We have been in the business of promoting nudist businesses for many years and we know the standard line: You can call it a nudist (or clothing optional or clothes free) club. You can call it a nude resort or nudist park. Even a nudist spa. But don't call it a nudist "colony." Ever.
"Ants live in colonies."
"Colonies went out with the American Revolution. "
And so it goes. We spent years trying to get the media to avoid the term. But now, upon reflection, we find ourselves asking, "Is it really all that offensive?"
Well, antiquated maybe.
Some folks think it makes us sound like part of a nuts and berries crowd. Or a cult of some kind. But the term also harkens back to a simpler time. When we were a source of jokes and those cartoon style postcards. A time when folks understood that we ran around in the woods with nothing on. Yet somehow understood that that's all that was going on behind the fence. That nudists were people who kept to themselves and weren't harming anyone. People who brought their kids to "the colony."
"Nudist colony" connotes a health regimen for some. A Peter Sellers movie for others.
Are we just waxing nostalgically? Tell us what you think.
Yes, the term "nudist colony" is a pejorative and should be avoided. Think "leper". If nudists and naturists want more acceptance in society, they need to set aside the past and look forward. Tear down the fences, open the locked gates, and bury the idea of an isolated, remote, and weird "colony".
ReplyDeleteIt's just a word, we need to move away from being offended victims all the time. We should claim the word, in the same way the gay people have claimed "queer" or black the "N word"
ReplyDeletePoor analogy. This is not about being victimized, it's about being isolated. The term "colony" implies that we live in a ghetto, that we are different, that we are ostracized from society. Who wants to "claim" that?
DeleteI like the phrase. Think the American colony in Tangiers. Think Cat Island from eighty years ago.
ReplyDeleteA nudist colony would be a place where I could be nude surrounded by other people who enjoy social nudity, and think it's a good thing.
Somebody might imagine that dirty-postcard world; that's their problem while we share ideas and joy in being undressed together and build a critical mass that can change the world. In a bird flock, I think that's five percent.
What it comes down to is the public perception of the word "colony". It's unlikely that "Tangiers" would be foremost in people's minds - more likely to be "ant" or "leper". Sure, it's fine to be "undressed together", but it's still undressed apart from greater society. The nudist model has been basically the same for over a century, where like-minded people gather on private land behind locked gates and privacy fences. That five percent (it's actually far less) has thus far failed to change the world. The "colony" idea has been thankfully dying a slow death over the past few decades, with the nudist idea spreading beyond the fences. Those birds of which you speak cannot redirect the flock unless they are flying with the flock.
DeleteI think that I agree with Nudiarist. The connotation of the term "colony" does invoke a separation from mainstream life. Words are incredibly powerful and can be used to help make nudism more mainstream or less mainstream. IMHO we should avoid the use of words that separate us and instead, employ words that are more inclusive of the mainstream community.
ReplyDeleteThe term 'colony' when combined with 'nudist' DOES bring to mind (to the public) antiquated ideas invoking images of grainy black-and-white films of oddballs. Or maybe not, since those are long gone and the term is now used by those ignorant of what modern social nudism is all about.
ReplyDeleteThe term 'colony', as applied to nudist/naturist venues is now most-oft used in conjunction with poorly researched articles and internet-based soft or hard porn sites; not a good connection at all. Though the term is totally inappropriate (and always has been: 'colony' is not actually applicable in this circumstance), nonetheless it's easily recognizable, along with it's negative connotations, by the general public.
Those reasons are enough for us to avoid and discourage the use of 'colony' to describe our places of refuge from the Textile world. 'Nudist' has similar negative connections to some, causing many to refer to themselves as 'naturists' simply because it sounds 'nicer'; not because they espouse any particular philosophy which separate them from any other nudist.
But, 'nudist' and 'naturist' are used interchangeably throughout most of the world, with exceptions, and it behooves us to stand firm in our efforts to 'legitimize' both in the public eye, while abandoning and discouraging the obsolete and inaccurate term 'colony'.
We must choose our battles, and defending an out of date and negative term is not one we need to fight. Let it die, along with the creepy ideas it may bring to some.
Nudists/naturists no longer exist solely in protected locations; there are public venues (rapidly shrinking) where we present ourselves and our lifestyle/philosophy for all to see. As we do so, let's cast aside the other obsolete ideas which serve to confirm the stereotypes already in place, along with them the idea that we need to be confined to reservations or 'colonies'.
When we do choose to separate ourselves from Textile society, it's not because we're hiding; it's because we don't want them around US. They are living in the Textile Colony, where THOSE kinds of people must live. We're the free ones.
This is somewhat incorrect. Lee Baxandall adopted the more European term "naturist" in order to differentiate his new organization, The Naturist Society, from the ASA, now AANR. It was done deliberately to show that TNS had a different philosophy, which was more about the free beach movement than landed clubs. It's not just a matter of one term sounding "nicer" than another.
DeleteAs for your last paragraph, it's astonishingly intolerant to propose that nudists don't want clothed people around. This sort of regressive attitude is illustrative of the "old guard" in the nudist world who prefer to remain isolated. You will not endear the "textiles" by proposing to shun them.
Nudist colony should never be mentioned. To become more accepted we need to be totally normal or even better.
ReplyDeleteBy better I mean it would help if more smart people like Bill Gates enjoyed relaxing nude or get on TV for celebrating a 112th b-day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry if I’m over-commenting but I also think it's better to try reducing words like "nudist" and "naturist” when dealing with the public. Most outsiders don't really know what "naturist" means—some might even get to thinking we could be the environmental type/treehuggers. The word "nudist" still has a kind of stigma attached to it, which stems from the fact that most people don't like us to begin with.
ReplyDeleteWhile these words are the official ones to use, it all depends on the situation when deciding to use them. For example, if I owned a hotel, I would never have a sign out saying "nudist," I would have the name of the hotel out front, then below that in smaller text (or by the entrance) it would say "clothing optional."
For many people, and I used to be one of them, the term "nudist-colony" carried the connotation of a place where people go to get naked and have lascivious sex. While there are a few of those places...swinger's clubs, the vast majority of nudist/naturist resorts are family-friendly. As other commentators have said, I think we need to let "nudist-colony" die on the vine and become obsolete. We go to "resorts", not "colonies".
ReplyDelete