means of either expression and/or therapy. The University of California at Davis held an experimental nude therapy class. At the University of Pennsylvania, Mark Morris taught a totally nude class called Silence II. Other colleges and therapy clinics were joining in the acceptance of nudity as an important aid in psychotherapy.
The academic community was not the only institution, educational body to take up the cause. Newspaper editorials, which contribute to molding public opinion, have slowly changed from the outright condemning of nudism to the front expounding its virtues or, at least, to showing tolerance toward the new bathing practices. An editorial in the Lompoc Record in northern Santa Barbara County of California stated: “The beaches are owned by all the people, nudists as well as squares. We are asking at this time for state and county government to designate secluded beaches to be used by those wishing to bathe or swim without clothing, and leave the other beaches alone.”
The city of San Diego did just that. The city legalized nude bathing at Black’s Beach for two years, then reversed the ordinance and outlawed the clothing-optional recreational area that had become the country’s largest and most widely used nude beach. When put to a vote of the people, the ordinance was upheld. In all, 80,000 people voted to close the beach, while 79,000 people voted for clothing-optional status. The fact that 79,000 people voted for a nude beach showed clearly that the liberal trend was continuing despite the setback.
The acceptance of nudity has, of course, not been universal, anything but. In the year 1972, a time now referred to sarcastically by free-beach-goers as “the summer of ’72,” many law-enforcement agencies along the coast of California took up the fight against the free beaches almost simultaneously.
In Malibu, thirty-two people were arrested in what is described by those involved as a Gestapo-like raid of Pirates Cove. Officers were brought in by helicopter, and sheriffs deputies swarmed in from both sides of the beach. Each officer carried a good number of handcuffs. That same month, in Summerland, near Santa Barbara (one hundred miles to the north), eighty-six people were arrested. No convictions on the charges were brought against those arrested in Summerland. Twenty-one people accepted the suggestion from the D.A.’s office that they just not appear at court and thereby forfeit bail. But eleven of the accused decided to fight the charges. Those defendants who fought their arrests had the charges dropped.
Enter perhaps the most important person in California free-beach history: Chad Merrill Smith. Smith was arrested in San Diego county for being nude on a public, though isolated, beach. He fought conviction and lost. Smith finally appealed the conviction up through the courts, all the way to the California Supreme Court. There, the conviction was overturned on the basis of the First Amendment: the right of Free Speech (State vs. Smith, 7 Cal. 3rd. 362). The court ruled that nudity itself was not obscene, and that on an isolated stretch of beach he had the right to express his philosophy by going nude. In that ruling, intent was a crucial factor.
But the intent of the people opposing the free beaches was extremely clear, and it, also, was a crucial factor. Their aim was to do away with “nudie beaches” altogether. A group of enraged property owners from Summerland, Montecito, and Santa Barbara, led by prominent and wealthy citizens, organized a crash campaign that brought about the passage of a county ordinance outlawing nudity on all county beaches, isolated coves, mountain streams, and hot springs. Anywhere, in fact, accessible to the public.
The County Board of Supervisors voted three to two favoring the ordinance, with supervisors Frank Frost and James Slater opposing. At the open hearing, the 150-seat Board chamber was filled to capacity, spilling over into hallways and spare chambers with what was estimated by the Sheriffs department as 400 to 500 people. Most were there to voice opposition to the new law.
The ordinance not only banned nudity on all beaches, public and private, within view of or open to the public, but it also defined nudity in males as different from nudity in females. It stated that a woman could be arrested if her nipples were in view.
James Slater voiced particular displeasure with this aspect, saying it showed sexual discrimination, in view of the Equal Rights Amendment, and should be discarded at once. Supervisor Frost said he expected the ordinance to be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional, by virtue of the Supreme Court ruling on Chad Merrill Smith. “This ordinance,” said Frost, himself a nude beach goer, “is clearly unconstitutional.”
