Before coming on a naturist holiday for the first time it is natural to feel that you don't know "the rules" or the general etiquette:

• It is a good idea to secure an invitation before dropping in on a nudist venue. This usually means writing or telephoning ahead of time. Strangers who show up unexpectedly may be turned away.

• Honesty is the best policy. If you are sincere, most clubs will be happy to have you visit. Deceptive stories about why you want to become a nudist are not necessary. Give accurate information in your initial letter to a club and on your membership application.

• At a lot of clubs, married people must join with their spouse. Some clubs have a no singles policy while others are more liberal towards single members. It is always better to ask in advance rather than to run the risk of being turned away at the gate. In most instances, single couples (male and female) are just as welcome as married couples.

• 

  For business or personal reasons some nudists may wish to remain anonymous and will introduce themselves using first names only. You should respect their privacy and they will do the same for you. It is you that nudists care about. Your personality will determine the number of friends you make at a nudist park, just as at any other social function.

• Naturists are not, generally, masochists, so if it is too cold to be naked naturists wear clothes. Conversely, if it is warm enough to be naked, many/most naturists will want to be so, whether indoors or out - though there are many people who enjoy swimming and sun-bathing naked but prefer to be clothed at other times or for other activities. It's a matter of personal choice.

• The practice at most naturist centres and clubs is for total nudity to be the norm throughout the day and wherever it is legal - which normally means throughout the hotel or centre, in shops and other facilities. Sometimes - as for instance some naturist clubs or clothing optional resorts it is expected that guests will be clothed in the evenings/night in the public areas, restaurants and bars. Normally at most naturist clubs or clothing optional resorts, no bathing costumes are worn in or around the swimming pool area.

• Shower before using the swimming pools and hot tubs.

• Bars, restaurants and cafes usually have conventions or rules about whether clients can be naked or whether they must be clothed. Sometimes at least a towel is expected and quite often there is one rule during the day and another for evening/night.

• The normal naturist etiquette is ALWAYS to have a towel to sit on, not necessarily to cover up with. This is for reasons of hygiene and, frankly, consideration of friends' or the hotel's chairs and seats - protecting them from suntan oils, sweat etc.

• T
  
  

  he normal naturist etiquette is not to indulge in any overtly sexual behaviour in a public place - no different from textile etiquette. In the unlikely event of becoming sexually aroused, a naturist would be expected to turn away or cover up to avoid embarrassing anyone, including himself.

• Photography is only permissible in a naturist resort if the explicit permission of people appearing in the photographs and who could be recognisable is obtained by the photographer - most naturists, like everyone else, like to preserve their privacy and to decide for themselves whether and where any photographs of them or their families appear.

• Respect a club's property and keep it clean.

• Be as friendly and as open as possible and others will do the same.

• Most of all enjoy the experience.

There is no need to worry that you may unwittingly break the rules - observing what others do, or asking their advice, will put you on the right tracks - and remember, naturist communities are generally very friendly and, unless you behave outrageously, you will quickly be accepted into the community.

Confronting the public nudity taboo
USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), March, 1998 by Anthony Layng

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2634_v126/ai_20409128/?tag=content;col1

"... It seems inevitable that we will become increasingly comfortable with nudity so that, some day, pictures of naked models and actors and the presence of nude bathers on public beaches no longer will shock the moral sensitivities of most Americans."

During the last 50 years, there has been a tremendous liberalization in American attitudes concerning sexual behavior, but public nudity continues to evoke disgust and ridicule. Even though legal restrictions have been relaxed and clothing-optional beaches are more numerous than ever before, as are the sunbathers who frequent them, most Americans continue to disapprove of nudity no less than their grandparents did. In spite of the fact that it now is quite acceptable to display nearly all of one's body poolside or at the beach, total nudity continues to make Americans very uncomfortable.

Proponents of nudity usually maintain a low profile, not wishing to invite what seems to be inevitable hostility. Given the present concern with "family values," it is likely that such attitudes will persist for some time. However, there is a gradual trend in American attitudes about the human body which suggests that the public nudity taboo may be abandoned one day.

Why have prudish attitudes toward nudity been so tenacious in the U.S.? Those who are middle age or older certainly are aware how other American taboos have declined or even disappeared. For most, masturbation no longer is equated with self-mutilation and premarital sex has become a nearly universal norm. Like many other sexual activities, they have lost their immoral status. Even homosexuality increasingly is regarded as merely an alternative sexual orientation.

Remember how risque it used to be to read about sexual encounters in a novel or to watch an impassioned love scene on the movie screen? Today, this is the stuff of day-time TV, considered quite tame by present standards. Modern literature and motion pictures, intent on titillating and shocking audiences, now must resort to creative violence and psychopathic horror. Scenes of urban cannibalism. serial murder, and mass destruction are rampant. Yet, even as our tolerance of and appetite for depictions of violence have increased greatly, a majority of us still find public nudity intolerable.

While Americans are much more sophisticated today on many subjects, nudity continues to induce very charged reactions. Even among scholars, the mere mention of nudity is likely to degenerate into wisecracks and old-fashioned moralizing. Commercial television programming, prime time or not, still avoids nudity, though ABC's "NYPD Blue" does show partial nudity. Occasionally, topless women and mothers nursing babies may appear in a documentary.

Most of us are highly ambivalent when it comes to nudity. Privately, we have an appetite for reading about it or looking at pictures of nudes. Numerous successful novels contain explicit descriptions of sexual anatomy, and Playboy has 3,400,000 subscribers. Since commercial films are designed for public viewing, though, on-screen nudity is subject to strictures. Paintings of nudes by European masters and classical nude statues from Egypt, Greece, and Rome are exhibited to the public without much complaint. Yet, those who openly express tolerance of public nudity in the U.S. are likely to make themselves very unpopular.

Ironically, some Americans associate nudity with purity and innocence, having Adam and Eve in mind perhaps. From this perspective, primitive tribes that lack clothing may be seen as exemplifying some sort of pristine nobility. Others attribute tribal nudity to cultural backwardness. Both views are fully compatible with condemnation of nudity among "civilized" men and women. Although television documentaries that include pictures of minimally clothed or even entirely naked natives of Australia, Africa, the Pacific islands, and South America do not seem to offend mainstream audiences, any prime-time images of bare Caucasian breasts and buttocks are likely to cause a great deal of trepidation. Male frontal nudity is especially taboo here. After "NYPD Blue" included some nude scenes, it had considerable difficulty getting sponsors despite its excellent ratings, though this generally no longer is the case, with some notable holdouts.

Banning nude swimming and missionary efforts to clothe "savages" still find a great deal of support in the U.S. Probably this is because many people seem unable to distinguish nudity from licentiousness. By associating unclothed bodies with sex and immorality, public nudity is considered obscene. As this view would have it, since sex in a public place is wrong, so is nudity.

