As part of the feminist campaign against rape, activists also spoke out against the sexual abuse of children, and when Craft witnessed “apparent child molesters . . . apprehended” or removed from naturist events she attended, she grew suspicious of the “claims of wholesome nudity . . . when applied to justify photographs that are intended to appeal to those who sexualized children.”120 Disturbed by what she considered a disproportionate number of child predators active in the nudist movement, she joined with Michele Handler, a lifelong nudist and a fellow feminist activist, to put together a slide show that would “bring the reality of the sexual molestation of children into the public, and particularly into the naturist, view.”121 The growing public concern over child pornography in the late 1970s and the participation of feminists in TNS brought new attention to the sexual abuses that had long been avoided, ignored, or covered up by the naturist and nudist movements.
Baxandall supported Craft’s “campaign to rid nudism/naturism of its covert appeals to infantillistic pornography seekers and to outright pedophiles.”122 Baxandall dedicated a special issue of Clothed with the Sun (CwS), the official publication of TNS, to feminist critiques of pornography and child sexual abuse after the release of the final report of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (called the Meese commission, after the U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese). The 1986 Meese commission, the Reagan administration’s answer to the permissive 1970 Presidential Commission on Pornography, used a series of public hearings and the testimony of feminists such as Andrea Dworkin to condemn various forms of pornographic magazines, films, pictures, and phone services. The summer issue of CwS prominently featured Craft’s critiques of Playboy, Penthouse, and the ACLU and exhibited her various demonstrations for “shirtfree equality” and her participation in a women’s music festival.123 Although Baxandall objected to an approach that considered “mere nudity . . . inherently suspect,” he credited the Reagan administration’s Meese commission for addressing “a real concern for the degradation of women, as financed, produced, and distributed by a heartless pornography industry.”124
In addition to giving feminists a voice in CwS, Baxandall personally wrote to naturist and nudist leaders imploring them to stop their questionable marketing strategies, to remove inappropriate advertisements, and to take steps to avoid attracting child predators. In one letter to Ed Lange, he objected to the way several of his titles used the label “for adults 21 and above only” to attract buyers interested in pornography. Baxandall asked Lange to stop distributing a foreign title called Jeunes et Naturelles along with his own publication, Young and Natural, because he found the images in the magazines particularly offensive. He described one issue that contained “336 frontal images of nude juveniles,” which the photographers shot “at their shorter-than-adult subjects from the level of these small breasts, vaginas and penises.” He believed these titles appealed “directly to pedophiles and encourages them to feel welcome in nudist naturist circles.”125 In another letter to the ASA, Baxandall objected to the organization’s reliance on the revenues it received from the magazine Health and Efficiency. He disapproved of the magazine because of its “crass appeal to the ‘men’s magazine’ market” and because it led readers to Jeunes et Naturelles.126 He then threatened to publicize the ASA’s relationship with the magazine if it did not revoke all its previous agreements with questionable publications.
Craft, nevertheless, encountered the same sexist attitudes and disregard for feminist issues in TNS that made other feminists reluctant to support progressive political organizations. Lange dismissed Craft’s efforts as “moralistic” and accused her of “beating a dead horse.” Several other naturists voiced their displeasure with the issue of CwS dedicated to feminist critiques of pornography. One naturist demanded “no more issues devoted to Nikki Craft and her ravings” and asserted, “it is wrong of the naturists to provide this ongoing forum.” He thought the focus on feminism detracted from the “peacefulness and sense of well-being that comes from the nude lifestyle.”127 Another naturist felt “betrayed” by the magazine. He recalled that the “Naturist philosophy originally defined did not include support of Radical Feminist Activists, nor did it support active direct suppression of Pornography.” He resented the “prejudicial hate that these feminists have for men” and asserted that it did not “fit well into Naturism.”128 Despite naturism’s liberal sexual values, feminist critiques of pornography, child sexual abuse, and sexual violence provoked sexist responses from many naturist leaders and members.