In other areas outside Santa Barbara, the situation seemed to had been similar. With the exception of San Diego and Santa Cruz counties, most local governments moved against nude beaches, although in nearly all areas there remained some de facto free beaches. The response of law-enforcement agencies to these antinude ordinances differs with the community and from day to day. Some seem to opt for a semi-peaceful co-existence, often after many raids to eliminate the nude beaches and the nude beach situation have failed. Others simply turn their collective heads, silently acknowledging their inability to overcome the problem. Yet others demonstrate an acceptance of the philosophy that “if it doesn’t hurt anyone, why fight it?”
In 1973, Eugene Callen founded Beachfront USA in Los Angeles, California. He realized that, with the passage of the antinudity ban in Santa Barbara the same year, it would take an organized effort to contend with the wave of opposition to clothing-optional recreation areas. His organization soon took its place in the forefront of the nude-beach movement in America
A year after the Santa Barbara County ban on nude bathing, Los Angeles went through a historic brawl that resulted in so many rounds of voting by the council that it was hard to keep score. That same year, Elizabeth Keathley ran for governor on the Peace and Freedom ticket and campaigned in the nude on Venice Beach, calling herself the only candidate with nothing to hide. It also was the same year Cardinal Timothy Manning, Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles Archdiocese, issued an antinudity statement that rallied Catholics against the proposed clothing-optional-areas ordinance. But all this excitement only served to further confuse the city council. Tied five to five on a total-ban ordinance, they finally dropped the issue and let the bill die.
But Councilman Joel Wachs supported the concept of establishing designated areas for clothing-optional use, and he spoke in favor of that to his Police, Fire, and Civil Defense Committee. Following the committee’s recommendation, the council voted nine to four — passing the selected-area ordinance. An amendment was even passed ten to three to provide overflow areas in case it became too popular for the places designated.
But that was not the end of the matter. For a bill to be killed, as was the antinudist bill, it took only a simple majority. But for a bill to pass it required a unanimous Council to be present on the first reading or a majority on two readings. The selected-area ordinance was passed on the first vote when a unanimous Council was not present. So at the next meeting, an opponent to the bill presented a new bill with a “total ban” option. True to their own general disorganization, the Council passed this opposing ordinance nine to two.
Now there were two bills, one on each side of the issue, both short of the required unanimous presence. Another vote was taken on the total-ban measure and it passed by only a six to five margin, still not enough to put it into effect.
July 11, 1974, will be a day long remembered by nude-beach activists in Los Angeles. Councilman Donald Lorenzen issued a bill providing for another complete-ban measure. As he had for the Academy Award presentations, Robert Opel disrupted the meeting by disrobing and strolling toward Police Chief Ed Davis, who was seated before the Council. When the dust settled from Opel’s walk-on, the vote was taken and the only council-member opposing the complete ban was David Cunningham. Because the vote was not unanimous, a second reading was required. On July 18, 1974, the Los Angeles City Council passed a total ban on nudity by a twelve to one vote. Only Cunningham opposed the measure. This negated the earlier vote for the selected-area ordinance and made a second vote on it unnecessary.
The County of Los Angeles passed a similar ordinance in July of 1975. The vote was three to one for the total ban within the county of Los Angeles and was nearly identical to the one passed by the city. The text of the new county ordinance reads as follows:
Los Angeles County Ordinance 9767 Sec. 51:
(a) NUDITY AND DISROBING. No person shall appear, bathe, sun-bathe, walk, change clothes, disrobe, or be on any beach in such a manner that the genitals, vulva, pubic, pubic symphysis, pubic hair, buttocks, natal cleft, perineum, anus, anal region, or pubic hair region of any person, or any portion of the breast at or below the upper edge of the areola thereof of any female person is exposed to public view, except in those portions of a comfort station, if any expressly set aside for such purpose.
(b) This section shall not apply to persons under the age of 10 years provided such children are sufficiently clothed to conform to accepted community standards.