Such American Puritanism has European roots. Even in Victorian times, a large proportion of Europeans never saw a naked human body, and attitudes from these eras are especially evident in the beliefs of American Christian fundamentalists. Ironically, numerous Mediterranean beaches no longer require clothing. France's largest nudist colony (Cap d'Agde) attracts 40,000 European tourists each summer. Guests not only swim in the nude at this resort, but go about naked even while shopping for groceries and eating in restaurants. Scandinavia has a long tradition of nude sunbathing. It is difficult to find a Swedish public beach where most of the bathers are not nude. Asia attracts numerous European tourists by offering them nude resorts and beaches. Gambia, in West Africa, is the choice of many Swedes who wish to holiday in the buff during the winter, even though locals are a bit shocked by such immodesty.

 Many Christians in Europe and the U.S. are thought of by others as relatively anti-sex. Certainly, the Catholic Church has this reputation, and fundamentalists long have insisted that "listening" to our bodies is what prevents us from listening to God.

Nevertheless, nudity taboos are not peculiarly Christian. Women in Islamic societies have gone back to wearing traditional garments, reflecting Moslem fundamentalists' insistence on covering the entire female body. Hasidic Jews believe that a husband must never see even his own wife's genitals, requiring that couples make love in the dark. On the other hand, some Christian sects have advocated and practiced nudity. The Doukhobors, who migrated from Russia to Canada in search of religious freedom, shocked their Canadian neighbors on several occasions when they staged highly publicized protest demonstrations wherein the participants -- men, women, and children -- were entirely naked.

There is some irony here in that the Puritans, Victorians. and other Europeans inherited much of their culture from the Greeks and Romans. In classical times, public male nudity often was entirely acceptable. High-status males exercised, participated in sporting events, and conducted public rituals in the nude. Greek art portrayed males without clothing to emphasize their athletic ability, heroic stature, and beauty. To this ancient population, male nudity indicated empowerment, since women, slaves, and barbarians were not permitted to be nude in public.

Shame and modesty

Many Americans are so thoroughly ethnocentric about nudity that they insist their intolerance is a reflection of human nature. As illustrated by the Adam and Eve myth, humans do experience shame. Writer Mark Twain once pointed out, "Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to." Shame and modesty, though, did not give rise to clothing, more likely, they were byproducts of clothing.

When missionaries introduced dresses and shorts to Tasmania, Australia, the natives graciously accepted these gifts, but still persisted in undressing at times the missionaries considered to be most inappropriate. Although this caused great embarrassment for the missionaries, the Tasmanians seemed to enjoy disrobing in public. One suspects that doing so in the presence of missionaries became a source of entertainment for them. Several accounts describe how they sometimes kidnapped a European, stripped him bare to examine what he might be concealing, and then released him unharmed. They probably were perplexed to discover each time that these white men had nothing of note that seemed to justify concealment.

Clothing did not evolve merely to mask a particular part of the body. Looking across the international spectrum, one sees conspicuous inconsistencies regarding which parts of the body people elect to cover, if they choose any part at all. In some places, the bottoms of feet are considered so repulsive that one must be careful at all times to conceal them from view. In other places, women's lips are believed to be so seductive that wearing veils in public is imperative.

 Some New Guinea males wear a long, curved, and decorated gourd on their penis, apparel that seems designed more to exaggerate than to conceal. Some Pacific islander women frame their vaginas with tattoos, and many in Africa decorate their breasts with patterned scars. The intent is to enhance personal appearance and entice the interests of the opposite sex.

Americans insist that even nursing mothers conceal their breasts from public view, though in most parts of the world this prohibition is considered strange. Americans are convinced that breasts are inherently and blatantly erotic in spite of the fact that many native peoples find this fetish highly amusing. We do not insist that women cover their chests because breasts are so alluring; breast are so alluring because we insist that women cover their chests. Concealing any part of the body may render it more erogenous. Young women of the Nuer tribe in east Africa generally wear no clothing, but when they do an erotic dance designed to arouse prospective suitors sexually, they don short leather skirts.

Although many tribal people feel no need for clothing, most of us consider it essential, regardless of the weather. In societies where people avoid public nudity, there usually is consensus that clothing basically is a response to innate modesty. They are quite wrong about this, because the Nuer and others who have no inhibitions concerning public nudity have the same human nature we do. Since people often believe that attitudes familiar to them are normal and natural for others, most Americans do not realize that their distaste for nudity is peculiarly American, a cultural trait which has its own unique social history. Our cultural biases prevent us from recognizing that the public nudity taboo in the U.S. has very little to do with our genes.

All societies share certain behaviors, and these might shed light on human nature and how we respond to nudity. For instance, all human populations behave so as to distinguish themselves in some way from animals. Everywhere, there are customs and traditions that symbolically confirm human uniqueness in the biological world. Some maintain this dichotomy by equating public nudity with bestiality. Once we deny our common ancestry with the beasts of the field, it becomes logical to hide those parts of our anatomy associated with sex, birth, or excretory functions, since these activities challenge our claim to be something other than animals. This may be why we so long have attempted to prevent, conceal, or otherwise control birth, copulation, masturbation, suckling, and menstruation. Such animal behavior flies in the face of our claim to be something unique. Clothing, by altering our appearance, helps to deny our bestial nature.

Any reminder of the fact that we are animals may be suppressed or concealed in some way. Consider the importance we place on audible flatulence in any public arena. In many settings, even yawning, stomach rumbles, or belching are unacceptable. In the privacy of the home, one may indulge in such creature releases with relative impunity, but while out in public, one must exercise diligent constraint, subordinating physical comfort to emotional comfort.

 By the 1960s in America, many were willing to question old attitudes toward morality in general, and at this time, sexual "hang-ups" became especially difficult to defend. In this intellectual climate, nudity became a political statement, testifying to one's sophistication. At Woodstock and other outdoor mass concerts, hundreds of unacquainted people spontaneously removed their clothes and "let it all hang out."

Even though stage nudity has a long history, the popular Broadway musical "Oh! Calcutta!," in which the actors remove all their clothing, seemed to anticipate a great liberalizing of attitudes toward nudity. One might have thought, as I did in 1970, that, by the end of the 20th century, public nudity would have overcome its stigmatized status. Yet, today, there are counter-trends involving a great deal of phobia. Tolerance for nudity seems to have fallen victim to an anti-pornography movement. Some feminists have defined female nudity as politically incorrect, presenting women as sex objects. Some corporations, fearful of negative publicity, no longer purchase paintings of nudes for their art collections. Male nudity recently has acquired a connotation of homoeroticism, implying that male nudists are either gay or exhibitionists, and probably both. Given the American propensity for equating nudism with sexual license, the rapid spread of AIDS suggests to some that public nudity must remain banned.