A controversy over a nude picture that Baxandall selected for a photo spread in CwS ultimately poisoned the fragile coalition that formed between feminists and naturists. Craft and several other feminist naturists objected to the spring 1987 issue of CwS because it featured a color center spread that displayed an “eighteen-year-old woman with partially shaved pubic hair coyly playing to the camera.”129 Craft asserted that the photos represented an effort by Baxandall to placate subscribers upset by the issue he dedicated to feminism the previous summer by showing that “they could still depend on CwS to ‘deliver.’”130 Michele Handler considered the images “an insult to women and feminists values, and a betrayal of feminist naturists.” Handler, one of TNS’s most effective organizers, resigned in protest from several committees and stopped participating in naturist events and causes. Melinda Vadas, a feminist unaffiliated with naturism, thought the photos displayed the woman in “demeaning, sexualized poses, fetishized and fuckable,” and she declared Baxandall a “pornographer.”131
In addition, the conflicting legal strategies and objectives of feminists and naturists came to the forefront in a class-action suit brought by Craft and ten other women against the Cape Cod National Seashore. TNS offered its full support in 1986 when the police arrested the women for removing their shirts and violating the antinudity regulations first established in the mid-1970s. Craft wanted to use the case to advance the cause of gender equality. She argued that the antinudity regulations violated the women’s Fourth Amendment rights because they treated “women differently than men” by requiring women to keep their “chests covered” due to “male-defined mores and a sexist definition of ‘nudity.’” Baxandall, on the other hand, had no interest in “changing public opinion on whether the chests of women are nude.” He saw an opportunity to “relieve all government regulations of what body parts may be exposed.”132 When the attorney hired by Baxandall chose to argue the case on First Amendment grounds, Craft and several other women in the group voiced their strong objections to a legal strategy that they felt ignored their feminist principles and agenda. In December 1988, Craft along with five other plaintiffs withdrew their support just as the U.S. district court in Boston prepared to issue its ruling. The action infuriated Baxandall, who had invested more than $36,000 in the case. He believed that Craft engineered the withdrawal in retaliation for being fired from TNS because of her “radical feminist” agenda and then evicted from the apartment they shared after the two clashed over the centerfold spread in CwS. The alliance that formed between naturism and feminism fell apart due to personal disagreements and conflicting political agendas.
After Craft broke with TNS, she continued to raise concerns about how the organization’s commitment to sexual freedom and expression provided a sanctuary for pornographers and child molesters. For Craft, Jefferson Poland’s ongoing participation in TNS events and gatherings and his regular contributions to naturist literature stood out as a disturbing example of the way naturism ignored the sexual abuses occurring within the movement. Poland, who played a key role in sparking interest in the free beach movement and in advocating for sexual freedom in the 1960s, molested a young girl on Black’s Beach in San Diego, California, in the early 1980s. When the police issued a warrant for his arrest in 1983, Poland fled the country and evaded capture until 1988, despite being on San Diego’s “most wanted” list. Once arrested, Poland admitted that he had “fondled the girl’s vulva and occasionally performed cu
nnilingus on her,” and he received a one-year sentence in county jail and five years probation.133 In prison, Poland maintained ties with naturist publications by contributing reviews of nude beaches he had visited while on the run in Asia and Australia.
Craft wanted to use naturism’s ongoing relationship with Poland to raise public awareness about the way naturists ignored the problem of pedophilia. Craft wrote a letter of protest to the editors of Nude and Natural (formerly Clothed with the Sun) regarding Poland’s column, and she demanded the magazine instead make the convicted child molester explain the way he “used the naturist/nudist movement to get kids. And make him name the names of men he worked with and tell who are the pedophiles.”134 Poland, desperate to resume a role in the naturist press, began corresponding with Baxandall and published an article in Nude and Natural titled “Pedophile Confession.”135 Rather than expose the problem of pedophilia, Poland attempted to garner sympathy from readers by reporting his attempts to castrate himself in prison and his willingness, as part of his probation, to receive injections of medroxyprogesterone every two weeks to depress his libido. He also blamed the victim and her parents for his actions. He described how he met the child’s parents through “swinging” activities and that they had asked him to regularly babysit while they “attended or hosted adults-only orgies.”136 He then regretted the “extreme changeability of kids” and the way “nudist children tend to become more prudish as they grow older.”137
The involvement of feminist activists within naturism and the greater willingness to address the issue of intergenerational sex made it difficult for nudist leaders to cover up, rationalize, or dismiss illicit incidents involving children at nudist/naturist events and activities. While Poland’s “confession” disturbed Craft, Baxandall’s accompanying “editor’s note” proved far more alarming since it highlighted the way naturists avoided the problem of pedophilia. Baxandall referred to Poland’s case as “unique,” he maintained that “the negligence described here is rare in nudist or naturist contexts,” and he asserted, “accusations based on a ‘profile’ alone should be strictly avoided!”138 Baxandall also defended Poland’s attempt to hold the parents responsible for the abuse by writing that it “goes without saying that neglect of the children’s best interests was the tragic blind spot of the parents no less than the abuser.”139 Craft accused Baxandall of “coddling a child molester” in order to benefit “the magazine publishers, the nudist/naturist photographers (i.e. the business interest of the movement).”140 The failure on the part of Baxandall to confront the issue of pedophilia in naturism and nudism and his acrimonious split with Craft and several other feminist naturists signaled that TNS remained far more committed to upholding the ideals of sexual liberation as well as the business of nude recreation than to incorporating feminist critiques and ensuring the safety of nudist children.