(c) This section shall not apply to persons engaged in a live theatrical performance in a theater, concert hall, or similar establishment which is primarily devoted to theatrical performances.
Recently, in California, one agency of the state government seriously looked into the possibility of clothing-optional beaches on State Park property. The California State Department of Parks and Recreation designated six areas along the coast and two areas at lakes as potential sites for nude beaches. Hearings were held in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento to gather information on the proposal from the public. State Parks Director, Russell Cahill, made the final decision and the proposal was dropped, although he established a more lenient policy toward nude bathing in State Parks. “Action will be taken only after a complaint by a citizen, and arrests will be made only if the party refuses to get dressed.”
Citizens are now challenging the laws in regard to morality and social custom; the free-beach movement may well symbolize this struggle. In February of 1977, Shannon Goodrich was arrested for going topless at Seacliff Park in Encinitas, California. Her intention was to challenge the law that makes nudity for men different than nudity for women. Shannon and many women contend that the law should be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it discriminates against women.
During the same year, in Berkeley, California, a number of women marched topless in a May Day Equal-Dress-Rights Parade held at the city’s “People’s Park.” The march through the downtown section of Provo Park proved to be sensational, a bit of a sensation, but no laws were altered as a result of it.
Not all local authorities automatically condemned toplessness, in spite of the “topless laws.” At the University of Texas, a coed named Susan Kelly was stopped by police at Memorial
Stadium while jogging topless. The police public information officer said that topless jogging was legal, “unless her activities were exciting a breach of the peace.” Mrs. Kelly was not arrested.
Meanwhile, the free-beach organization Beachfront USA continued to do what it could to make authorities realize that human nudity during recreation was not obscene and should not be unlawful. After Eugene Callen’s death, local and national leaders rallied to maintain whatever progress had been made under his direction. Beachfront USA by now had national attention. Succeeding president, Cec Cinder, and future leaders Charles Finley, Jae Eckl, Tom Kelley, Bill Ehrhart, and others worked to build a nationwide network of advocates. Lee Baxandall of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, established the Nude-Beach Documentation Center, and later, with Jan Smith, published The Skinny Dipper in 1976 and World Guide to Nude Beaches and Recreation in 1980. Looking for a fresh identification and image, Baxandall organized The Naturist Society in the early 1980’s and created the largest network of organizations and individuals supporting nude beaches this country has ever known.
Just as people are challenging the laws concerning open nudity, so are people like Bonnie Johnston’s parents beginning to wonder about, and therefore challenge, the negative attitudes and teachings concerning family and social nudity.
When Bonnie Johnston’s parents first went to a nude beach, they happened upon it quite by accident. Like the fisherman mentioned at the start of this chapter, they were looking for a new place to take Bonnie on a holiday weekend, and decided on the beach. New to the area, they drove to Muir Woods Beach, just north of San Francisco. As they walked along the beach, they rounded a rocky point and came upon nude sunbathers. They were both astounded and delighted at what they saw. They were concerned, as well, at the casualness with which the sunbathers were breaking the law. They had never considered such a daring act. Within their home they were very open, but nakedness outside the family was a new concept to them.
They did not stay, even though Bonnie cried when they returned to their car. But on the way home, they spoke together about what they had seen. Both Susan and Tom were intrigued by social nudity. The idea of sharing total freedom and spontaneity appealed to them. It made them feel good to think of the people on Muir Beach playing and relaxing without the normal hangups about covering themselves. Each thought there was a feeling of closeness to nature they had never felt before. Something about the naked beach-goers was appealing to them, and they wanted to explore it further, although Susan still felt reluctant to take part in nude sunbathing (felt she could not take part in going nude) with strangers on a nearly public beach. Being nude with Tom around the house was one thing, but nudity in the open with many other people would be more than her conditioning could stand. Still, she was interested in the attitude they had expressed. She didn’t put it down or make a negative judgment. In fact, she admired the courage and conviction of those they happened upon at Muir Beach.