Although college campuses generally have been in the vanguard of liberalization, some no longer display nudes in their art collections for fear of offending militant student sentiments. In 1992, Pennsylvania State University removed from an art history classroom a reproduction of "The Nude Maja," the famous painting by Francisco de Goya. This action was prompted by an English professor who insisted that the painting made her and her female students uncomfortable, maintaining that it even constituted a form of sexual harassment.

Parents who take nude pictures of their own young children have been apprehended by the police. A mother in Boston was arrested for taking pictures of her four-year-old son. Similarly, one offending father, a New Jersey immigrant from Israel, where young boys and girls are accustomed to playing nude on beaches, was arrested, handcuffed, and jailed, then barred from seeing his children for two months, merely because he took pictures of his six-year-old daughter for a photography class project. Fears of pedophilia outweigh common sense in many instances.

Although it is commonplace for women to go topless on public European beaches, the practice still is likely to result in arrest in this country. Hollywood, fearing NC-17 ratings that restrict box-office sales, continues to avoid full frontal nudity, even though it long has been accepted in European films. American-based airlines ban onboard weekly magazines that include pictures of nude models, such as those popular in Japan today. In-flight movies and those shown on commercial television are edited to delete "offensive" nudity.

 It does not seem strange that Middle Eastern airlines edit bare thighs from their films, but why is it that naked people, or even pictures of naked people, elicit such negative reaction in North America? Why does the practice of nude sunbathing and swimming cause such consternation here? After all, ours is a country quite accustomed to a great amount of exposed flesh. The advertising and entertainment industries constantly vie for our attention by depicting women and men in scant attire, often suggesting total nudity. Swimwear has been reduced to such minimal proportions that these garments seem more inclined to accent sexual anatomy than to conceal it.

There have been some efforts to liberalize laws that condemn women for being bare-chested on the grounds that the laws do not apply equally to men. In recent years, small protest demonstrations have been staged by women in American and Canadian cities, but their cause does not seem to have gained much sympathy from the population at large. One might assume that feminist organizations would take up this campaign, but they are neutralized on the issue because they are committed to combating the objectification of women. Although they agree that the laws should not discriminate on the basis of sex, many are convinced that going topless only encourages the image of women as sex objects.

Social context

How public nudity is perceived is largely a matter of social context. Some populations are totally comfortable with nudity, while others find it unqualifiedly unacceptable. In 1995, the city of Jerusalem was offered a replica of what might be the world's most admired statue, Michelangelo's "David," depicting the young Israelite king immediately after he killed Goliath. The replica, worth $700,000, was commissioned by Florence, Italy, to commemorate Jerusalem's 3,000-year history. Although the city fathers of Jerusalem were pleased at the prospect of owning this highly visible symbol of proud Jewish history, the gift was refused because David's nudity would have offended Orthodox Jews and Arabs. Similarly, a painting of the classical Greek statue of "Venus de Milo" was removed from a shopping mall in Springfield, Mo., because it was considered too shocking. The original is one of the most popular attractions at the Louvre in Paris.

Attitudes toward nudity may change dramatically from one generation to another within the same society. Until quite recently, for instance, Japanese magazines were not allowed to include pictures of nude models, but many of them now do so. One of these publications, An An, solicited nude photographs from its female readers and received 1,600 entries. It seems that these women believed that such photographs were complimentary, in sharp contrast to what most American women might have concluded. Moreover, these Japanese women were enthusiastic about this rare opportunity to compete with others, a desire that would have been far less likely a generation ago.

Although many educated Americans consider our public nudity taboo to be anachronistic, there presently is no organized national effort to challenge it, and I do not anticipate any sort of social movement devoted to the demise. However, there has been a long-term trend suggesting that, in the not too distant future, America will grow more accepting of nudity.

 In the last few years, memberships in the largest national nudist organization (the Naturist Society) have increased dramatically. There has been much liberalization of American attitudes toward sex in general, and pictures of naked people, on newsstands and the Internet, are more readily available than ever before. Clothing-optional beaches in various parts of the country steadily have increased in numbers, and more and more will be converted to such use. National parks, where nude bathing used to be prohibited, today tolerate it in designated areas. Although many anti-nudity state laws have been proposed in recent years, very few have been enacted.

Some municipalities have discovered that tolerance of nudism can be highly profitable. There was considerable resistance on the part of merchants and the Mayor's Office in Miami to allowing nude bathing on its now famous Haulover Beach. Once it was opened for such use, a veritable flood of European tourists proved to be an economic boom. Florida-based cruise ship lines, formerly unreceptive to nudist organizations. now solicit their business, and it is possible to sign on for a Caribbean cruise with hundreds of other nudists.

Protests against public nudity -- evoking concerns for family values, protection of women, and Christian morality -- should not be viewed as a serious setback to the naturist movement and the liberalizing of American views. Rather, they are more likely reactive responses to the increasing acceptance of exposed anatomy and may be seen, therefore, as confirming liberalization of mainstream attitudes toward nudity. Given the present trends in most of the industrialized world and more subtle trends in the U.S., it seems inevitable that we will become increasingly comfortable with nudity so that, some day. pictures of naked models and actors and the presence of nude bathers on public beaches no longer will shock the moral sensitivities of most Americans. When that time comes, we will marvel at how we used to be so uptight about public nudity.

COPYRIGHT 1998 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

Part I - Items 1 - 49

Extensively documented with quotes, references, supporting research, and resources for further study

     Compiled by K. Bacher



 Preface
 
THE UNITED STATES LAGS FAR BEHIND most of the rest of Western Civilization in its negative attitude toward the human body. While most of Europe is comfortable with the concept of nude recreation on beaches and in vacation resorts, here in the U.S., conservative political action groups seek to criminalize even the most innocent exposure of the human body. Often these groups gain support by purporting to defend "family values" or "Christian morality."

Although these groups are growing in political power, they represent only a small portion of the American population. And participation in nude recreation is also growing. More and more Americans are discovering the pleasures of skinny-dipping with their families in the local reservoir, or sunbathing in the buff at the local beach. Membership in nudist organizations is growing by leaps and bounds.

More than ever, Naturists need powerful arguments to defend their chosen lifestyle against those who cannot see beyond their own misconceptions and preconceived notions. We need evidence and testimony to encourage others to give Naturism a try. For several years, I found myself making claims like these:

"Actually, Mom, taking the kids to a nudist park is good for them." "The ideals of Naturism are consistent with the goals of women's rights." "A lot of famous people don't think skinnydipping's such a bad thing." "There's nothing in the Bible that says it's wrong to go nude." "Naturism has some real psychological benefits." "Not everyone in the world thinks nudity is so bad, you know."

