Compare naturists to smokers

Something to think about:
Maybe you can "put yourself in the shoes" of textiles that hate naturists, when you compare naturists to smokers.:

– naturists show something to the world, what not everyone wants to see (for whatever reason) and there is something you can do to please these persons that don't want to see you naked: just put on clothes in public!
–> smokers let people smell things they do not want to smell. People think it stinks and it limits their freedom of breathing fresh air. There is something smokers can do to please the people who do like the smell: just don't smoke a cigarette in public!

– naturists like to be naked because it makes them feel free and relaxed (or many other reasons)
–> smokers like to smoke because it it their own choice and freedom to smoke whatever they want and it makes them relaxed and enjoy the sunny weather more (or many other reasons).

– naturists are seen as scary old dirty men, weird exhibitionists, etc. They are stereotyped as either oversexed swingers or ugly people in need of attention. In short: misunderstood and marginalized.
–> smokers used to be the majority and now they are belittled and marginalized. They are seen as addicts who don't care about their own health, nor about the health of the people who surround them. They still think they display the authority of years ago, where their freedom and right to smoke was not yet questioned. So these oversensitive complaints of non-smokers annoys them a lot.

– You can say to people who hate naturists (hate seeing naked people where they don't expect them): to look in another direction, but people need to look anyway in order not to hurt themselves or step into some dog poo: people need to watch where they walk!
–> You can say to people who hate smoke(rs when they smoke): just don't sit near me when I smoke, sit outside of the direction to the wind… but people need to breath anyway!

Just something to keep in mind the next time when you meet someone who is making a fuss about nakedness: see yourself as a smoker (if you are not one already) and see how this changes your radical opinion about freedom of space (and vision and air).

If you comment, I would like to read some more examples of comparisons between smokers and naturists, or why you disagree with this comparison. Looking forward to read your opinions!

61 thoughts on “Compare naturists to smokers”

  1. To me, what it comes down to is we can be around 2nd hand smoke for years, and it never gets better, only worse for our health so there is no getting used to it. But if people saw unclothed people in normal everyday situations all the time because it was legal, they would soon get used to it, much like we did with womens ankles, bellies, mens chests, etc.

    As Mae West said, "Those who are easily shocked, need to be shocked more often".

    • I agree Guy, if the police (in the UK) stopped arresting naturists on ridiculous 'Public Order' charges and allowed peaceful naked people to pursue usual daily activities without persecution, the general public would soon relinquish any taught fears!

    • I agree with the last sentence if it is about LGBT+ community and naturist life style, but not when that sentence refers to smokers and drugs… That is a beautiful sentence, but needs be used in the right context.

  2. If you are not a Vampire or allergic to the Sun, then Naturism is for you ; ) But please keep your "stinky chemical fragrances" off & commercial cigarettes OUT around us real naturist, who are allergic to just about everything un natural MAN profits monetarily from! ; )

    • Indeed, another clear (!) difference: not just health, but also capitalism and commercial background. The only thing that might be commercialized about naturism are the naturism campsites and naturism clubs (those cost money, just like any other club or campsite)

      • Any positive advertising of naturism & places where active naturists are not bound by archaic attitudes, must be accepted. If it were realistic I would have naturism advertised alongside all other leisure places & holidays in all media.

        • I agree, I would like to see Naturist holidays advertised in Thomas Cook brochures, etc. However, I wonder if it would be a good thing, because it could promote the segregation of Naturists in society. Imagine 'smokers holidays' being advertised, wouldn't this serve to further alienate smokers from everyday life?

          • The creation of 'official beaches' has created a situation where the public believe these are the only places where we are allowed, by law, to be naked. I have heard this used as an argument to say that it must be illegal to be naked anywhere else.

            Perhaps it is the fault of official beaches and secretive clubs that we are as segregated as we are. All I'm saying is that, as much as it would be nice to see Naturist holidays advertised by the mainstream holiday industry, I'm not sure it would help the bigger picture.

        • Brian, I do think that promoting naturist holidays in holiday brochures would broaden the acceptance of naturism by the public, but I also think that the tour operators are wary of loosing customers who are strongly opposed to nudism being in brochures & promoted.

          • You are certainly right about the tour operators and I would like to think you are right about broadening acceptance – I'm just not sure, based on experience.

  3. An interesting comparison, Evelina, and without getting into the debate of what a "naturist" might be, precisely, I think I know what you mean. However, I'd still suggest it's an invalid comparison as smoking is a physically destructive and decidedly unhealthy activity which is imposed on bystanders, never mind whether you or they like it or not. There is nothing remotely similar about seeing a simple naked person, *unless* you initially apply a negative moral stance against nudity to begin with. I think it's important to compare apples with apples, not oranges.

  4. The health-part is indeed a difference between smokers and naturists. But I don't think that sight is voluntary. You need to look where you are going or you might trip and fall are step into something dirty while trying not to see the naked person. At least you need to be aware of where you are and where you are going.
    And what I always do as a non-smoker who hates smoke: I walk passed a smoker while holder my breath for a while.

    Is gymnophobia fear of nakedness?
    About your last argument: maybe no-one objects because it is not a living thing, but rather 2d and this less scary?

    I'm not an expert on phobias, but I agree that in this discussion we should focus on the serious phobias. Fear or fire might be a good argument against smokers, just like fear of nakedness. Why would you deliberately scary someone? Well.. of course you can't see phobias from the outside…

    • Gymnophobia is indeed the fear of nakedness. It comes from the Greek gymnos (naked) from which we also get gymnastics and gymnasium.

      As for my 2D spider – less scary it may be than a living example, I know that pictures of spiders are used in the treatment of arachnophobia when the sufferer needs to 'face up' to their fear, so clearly it is capable of triggering the phobia to some degree.

      As for my assertion that sight is voluntary, I meant it is possible to avert your gaze and concentrate on where you are going which, unless you intend to walk over the naked person is, by definition, somewhere else. You cannot do this with a smell or with the air you breathe except for the minute or two that you can hold your breath. This makes the Naturist less of a problem than the smoker as far as I'm concerned.

  5. I have thought about this comparison many times before. I feel it breaks down when you consider that sight is a voluntary sense in that you can simply choose not to look, but smell is involuntary – you can't choose not to smell. Secondly, the sight of a naked person really does you no harm whereas breathing secondary smoke is a well known source of harm and breathing is also involuntary.

    I also hesitate to use smokers as an argument for greater tolerance of Naturists because increasingly at the moment smokers are being marginalised in society. If you do compare Naturists to smokers, at least you can claim that Naturists are doing something that is good for their health, unlike smokers.

    Other comparisons I have thought about include dog owners; I think it is fair to say that more people have a fear of dogs than suffer from gymnophobia. Whilst on the subject of phobias, the best known phobia has to be arachnophobia, yet nobody objects to me wearing a t-shirt my grandson gave me with a gigantic silhouette of a spider printed on it…

      • Genius answer, my friend 😀
        (don't have dog phobia, but when they are unleashed I am more afraid than usual and if the owners seem to encourage the dog to bite or try to restrain the dog from biting I always get very afraid.)

        And smokers can (If they want) threat you with a cigarette, which hot and burns.
        What can a naturist do to threat other people, (if on a short hike without a backpack with utilities).

        • The media has painted anyone unclothed, especially men, as maniacal sex fiends and therefore we are a threat just like a,snarling dog. The times I've bumped into other hikers I've kept on a big smile and a friendly greeting. That seems to disarm any fear.

Leave a Comment

New Report