Being nude on the beach is natural for some, not for others. The children play together with no difficulty with the difference. For Bonnie it was no suit from the start.
Months passed before they decided to go back to the nude beach they had found and returned. Bonnie was less than two years old. They thought it would be good for her to grow up feeling open and natural about her body in social as well as family situations, so they went back. After about an hour, Tom took off his swimsuit. He began to feel uncomfortable about being clothed. He said he had begun to feel more uncomfortable about being one of the only ones with clothes on than at being totally naked with others around. There was also the fear and anticipation of sexual arousal when he got to the beach. He had been afraid that he might experience sexual arousal and embarrass himself and Sue when he did take off his clothes. But when he finally decided to take them off, he found it had been more exciting to anticipate being nude than it was to actually be undressed. Thinking was more arousing than being.
Susan did not take her suit off the first day at all, but confessed that she felt more at ease with the idea after spending the whole day among the nude sun-bathers. She had been felt certain people would stare, would be staring at her and she at them, but she realized that it wasn’t long before the nudity of the others became simply and totally unimportant to her. They made it clear, on the other hand, that it was her right to remain clothed as long as she did not try to dictate to them how they should dress. After a while it just didn’t seem to matter to her whether people were dressed or not. In fact, she recalled later, she didn’t notice anything different between the nude beach and the one south of the city where they used to go before they moved, except that at Muir Beach almost everyone was nude, and perhaps a bit more friendly. That was a thing about and a facet of this new beach that she really enjoyed. People did seem to be friendlier. So, Susan liked the beach but she kept her suit on.
On the third visit to the beach at Muir, Susan removed her top, but only late in the day. Tom had been able to go without his suit, except for one occasion when there were very few people on the beach and no one had removed their clothes. There were very few people on the beach at first, and no one undressed. Tom, too, was reluctant to go nude, even though he had done so the time before. Later that same day, however, people began stripping down as others came and undressed. Still, there was the ripple effect, and Tom admitted to being one of the most timid on the beach.
It took Susan five trips to the beach to feel totally comfortable without her suit, but she thought the possibility of arrest had as much to do with her hesitancy than (as did) the thought of being completely nude before strangers. Bonnie, of course, at nearly two, was delighted at the chance to get out of her confining diapers. She took very well to being a naked child. Her parents, after a few visits to the beach, felt confident that they were doing the right thing for their daughter and for themselves. The Johnstons became a free-beach family, and their conviction did not waiver again until, quite by accident, they were confronted with the ideas of Spock and Joyce Brothers on the subject of being naked in front of one’s growing children.
We wondered what kinds of people these free-beachers were, and why they decided to raise their children under such conditions. For over a year, we talked to more than four hundred people and found them to be nearly indistinguishable from the overall social cross section that exists in our society. We found the demographics were almost the same in the free-beach group as they are for society in general. Nudists, in other words, are normal, everyday individuals.
We were primarily interested in hearing what they said, how they reacted, and what hesitations they had about continuing their nudist recreation because of the warnings from the experts. We wanted to hear their experiences what they had seen in regard to their children and the naked experience. Here is what some of nearly one hundred naked families told us about themselves:
“We bring our son to a nude beach because being around naked people having fun on the sand has taught him what society may eventually learn: that nakedness, being totally without clothes in a non-sexual situation, is no more stimulating or sexually arousing than being dressed in a non-sexual context.”
The most telling endorsement of social nudism in the family comes from the willingness of the respondents to raise their own children as nudists.
The parents who told us that were young college graduates who lived just outside of San Diego. We talked to them on Black’s Beach near La Jolla.
“We don’t consider ourselves nudists,” explained one young father whose wife relaxed next to him on the blanket. Both were nude. “I like to surf, my wife likes to sunbathe, and our daughter loves the beach. I don’t like labels, but I also don’t like wearing clothes when I don’t have to.”