I knew that these statements were true, but when pressed, I could not back them up with concrete references. And so, this project was born. Here are all the arguments in support of Naturism, backed up by up-to-date scientific research and supported by the writings of leading thinkers in psychology, sociology, history, law, and philosophy. Here also you will find related musings on subjects including modesty, nudity in art, the history of fashion, women's rights, the benefits of breast-feeding, and the psychology of clothing.

This compilation draws on sources including nudist and mainstream publications, scholarly research, and my own thought. Some arguments are stronger than others. Taken as a whole, I think they make a compelling case in favor of Naturism. They support a perspective that sees the human body as complete and good in and of itself, regardless of how--or whether--it is adorned. They support an honest, open, and accepting attitude toward the human body, a perspective that is physically, mentally, and spiritually healing, socially constructive, and thoroughly freeing.

This compilation is by no means complete or comprehensive. All ideas, suggestions, comments, corrections, additions, references, and insights are welcome! Many of these quotes and ideas are taken from other sources or excerpted from larger works. An extensive bibliography and endnotes are included at the end of the document, and I strongly encourage anyone who is interested to refer to the original sources for more information.

These ideas should be shared freely. Every mother concerned about "family values" should know about the extensive scientific research demonstrating the positive benefits of nudism for children. Every woman concerned about pornography should know how strongly the philosophy and practice of Naturism repudiates the objectification of women's bodies. Every lawmaker concerned about honoring the original intent of our nation's founders should know that many of them were unabashed skinnydippers. Christians concerned about upholding sexual morality should know that the earliest Church leaders accepted nudity as a natural part of life, and not in the least inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. The world-weary businessman in his urban office and three-piece suit should know how relaxing and therapeutic a weekend at a nudist park can be. The mother on the beach with sand in her swimming suit should know that there are places in the world where she may enjoy the feeling of sun and water on her body without attracting unwanted attention.

It is my hope that this document may help you to share this good news, and to speak articulately about the native goodness of the human body in its natural state.

Nudity is often more comfortable and practical than clothing.

1. There are times when clothing is physically uncomfortable. Nudity, on the other hand, is often much more comfortable.

2. For many activities, nudity is often far more practical than clothing.

Bernard Rudofsky writes: "The custom of wearing a bathing suit, a desperate attempt to recapture some of our lost innocence, represents a graphic expression of white man's hypocrisy. For, obviously, the bathing suit is irrelevant to any activity in and under water. It neither keeps us dry or warm, nor is it an aid to swimming. If the purpose of bathing is to get wet, the bathing suit does not make us wetter. At best, it is a social dress, like the dinner jacket."  Yet Americans spend $900,000,000 each year on bathing costumes.

 3. Clothing also restricts movement, and encumbers the athlete. Studies done by the West German Olympic swim team showed that even swimsuits slow down a swimmer.

Naturism promotes mental health.

4. A nudist is not a body lacking something (that is, clothing). Rather, a clothed person is a whole and complete naked body, plus clothes.

5. Many psychologists say that clothing is an extension of ourselves. The clothes we wear are an expression of who we are. The Naturist's comfort with casual nudity, therefore, represents an attitude which is comfortable with the self as it is in its most basic state, without modification or deceit.

6. Clothes-compulsiveness creates insecurity about one's body. Studies show that nudism, on the other hand, promotes a positive body self-concept. These effects are especially significant for women. Studies by Daniel DeGoede in 1984 confirmed research done 16 years earlier, which established that "of all the groups measured (nudist males, non-nudist males, nudist females, and non-nudist females), the nudist females scored highest on body concept, and the non-nudist females scored lowest."

7. Nudism promotes wholeness of body, rather than setting aside parts of the body as unwholesome and shameful.

8. Clothes-compulsiveness locks us into a constant battle between individuality and conformity of dress. Nudity frees us from this anxiety, by fostering a climate of comfortable individuality without pretense.

9. The practice of nudism is, for nudists, an immensely freeing experience. In freeing oneself to be nude in the presence of others, including members of the other sex, the nudist also gives up all the social baggage that goes along with the nudity taboo.

The North American Guide to Nude Recreation notes that "one reason why a nude lifestyle is so refreshing is that it delivers us temporarily from the game of clothes. It's hard to imagine how much clothing contributes to the grip of daily tensions until we see what it's like to socialize without them. Clothing locks us into a collective unreality that prescribes complex responses to social status, roles and expected behaviors. In shedding our daily 'uniforms,' we also shed a weighty burden of anxieties. For a while, at least, we don't have to play the endless charade of projected images we call 'daily life.' . . . For once in your life you are part of a situation where age, occupation and social status don't really count for much. You'll find yourself relating more on the basis of who you really are instead of who your clothes say you are."  This analysis is borne out by experience.

10. The sense of "freedom" that comes from the nudist experience is consistently rated by nudists as one of the main reasons they stay in it.

11. Nudism, by freeing the body, helps free the mind and spirit. An irrational clothes-compulsiveness may inhibit psychological growth and health.

Dr. Robert Henley Woody writes, "fear of revealing one's body is a defense. To keep clothing on at all times when it is unnecessary for social protocol or physical comfort is to armour oneself in a manner that will block new behaviors that could introduce more healthful and rewarding alternatives; and promote psychological growth."

12. The nudist, literally, has nothing to hide. He or she therefore has less stress, a fact supported by research.

In the words of Paul Ableman: "Removing your clothes symbolizes 'taking off' civilization and its cares. The nudist is stripped not only of garments but of the need to 'dress a part,' of form and display, of ceremony and all the constraints of a complex etiquette. . . . Further than this, the nudist symbolically takes off a great burden of responsibility. By taking off his clothes, he takes off the pressing issues of his day. For the time being, he is no longer committed to causes, opposed to this or that trend, in short a citizen. He becomes . . . a free being once more."

13. Clothing hides the natural diversity of human body shapes and sizes. When people are never exposed to nudity, they grow up with misunderstandings and unrealistic expectations about the body based on biased or misinformed sources--for instance, from advertising or mass media.

As a result, breast augmentation has long been the leading form of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. In the 1980s, American women had more than 100,000 operations per year to alter their breasts. Helen Gurley Brown, past editor of Cosmopolitan, says, "I don't think 80 percent of the women in this country have any idea what other women's bosoms look like. They have this idealized idea of how other people's bosoms are. . . . My God, isn't it ridiculous to be an emancipated woman and not really know what a woman's body looks like except your own?"  Paul Fussell notes, by contrast, that "a little time spent on Naturist beaches will persuade most women that their breasts and hips are not, as they may think when alone, appalled by their mirrors, 'abnormal,' but quite natural, 'abnormal' ones belonging entirely to the nonexistent creatures depicted in ideal painting and sculpture. The same with men: if you think nature has been unfair to you in the sexual anatomy sweepstakes, spend some time among the Naturists. You will learn that every man looks roughly the same--quite small, that is, and that heroic fixtures are not just extremely rare, they are deformities."

