I've noticed something in my random exploration of social nudism and all things internet: apparently one is nude if one's genitals are exposed.
I've seen pics of men (lots of those), but pics of nudist men camping, bicycling, jogging, etc. I've seen pics of men lounging about the house or doing domestic chores. I've been to exactly one event of a social nudifying nature. In all these I've noticed that clothes – or the lack of them – don't make a person nude.
I get it, sort of. Shoes and hiking go together. Socks and a cold kitchen floor go together. A backpack and camping go together. Are these not manufactured in the textile industry? Are these not clothes? Can I still be nude if I'm wearing clothes?
I'm not attempting a debate on puritan ethos, nor am I being nit-picky about the easiest solution to a cold floor. I do get it, comfort above morays. The proscriptions set down by church and state avoid many of the things that could upset the smooth order of society… and I say only could. However, I ponder the very definition of "naked" when I see these pics.
One of my summer plans is to find a secluded spot in these Great North Woods to spend a weekend naked in nature. My aversion to all things insectoid got me to wondering what people did before insecticides and repellents. I wondered if I would be remiss asking the local elders of the Oneida tribe to tell me what their grandfathers did.
This then got me to wondering if I could "rough it" in the most "primitive" fashion as the old Polish loggers of my own heritage did. Nicholet National Forest is largely unchanged since the times of my Great-great-great grandfathers and I've been told I can find areas that have never seen the footstep of man… certainly not one wearing Nikes.