Kristi’s father had just carried her down the long, steep path to Black’s Beach, a climb both dangerous and difficult. “Why do we climb down a treacherous path like this with a three-year-old, just so we can take our clothes off and run around on the sand and feel free? That’s it to feel free.”
“I can’t imagine anyone finding fault with this kind of environment,” shrugged a nude woman in her thirties who stood holding her nursing baby. “Can you?” When reminded that many people do, she shrugged again and said they were probably the same people who told mothers that breast feeding could be harmful for infants.
“Why would anyone want to go swimming or sunbathing with their clothes on?” asked Brian, the father of Douglas and Kathy. “You want to know why we bring our kids to a nude beach? Because we are smarter than people who are hung up on being dressed all the time.” He smiled. “Look,” he emphasized, pointing at his children playing with some other naked youngsters, “if the rest of society was as comfortable with themselves and their bodies as those kids are, then psychologists would go out of business.”
“My parents belonged to a nudist club when I was growing up, and I want that same kind of pleasant experience for my children,” explained a tall, statuesque woman in her middle to late thirties whose full-body tan belied her north European heritage. “We belong to the Swallows (a nudist club in El Cajon, California) and I like the atmosphere both here and at the club. Actually, it’s less sexual there, less competitive.” When we reminded her that some people maintained there was swinging and sexual promiscuity at the camps, and that it was a bad atmosphere to bring children up in, children should not be brought up in such a bad atmosphere, she was quick to answer. “Our society is a bad atmosphere in which to bring up children. Out there is swinging, sexual promiscuity, and even violence. I’ll take the nudist camp and the free beach, any time. You can have the rest of society who think that taking clothes off will corrupt them and that if you take your clothes off you suddenly will be corrupted. I can’t believe that. Bad atmosphere? That’s stupid.”
Jason’s parents had been cautious about bringing him to the nude beach. They alternated speaking as they explained.
“We had been coming for about six months before we even considered bringing Jason here. Actually, we didn’t think it would be good for him. I know, we liked it. It was exciting and probably daring, but it was one of those things we could do and then confess to our priest on Sundays. I think the church had a lot to do with our attitude back then.
“We’d leave Jason with his grandmother, tell her we were going to go shopping or to visit some friends or to take care of business. After a few months of sneaking off to take it off, we realized this was a place he would really like, and we were spending a lot of time away from him. So we started asking other people here why they brought their kids. We asked if they had any problems because of it, things like that. If they had any problems because the kids saw people naked, things like that.
“They all said we were silly, but I remember one elderly lady telling us that it was our boy who belonged here. She said we were already grown and would not get as much benefit from it as he would. I remember her telling us, ’Bring him here before it’s too late.’ We did, and we don’t regret it one bit.”
A couple from Santa Barbara, California, said it a bit differently. “Actually, we used to feel the same way many other people did about this place. We just thought it was wrong. We saw it as a real Sodom and Gomorrah place. We saw this sort of thing as being right out of Sodom and Gomorrah. Our pastor was against it. So was the City Council. You know, it was just immoral. Then, some time ago, we happened to stumble upon a nude beach farther up the coast, but we got there before anyone else, so we didn’t know, and we stayed.
“After people started coming down and taking off their clothes, we promptly packed up and left. We were outraged, but on the way home we cooled down and had to admit that it hadn’t been, didn’t seem like the wild orgy scene we had expected. We were a little bit disappointed, you know. It was as if we’d found out, like finding out that someone we hated was really a very nice person. Anyway, the curiosity simmered in us for about a year.
“Then some friends of ours confessed they went, and we were shocked intrigued but shocked at them going. They were real believers in nude recreation, though. Still, it took about another year of their coaxing before we would take the chance. We told them we would keep our clothes on, but it took the kids about fifteen minutes, our kids were undressed in about fifteen minutes. My wife and I had our suits off in about two hours. We’ve been coming here ever since. I’m still not sure about the kids. It doesn’t seem to hurt them any, but I don’t really know.”