14. Clothing hides and therefore creates mystery and ignorance about natural body processes, such as pregnancy, adolescence, and aging. Children (and even adults) who grow up in a nudist environment have far less anxiety about these natural processes than those who are never exposed to them. Margaret Mead writes, "clothes separate us from our own bodies as well as from the bodies of others. The more society . . . muffles the human body in clothes . . . camouflages pregnancy . . . and hides breastfeeding, the more individual and bizarre will be the child's attempts to understand, to piece together a very imperfect knowledge of the life-cycle of the two sexes and an understanding of the particular state of maturity of his or her body."

Some observations on the nature of modesty.

15. Children are not born with any shame about nudity. They learn to be ashamed of their own nudity.

16. Shame, with respect to nudity, is relative to individual situations and customs, not absolute.

For example, an Arab woman, encountered in a state of undress, will cover her face, not her body; she bares her breasts without embarrassment, but believes the sight of the back of her head to be still more indecent than exposure of her face. (James Laver notes that "an Arab peasant woman caught in the fields without her veil will throw her skirt over her head, thereby exposing what, to the Western mind, is a much more embarrassing part of her anatomy.") In early Palestine, women were obliged to keep their heads covered; for a woman, to be surprised outside the house without a head-covering was a sufficient reason for divorce. In pre-revolutionary China it was shameful for a woman to show her foot, and in Japan, the back of her neck. In 18th-century France, while deep décolletage was common, it was improper to expose the point of the shoulder. Herr Surén, writing in 1924, noted that Turkish women veiled their faces, Chinese women hid their feet, Arab women covered the backs of their heads, and Filipino women considered only the navel indecent.

The relative nature of shame is acknowledged by Pope John Paul II. "There is a certain relativism in the definition of what is shameless," he writes. "This relativism may be due to differences in the makeup of particular persons . . . or to different 'world views.' It may equally be due to differences in external conditions--in climate for instance . . . and also in prevailing customs, social habits, etc. . . . In this matter there is no exact similarity in the behavior of particular people, even if they live in the same age and the same society. . . . Dress is always a social question."

17. The dominant idea that clothing is necessary for reasons of modesty is a cultural assumption. It is an assumption that is not shared by all cultures, nor by all members of our own culture.

18. There is evidence that modesty is not related to nakedness at all, but is rather a response to appearing different from the rest of the social group--for instance, outside the accepted habits of clothing or adornment.

For example, indigenous tribes naked except for ear and lip plugs feel immodest when the plugs are removed, not when their bodies are exposed. Likewise, a woman feels immodest if seen in her slip, even though it's far less revealing than her bikini. This also explains why clothed visitors to nudist parks feel uncomfortable in their state of dress. Psychologist Emery S. Bogardus writes: "Nakedness is never shameful when it is unconscious, that is, when there is no consciousness of a difference between fact and the rule set by the mores." In other words, for first-time visitors to a nudist park, there is no hint of embarrassment after an initial reticence, because it is not contrary to the moral norms.

19. Shame comes from being outside mores, not from specific actions or conditions. Because nudity is unremarkable in a nudist setting, nudists may even forget that they are nude--and often do.

20. Psychological studies have shown that modesty need not be related to one's state of dress at all. For the nudist, modesty is not shed with one's clothes; it merely takes a different form.

Psychological studies by Martin Weinberg concluded that the basic difference between nudists and non-nudists lies in their differently-constructed definitions of the situation. It isn't that nudists are immodest, for, like non-nudists, they have norms to regulate and control immorality, sexuality, and embarrassment. Nudists merely accept the human body as natural, rather than as a source of embarrassment.

21. Many indigenous tribes go completely naked without shame, even today. It is only through extended contact with the "modern" world that they learn to be "modest."

Paul Ableman writes: "The missionaries were usually disconcerted to find that the biblically recommended act of 'clothing the naked', far from producing an improvement in native morals, almost always resulted in a deterioration. What the missionaries were inadvertently doing was recreating the Garden of Eden situation. Naked, the primitive cultures had shown no prurient concern with the body. . . . the morality was normally geared to the naked state of the culture. The missionaries, with their cotton shorts and dresses, disrupted this. Naked people actually feel shame when they are first dressed. They develop an exaggerated awareness of the body. It is as if Adam and Eve's 'aprons' generated the 'knowledge of good and evil' rather than being its consequence."

Many Amazon rainforest people still live clothing-optional by choice, even given an alternative. The same is true of the aborigines of central Australia.

22. Even in North America, nudity was commonplace among many indigenous tribes prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Lewis and Clark reported nearly-naked natives along the northern Pacific coast, for example, as did visitors to California. Father Louis Hennepin in 1698 reported of Milwaukee-area Illinois Indians, "They go stark naked in Summer-time, wearing only a kind of Shoes made of the Skins of [buffalo] Bulls." He described several other North American tribes as also generally living without clothes. The natives of Florida wore only breechclouts and sashes of Spanish moss, which they removed while hunting or gardening. Columbus wrote of the Indians he encountered in the Caribbean in 1492, "They all go around as naked as their mothers bore them; and also the women."  The Polynesian natives of Hawaii wore little clothing, and none at all at the shore or in the water, until the arrival of Christian missionaries with Captain Cook in 1776.

23. For some indigenous tribes, nudity or near-nudity is an essential part of their culture.

Paul Ableman explains, "very few primitives are totally naked. They almost always have ornamentation or body-modification of some kind, which plays a central role in their culture. . . . Into this simple but successful culture comes the missionary, and obliterates the key signs beneath his cheap Western clothing. Among many primitives, tattooing, scarification and ornamentation convey highly elaborate information which may, in fact, be the central regulatory force in the society. The missionary thus, at one blow, annihilates a culture. It was probably no less traumatic for a primitive society to be suddenly clothed than it would be for ours to be suddenly stripped naked."

24. Yet missionaries have consistently sought to impose their own concepts of "decency" on other cultures, ignoring the elaborate cultural traditions regarding dress already in place.