Conclusion
With the heteronormative boundaries of sexual liberalism under siege, the nudist movement fragmented as student activists, civil libertarians, feminists, and an older generation of nudists clashed over the politics of sexual liberation. A new generation of youthful activists interested in going naked on public beaches and parks challenged a nudist organization that maintained an older, “respectable” membership, clung to exclusionary racial policies, and remained hostile to sexual experimentation and alternative sexualities. The growing acceptance of gay men and lesbians, people of color, and casual eroticism within nudism/naturism signaled a dramatic turn away from the heteronormative values that had defined nudism during an era of sexual liberalism. This transformation also drew attention to the sexual abuses and ideological conflicts that had long been hidden by nudists’ efforts to maintain the organization’s respectability. Feminists raised concerns about the sexual exploitation and objectification of nudist/naturist women and the sexual dangers facing nudist children. The lack of any definitive boundaries regulating sexual expression and behavior created enormous division and acrimony among nudists and naturists.
Fractured by the politics of pornography, TNS reevaluated its strained relationship with the ASA, and the two organizations worked together over the next two decades to transform nudism and naturism into a premier tourist activity. The activist philosophy of TNS and its focus on public lands and beaches put it at odds with the ASA, which prioritized the financial interests of club owners and an aging membership that had little interest in disrupting the status quo. After years advocating for legal nude sunbathing on public lands, TNS remained limited to promoting only a few officially sanctioned clothing-optional beaches or parks scattered across the United States. While San Diego’s Black’s Beach, Austin’s Hippie Hollow, and Santa Cruz’s Bonny Doon Beach continued to attract large groups of nude sunbathers, CwS featured numerous advertisements from ASA-sponsored nudist clubs, and TNS held many of its “gatherings” at ASA-affiliated clubs. The need to reverse a declining and aging membership also caused many ASA nudist-club owners to welcome the naturists and free beach advocates whom they had once considered “riffraff.” In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several influential members of the ASA and TNS attempted to join forces through formal collaborative networks in which the two organizations could share resources, labor, and knowledge in order to better respond to the legal obstacles and challenges that impeded the growth of nude recreation at clubs as well as on public lands. While a lack of funding made it difficult to sustain this effort, the recognition that the two organizations shared many of the same goals, ideals, and interests laid the foundation for a partnership that dramatically expanded the place of nude recreation in the United States.
Epilogue
Nudism in the New Millennium
In the 1990s, recreation, commercialism, and profits replaced the progressive sexual politics that had divided nudists and naturists since the late 1960s. As the American economy began to surge on the profits of Internet companies, financial speculation allowed by the deregulation of the banking industry, and the beginnings of a volatile real estate bubble, nudism and naturism experienced an enormous period of growth. The number of nudist clubs and resorts affiliated with the American Sunbathing Association jumped from 189 in 1983 to more than 260 by 2002. Membership also climbed 20 percent, increasing to fifty thousand dues-paying members, almost 80 percent of whom were more than thirty-five years old. Nudism and naturism appealed to aging baby boomers who had disposable income and who were nostalgic for the rebellious culture of their youth. Just as iconic 1960s musicians such as Simon and Garfunkel, the Rolling Stones, and the Beatles put together reunion tours, special concerts, or signed lucrative licensing agreements to take advantage of baby boomers yearning to viscerally relive their youth, nudism/naturism’s association with the Summer of Love made it an attractive destination for the thirty-five-and-older crowd.1 Yet few of the nudist clubs, resorts, time-shares, cruises, and beaches that sprung up to cater to this niche tourist market embraced the nude sex parties and beach orgies that Jefferson Poland’s Sexual Freedom League promoted, nor did they attempt to re-create the organic atmosphere of the free beach. Instead, they offered luxurious accommodations, spa services, elegant dining, and well-maintained grounds with multiple swimming pools, hot tubs, tennis courts, and jet skiing. With some nude resorts charging $300 to $400 a night, the profits generated by nude recreation soared from $120 million in 1992 to more than $400 million in 2003. An ABC News report officially announced, “Nude recreation has gone mainstream.”2
Middle-aged men and women going naked at a nudist resort or a clothing-optional beach no longer seemed as shocking in a society where the limits placed on commercial sexuality had largely disappeared—giving rise to a multibillion-dollar pornography industry, sex clubs, titillating Hollywood films, suggestive advertisements, and any number of fetish industries, phone sex operations, sex toy manufacturers, and escort services. Despite the findings of the Meese commission and the protestations from the Christian Right, the courts rejected most efforts to censor depictions of sex invol
ving adults and struck down attempts by Congress to regulate pornography on the Internet. As the pornography industry generated profits in the billions with an assortment of magazines and films that appealed to a variety of sexualities and fetishes, and blockbuster hits such as Fatal Attraction (1987) and Basic Instinct (1992) entertained mass audiences with less graphic depictions of sex, nudity, and violence, nude sunbathing and volleyball appeared harmless, if not comical. In a 2001 New York Times profile of nude recreation, the sociologist Jeremy Levin asserted that going naked was not a “political statement anymore,” and the article observed that the “power of the unclothed body to shock is waning” thanks to the “proliferation of frank imagery in film and advertising and an increase in Internet sites like the all-nude Webcast nakednews.com, or such cable television shows as ‘Sex and the City’ or ‘Oz,’ where nakedness is common enough to seem nearly compulsory.”3
Naked Page 30