We asked many others and got short answers, some of which we include. Most showed a definite recognition that not only is social nudity not harmful, it seems to be beneficial, especially for children.
“Because we like to go nude at the beach and I don’t think it will hurt her at all.”
“Why do we come here? Sit down for a few minutes and watch my kids. Then you won’t have to ask.”
“I think it is good for children to see other bodies, other shapes, and the opposite sex in differing stages of development. I think they will be far less interested in spending time sneaking peeks at the genitals — which are, of course, forbidden in our society — of other kids and grownups. Let them satisfy their curiosity and go on to more important things. That’s why we come to a nude beach instead of going down the coast to that place where everyone covers up, and kids drill holes in the restroom walls to catch sight, a shot of someone undressed. That’s sick.”
“Why do we humans pretend we don’t have penises and vaginas? I don’t understand it, but I know it is not for my family. I bring my kids here because I want them educated properly.”
“Who said this is bad? Joyce Brothers? Oh, yeah, I read in her column once where she told some lady she was seducing her kids if she ran around nude in front of them. Well, I wish she’d come here and spend a day in the sun without her clothes. I think I bring my kids here because experts like her tell me I shouldn’t.”
“I bring my kids here because I never got the chance to come to a place like this when I was a kid.”
“My wife is German, my mother was French, and my kids are nudists. They come naturally into taking their clothes off. Actually, I bring them here because it is a great, friendly place, and because we live on the Air Force Base and we couldn’t lie around nude in the yard at home. If we lived off base and had a pool, we’d spend less time here, but we sure wouldn’t wear clothes to swim in our own pool.”
“I bring my granddaughter here because I think it’s a great place. She talked me into coming, and she almost talked me out of my bathing suit. Sixty years is a lot of conditioning.... I don’t know...maybe soon.”
“I bring my kids here because after I came and took my clothes off for the first time I knew it was a healthy thing.”
“Why not? Give me one good reason.”
“Well,” said one woman defiantly, “you show me where it is harmful and I’ll stop bringing them here. I’ll bet, though, that I’ll have, can show a whole lot easier time telling you why and where it’s more harmful for them not to come here. At least it sure is bad for them to see their bodies and to think of their bodies as nasty and evil. Now that’s harmful.”
Of the people I have interviewed over the past three years at nude beaches I have been amazed at the economic cross section. Of the people questioned, 11% gave their income as over $20,000 a year; 15% gave it as between $10,000 and $20,000; 35% were in the $3,000-to-$5,000 bracket; 6% in the less-than-$3,000 group; 12% said they had no income at all (this high figure seems to be due mostly to the large student population on the beaches); while 3% listed themselves in the over-$40,000 a year category. One extremely wealthy retired industrialist explained that the beach was one of the only places where class didn’t matter at all. “My friends and associates are all so wrapped up in status and position. The people here couldn’t care less. Except for shape, we’re all the same.” These income statistics were compiled prior to 1977, so readers today need to translate the amounts into today’s economy.
The fact of the matter is, no one income or social group dominate the free-beach scene. All age groups are represented, as well as nearly every social level. If one unifying factor exists, it is that nearly 70% rate themselves as politically moderate or liberal. Only 14% rate themselves as politically conservative, and 16% say they are politically “uninvolved,” or “unconcerned.”
The most natural question that comes out of these findings is: Why do people start going to a free beach?
We asked the people we met why they chose a nude beach. A 47-year-old school teacher said that, in the beginning, she went because her son and his wife told her she had a closed mind. She had told them she wanted no part of it. “They challenged me to go just once, and then make up my mind. When I finally gathered up the nerve, I found it wasn’t at all what I had expected it to be. After a while, I felt unnatural and out of place with my suit on, so I took it off. For some reason I couldn’t explain, I was enjoying myself. You know, it’s the greatest thing! You don’t feel out of place in nature when you’re nude, you really feel a part of it.”