Bernard Rudofsky writes: "People [in other cultures] who traditionally do not have much use for clothes are not amused by the missionary zeal that prompts us to press our notions of decency upon them while being insensitive or opposed to theirs."  Julian Robinson adds: "Eighteenth and nineteenth century missionaries and colonial administrators were blissfully blind to their own religious, cultural and sexual prejudices, and to the symbolism of their own tribal adornments--their tight-laced corsets, powdered wigs, constricting shoes and styles of outer garments totally unsuited to colonial life. These missionaries and administrators nevertheless took it upon themselves to expunge all those 'pagan, barbaric and savage forms of body packaging' which did not conform to their body covering standards. . . . Thus the social and symbolic significance of these traditional forms of body decoration which had evolved over countless generations were, in many cases, destroyed forever."

Russell Nansen records that "Henry Morton Stanley, the rescuer of David Livingstone in the Belgian Congo. . . . from 1847 to 1877 . . . wandered across Africa suffering every hardship but when he went back to England he made a notable speech to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. He explained to the audience how many natives there were in the Congo, and the fact that they lived naked. He told the audience that their duty as Christians was to convert these misguided naked savages to Christianity and to the wearing of clothes. And when this missionary work had progressed sufficiently to convince the natives of the need for wearing clothes on Sunday, that would mean three hundred and twenty million yards of Manchester cotton cloth yearly. Instantly the audience rose to its feet and cheered him."

25. Most anthropologists consider modesty an unlikely reason for the development of clothes.

J.C. Flügel writes: "The great majority of scholars . . . have unhesitatingly regarded decoration as the motive that led, in the first place, to the adoption of clothing, and consider that the warmth- and modesty-preserving functions of dress, however important they might later on become, were only discovered once the wearing of clothes had become habitual for other reasons. . . . The anthropological evidence consists chiefly in the fact that among the most primitive races there exist unclothed but not undecorated peoples."  Anthropologists agree nearly unanimously on this point.

26. Many psychologists and anthropologists believe that modesty about exposure of the body may well be a result of wearing clothes, rather than its cause.

27. It is interesting to note that it is only possible to be immodest once an accepted form of modesty has been established.

28. Modesty with respect to nudity is a social phenomenon, not biologically instinctive. This is evidenced by the fact that nudity is venerated in art.

Naturism promotes sexual health.

29. Nudity is not, by itself, erotic, and nudity in mixed groups is not inherently sexual. These are myths propagated by a clothes-obsessed society. Sexuality is a matter of intent rather than state of dress.

In our culture, a person who exposes their sexual parts for any reason is considered to be an exhibitionist. It is assumed that they stripped to attract attention and cause a sexual reaction in others. This is seen as a perversion. Hypocritically, if someone dresses specifically to arouse sexual interest, they are considered to have pride in their appearance. Even if they get great sexual gratification out of the attention others give, there is no suggestion of perversion or sexual fixation.

30. Nudists, as a group, are healthier sexually than the general population.

Nudists are, as a rule, far more comfortable with their bodies than the general public, and this contributes to a more relaxed and comfortable attitude toward sexuality in general.

31. Sexual satisfaction in married couples shows a correlation to their degree of comfort with nudity.

32. Studies show significantly less incidence of casual premarital and extramarital sex, group sex, incest, and rape among nudists than among non-nudists.

33. Studies have demonstrated that countries with fewer hangups about nudity have lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates.

34. Clothes enhance sexual mystery and the potential for unhealthy sexual fantasies.

Photographer Jock Sturges says, "our arbitrary demarcations [between clothing and nudity, sexual and asexual] serve more to confound our collective sexual identity than to further our social progress. America sells everything with sex and then recoils when presented with the realities of natural process."  C. Willet Cunnington writes: "We have to thank the Early Fathers for having, albeit unwillingly, established a mode of thinking from which men and women have developed an art which has supplied . . . so many novel means of exciting the sexual appetite. Prudery, it seems, provides mankind with endless aphrodisiacs, hence, no doubt, the reluctance to abandon it."

35. Clothing focuses attention on sexuality, not away from it; and in fact often enhances immature forms of sexuality, rather than promoting healthy body acceptance.

36. Complete nudity is antithetic to the elaborate semi-pornography of the fashion industry.

Julian Robinson observes, "modesty is so intertwined with sexual desire and the need for sexual display--fighting but at the same time re-kindling this desire--that a self-perpetuating process is inevitably set in motion. In fact modesty can never really attain its ultimate end except through its disappearance. Hiding under the cloak of modesty there are to be found many essential components of the sexual urge itself."

37. Clothing often focuses attention on the genitals and sexual arousal, rather than away from them.

At various times in Western history different parts of female anatomy have been eroticized: bellies and thighs in the Renaissance; buttocks, breasts, and thighs by the late 1800s (and relatively diminutive waists and bellies). Underwear design has historically emphasized these erogenous body parts: corsets in the 1800s de-emphasized the midriff and emphasized the breasts--using materials including whalebone and steel; the crinoline in the mid 1800s emphasized the waist; and the bustle, appearing in 1868, emphasized the buttocks. Bathing suit design today focuses attention on the breasts and pubic region.

E.B. Hurlock writes: "When primitive peoples are unaccustomed to wearing clothing, putting it on for the first time does not decrease their immorality, as the ladies of missionary societies think it will. It has just the opposite effect. It draws attention to the body, especially for those parts of it which are covered for the first time."  Rob Boyte notes wryly that "textile people, when they do strip in front of others, usually do it for passion, and find the bikini pattern tan-lines attractive. This is reminiscent of the scarification practiced by primitive societies, and shows how clothing patterns become a fetish of the body."  Havelock Ellis writes: "If the conquest of sexual desire were the first and last consideration of life it would be more reasonable to prohibit clothing than to prohibit nakedness."

38. The fashion industry depends on the sex appeal of clothing. Peter Fryer writes: "The changes in women's fashions are basically determined by the need to maintain men's sexual interest, and therefore to transfer the primary zone of erotic display once a given part of the body has been saturated with attractive power to the point of satiation. . . . Each new fashion seeks to arouse interest in a new erogenous zone to replace the zone which, for the time being, is played out."

39. Differences of clothing between the sexes focus attention on sex differences.

Psychologist J.C. Flügel writes: "There seems to be (especially in modern life) no essential factor in the nature, habits, or functions of the two sexes that would necessitate a striking difference of costume--other than the desire to accentuate sex differences themselves; an accentuation that chiefly serves the end of more easily and frequently arousing sexual passion."

40. Many psychologists believe that clothing may originally have developed, in part, as a means of focusing sexual attention.

41. Partial clothing is more sexually stimulating (in often unhealthy ways) than full nudity.

Anne Hollander writes: "The more significant clothing is, the more meaning attaches to its absence and the more awareness is generated about any relation between the two states."  Elizabeth B. Hurlock notes that "it is unquestionably a well-known fact that familiar things arouse no curiosity, while concealment lends enchantment and stimulates curiosity . . . a draped figure with just enough covering to suggest the outline, is far more alluring than a totally naked body."  And Lee Baxandall observes, "the 'almost'-nude beaches, where bikinis and thongs are paraded, are more sexually titillating than a clothes-optional resort or beach. What is natural is more fulfilling, though it may not fit the tantalize-and-deliver titillation of our consumer culture."

42. Modesty--especially enforced modesty--only adds to sexual interest and desire.

Reena Glazer writes: "Women's breasts are sexually stimulating to (heterosexual) men, at least in part because they are publicly inaccessible; society further eroticizes the female breast by tagging it shameful to expose. . . . This element of the forbidden merely perpetuates the intense male reaction female exposure allegedly inspires."

43. Topfree inequality (requiring women, but not men, to wear tops) produces an unhealthy obsession with breasts as sexual objects.

44. The identification of breasts as sexual objects in our culture has led to the discouragement of breast-feeding, the encouragement of unnecessary cosmetic surgery for breast augmentation, and avoidance of necessary breast examinations by women.

Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer write: "When a woman learns to treat her breasts as objects that enhance appearance, they belong not to the woman, but to her viewers. Thus, a woman becomes alienated from her own body."

45. Naturism is the antithesis of pornography.

Nudity is often confused with pornography in our society because the pornography industry has so successfully exploited it. In other words, nudity is often damned as exploitative precisely because its repression causes many to exploit it.

46. Pornography has been defined as an attempt to exert power over nature. In most cases in our culture, it manifests itself as an expression of sexual power by men over women. Naturism, by contrast, seeks to coexist with nature and with each other, and to accept each other and the natural world in our most natural states.

47. Non-acceptance and repression of nudity fuels pornography by teaching that any form and degree of nudity is inherently sexual and pornographic.

In the words of activist Melissa Farley, "pornography is the antithesis of freedom for women. . . . to treat the human body as anything less than normal and beautiful is to promote puritanism and pornography. If the human body is accepted by society as normal, the pornographers won't be able to market it."

48. Naturism is innocent, casual, non-exploitative, and non-commercial (and yet is often suppressed); as opposed to pornography, which is commercialized and sensationalized (and generally tolerated).

In some American communities it is illegal for a woman to publicly bare her breasts in order to feed an infant, but it is legal to display Penthouse on drug-store magazine racks.

49. Many psychologists believe that repression of a healthy sexuality leads to a greater capacity for, and tendency toward, violence.

Paul Ableman writes: "We have divorced ourselves from our instincts so conclusively that we are now menaced by their perverted expression. The blocked erotic instinct turns into destructiveness and, in our age, many thinkers have perceived that some of the most ghastly manifestations of human culture are fueled by recycled eroticism. Channelled into pure cerebration, the sexual instinct may generate nightmares impossible in the animal world. Animals are casually cruel and are usually, not always, indifferent to the pain of other animals. Animals kills for food or, rarely, for sport but they do not torture, gloat over pain or exterminate. We do. What's more, we can tolerate our own ferocity. What we cannot tolerate is our own sexuality."  Thus extreme violence is tolerated even on television, while the merest glimpse of sexual anatomy, however innocent, is enough to cause movie ratings to jump.

For decades Karlwilli Damm (1908-83) has collected the “International Naturist Library/Karlwilli Damm,” archives Kassel. As it is not a pure library, we can simply speak of the “collection Damm”.

For the collector it meant an enormous financial burden to pay the subscriptions of the magazines as well as the invoices of the bookkeepers year in, year out, as you can find nearly 100 magazines in German language and about 80 international naturist magazines and 150 nude magazines in foreign languages which partly have been subscribed for decades.

Karlwilli Damm collected everything which has somehow to do with the problems and the history of the naturist movement, as e.g. also the anti-naturist literature of the church, novels and reports from naturists as well as juridical, theological, educational and sexology texts and especially all the club publications of the different naturist and nudist clubs.

Which means that this collection shows nearly everything about the naturist movement and its surroundings from the bibliophilic rarity to the hectographed club message; from the rare and old nude photos up until the spontaneous nude photos taken by amateurs, from the badge of honour to the club pennant. It is very likely that the collection of magazines from the twenties and the fifties of our century will not find others which are as complete as this collection is; and this completeness gives us a chance to investigate the way of the naturist associations from naturism to nudism, i.e. from a life reforming organization to an organization of tourism.

From the very first moment on the naturist movement has been conflicting. Nudity should make people free from the ancient pictures and behaviour, however many of the naturist propagandists in the clubs represented the pre-fascist ideology. On the other hand there has also been a left-orientated naturism within the labour movement; one of their most popular representatives was the teacher Adolf Koch (1897-1970). It was not before the end of the 2nd World War that the “movement” could be described as nudism, although still some socio-hygienic and healthy aspects were propagated, but the nudity in the clubs became more and more popular and took the shape of a tourist leisure time.

Only an intensive research will make it possible to describe the history of the naturist movement in connection with its conflicting closeness with National Socialism, and here the collection Damm gives an excellent chance to do this as the collection does not only archive the material which corresponds to the main stream. In order to do justice to the naturist movement, the scientist must also do his work of research with the minority of members of naturism who organized themselves in the socialist labour movement.

In Kassel you will find excellent material for the necessary biographical research of such controversial persons as e.g. Hans Surén (1885-1972), Charly Strasser (1900-89) or Adolf Koch (1897-1970). Karlwilli Damm had been a personal friend of Adolf Koch and certainly did not belong to the people whom the Nazis could easily integrate.

Damm had combined certain topics in groups, as you can easily realize when reading his list of contents, and these different groups of themes make people analyse.

The photo history –this relatively young branch of the art history– here gets very precious idea for its sector “nude photography”, as we could also get them in the exhibition “Das Aktfoto – Ansichten von Körper im fotografischen Zeitalter” (The nude photo –view of the body in the photographic age) in the City Museum of Munich. The sector “nude photography” is not yet fully incorporated –e.g. detailed work has still to be done on the photography of amateurs in the naturist clubs and their resorts.

Karlwilli Damm has not only archived the literature and the magazines from the Nazi era, but also collected letters and other documents.

With the help of these documents it is possible to correct photo historical misjudgments which were taken in those days from the photo material of the fascists. In the book “Das Aktphoto” (the nude photo) –which I mentioned before– the co-editor Michael Koehler writes that the fact that most of the photos have been taken in the summertime can lead us to the assumption of limited naturist activities at the time of the Nazis. “As a kind of symbol here the circumstance is being reflected that after 1933 public nudity in the sense of the naturist movement– if there has been any at all– was only tolerated in connection with nude swimming in the summer holidays.” (“Das Aktphoto”, Munich 1985, page 303).