One retired stockbroker on the beach at Avila said he came when he read about it in the newspaper and decided to “give it a fair chance.”
Many who have stumbled onto the beaches by accident have stayed. Says one Air Force captain: “I came down to Gaviota with my family to do some fishing about two years ago. We were shocked at first, but decided to stay out of stubbornness. We had as much right to be there as they did. The people were so damned friendly, though, and our daughter, Tina, found other kids her age to play with. It didn’t matter to her that they were nude and she wasn’t. Finally, my wife and I said ‘Why not?’ and took our clothes off. Tina beat us by about three hours. There’s a feeling of freedom and togetherness here that we’ve never felt anywhere else.”
“There is a feeling of freedom and togetherness here we have never felt anywhere else.”
A high school Spanish teacher said she comes because “modesty is stupidity born out of guilt-ridden minds of old men writing rules for others. I come here because I like life, and because my body is me. If people can’t accept my nudity, then they can’t accept me.”
A 19-year-old junior college student says his family never was very modest around the house. “Being naked around others always seemed natural. My parents come here, too. Why do we come? Because we like the beach...and wearing clothes here is ridiculous.”
“Because the people here are more honest and friendly, really. I know it sounds contrived, but it’s true. I always hated the hypocrisy that wearing clothes at inappropriate times characterized, and being here you don’t have that,” explained Janet, a nurse with three children.
A 17-year-old high school girl, when asked why she came to the beach, said, simply, “Why not?”
Many married women said their husbands wanted to come and they just went along. Of this group, only 15% said they would stop going if it was left up to them. An amazing 85% said they would come on their own now and were glad their husbands had brought, had gotten them there.
A 35-year-old painter said he came here for many reasons, mostly, however, “...because I realize that no part of the body is more corrupting than any other part of the body. That’s such an antiquated notion.”
An engineer and father of three told me: “I think everyone enjoys going naked at one time or another. They won’t or can’t admit it. But look at small children. They prefer it, and then we teach them it’s wrong. Hell, I come here because being naked in the sun with others feels good.”
“I just like having my clothes off,” explained a 26-year-old housewife. “Call it anything you like but I enjoy myself here. It is the most peaceful feeling in the world. I can really gather my thoughts here. If I was religious, I’d call it a religious experience.”
“Because it’s totally devoid of the pressures of everyday life. I guess because things are so different here and so peaceful.”
“I like to get out here and think of myself as one of primal man, just me as part of nature, not an adversary. It’s great therapy, really.”
“I came because of all the sexual stories I had heard, but it’s not a sexual experience at all. I was surprised to find out that nudity alone is not sexually exciting. Bikinis can be sweaters, pantyhose, and panties may be but just being clothesless is not. It’s disappointing to find that out, but it’s the truth.”
Finally, a 66-year-old widow summed up her feelings when she said: “Because this is the way God intended for all living creatures to live. Think of it, the human race is the only species on earth that wears clothes. It really is silly when you think about it.”
It is an undeniable fact that the “free beaches” are here, perhaps to stay. Society at times seems to be resisting, but to a lesser degree than before. A. S. Neill, of the famed Summerhill schools, wrote: “Nakedness should never be discouraged...the very fact that the law does not permit exposure of certain sex organs is bound to give children a warped attitude toward the human body.”
Whether it does or doesn’t is not to be argued here. Attitudes are changing, and that is a fact. It is also a fact that the people of the “free beaches,” the “free people,” are not very different from those on other beaches where suits are worn.
A 70-year-old nude hiker once told me, “Some day, people will grow up and realize that the only thing vile about the human body is some of the small minded people God put into it. The only thing vile about human bodies are the small minds some of God’s people have developed within them.”
Skins vs. Skins. A tug of war at Pirates Cove in Avila Beach, California. In 1976 a national nude organization held a one day celebration that was called National Nude Beach Day. It attracted
over a million people on nude beaches throughout the nation.
>>