However, within very soon you get a different impression from the one being presented in this quotation when reading the reports in the magazines, but also when looking at Karlwilli Damm's photo books.

To make comparisons between the life in the naturist resorts of the naturist members in Germany and those in other countries in Central Europe and North America –this would be easy be means of the material which has been very well prepared by Karlwilli Damm –a task for a folklorist.

By means of an analysis of the poses and behaviour shown on the photos it would also be possible to make a contribution to the “visual anthropology”, this young sub-discipline of anthropology, folklore and ethnology, which –like the photo history in the art history– just slowly begins to develop itself.

It is astonishing how wide the collection of books is (which can be found in Kassel) as far as the topic beauty dance is concerned. Here I only like to mention a few names as e.g. Olga Desmond (1891-1964), Celly de Rheydt and Isadora Duncan (1878-1927). In those days the denominational men and morality clubs protested against these nude and barefoot dancers.

But not only their activities have been documented, but also those of the “Volkswartbund” in the 50s and 60s when the law for the distribution of documents which might be liable to corrupt the young (§ 184 StGB=Criminal Code) ensured actions of confiscation having an enormous public appeal in the republic.

The magazine “Die Schönheit” (=the beauty), which first of all made the naturists separate from the nudists, is totally complete in the collection Damm, including the very rare special editions “Kunstgaben der Schönheit” (arts of beauty).

The branch naturist tourism which is hardly of any economic importance is being documented in Kassel right from its beginnings and only waits for someone doing a doctorate about this topic. The collection has been the basis for many dissertations and they are also part of the collection. Here are just a few of their titles: “Die Geschichte der FKK-Bewegung und die Beziehung zum Weltkampf, Familien-und Freizeitsport” (=the history of the naturist movement and its relation to sports competition, family and leisure sports, Cologne 1979), “Die deutsche Freikörperkultur als soziale Bewegung” (German naturism as a social movement, Berlin 1967) and e.g. “Wie denken Kinder über FKK?” (=what do children think of naturism? Bremen 1970).

The beginning eroticism of the naturist publications is well comprehensive, two of many titles to be found in the collection are e.g. “naturism and love” or “encyclopedia of naturist eroticism”.

A folklorist can easily reconstruct the contemporary ritual of “streaking” from Damm's article collection. The following magazines have been analysed e.g. Quick, Stern, Spiegel, Twen, Constanze, Konkret, Praline and many others. In this context I should mention the collection of cover pages from magazines which Damm collected since the end of the 60s. It would be worthy to make a small special exhibition of these pages.

Catchwords of Damm's list of books and magazines are “marriage”, “sports”, “ethics” and “education” –only to mention a few. Under these catchwords you will also find extracts from very rare magazines, as e.g. from the paper “Neues Kriminal Magazin” (=New Criminal Magazine) or “Knoll's Mitteilungen für Ärzte" (Knoll's message for doctors) and “Lexika-Auszüge über\Nacktkultur und FKK” (=extracts from encyclopedia about nude culture and naturism).

However, Karlwilli Damm did not only collect German magazines. In the US-American magazine “Official Police” the article “Expose of nudist-camp rituals” was published in July 1956, or e.g. the “Illustrated Detective” brought a report about “My 10 days in a Nudist Camp” in December 1955; in April 1932 the “Outlook New York” informed about the Soviet-Russian nudism and the “Swiatowia” did the same about the “beginning of naturist beaches in Poland”. The following heading from the “Neue Illustrierte” (06.07.1957) just sounds associative to that: “Die Nackten und die Drähte” (=The naked and the wires).

When you just read the titles of the essays from Damm's list, you will get a good impression of the history of culture and ethics in the 50s and 60s.

Somebody who wants to explore the history of the “persons with alternative views” (e.g. the “naturals” from Ascona) will find as much material as e.g. a literary historian who works on the organized physical status. Novels and stories from naturists from the twenties, fifties and sixties can be found, and the literary work of the nude photographer Herbert Rittlinger (1909-78) might not only be interesting for the Germanist, but also for the photo historian.

As a maniac collector and arhivist Damm has filled gaps in this collection either through loans from the former archive Wilke (Berlin) or through putting bound copies into the shelves. The book e.g. which Adolf Hitler read J. Lanz-Liebenfels's “Nackt- und Rassenkultur im Kampfe gegen Muckertum und Tschandalakultur” (1913) can just be found as a copy.

Scientific works about the North American nudism, as e.g. the book Hartman/Fithian/Johnson “Nudist Society” (New York, 1970), which can hardly be obtained by correspondence/lending – Damm could buy part of them in the original version.

You can also get information about the British conditions: e.g. by means of the bibliography of Alec Craig called “The bibliography of nudism” (London, 1954).

Karlwilli Damm wrote himself “a bibliography Adolf Koch” and three documentations about the following topics flew from his pen: nude-village, first clubs in Berlin, EUFK and the “Geschichte der Landschulheime auf FKK-Grundlage” (=history of the country houses used by school classes for short visits on a naturist basis; Kassel 1959). Damm did not belong to the brown nudes as he collected a “Documentation about Free swimmers- Bielefeld”- proletarian naturism" (E. Kuhmlehn, 1929). Τhe film historian will enjoy many programmes (e.g. for “Garden of Eden” and special programmes for the film “Wege zu Kraft und Schönheit” (=Ways to Power and Beauty) (1925).

And also the law historian just needs to help himself besides many documents concerning Lex Heintze and §184 StGB there are also files of 15 legal proceedings of the fifties and sixties, as e.g. the “report Prof. Nohl in the Damm matter because of nude swimming with pupils” (certainly also interesting for the education historian) or “Tribunal DFK against Adolf Koch”, and finally the important case files of the naturist youth against the township of Mainz because of the use of the house of youth in Mainz (1966) and the files of the Administrative Court Saarland in the case of the “Withdrawal of the rights of use – Lichtbund Saar against the town of Saarbrücken" (1959).

Apart from files and correspondence –especially interesting here is the correspondence between Charly Strasser and Adolf Koch from 1965/1966– Karlwilli Damm– as a real archivist of “his” movement– has also saved some realities, as e.g. club pennants and badges or also tapes, records, minutes of whole meetings being recorded on tapes and single lectures.

Partly these lectures are being archived with the corresponding photos or slides. A special rarity is a stereoscope from 1928 with which you can have a look at photos.

Certainly Damm was crazy about the history of the naturist movement, but the special emancipation of the people was of special importance to him –and he thought that the naturist movement could enormously contribute to it.

It should be the leitmotif of any work with the material being archived in Kassel to check the possible correctness of this hope and to examine the wrong developments of this “movement” to the National Socialism and to the conformism of the fifties and sixties.

(Translation from the German provided by the IFB)