Top News Stories
Investors bet on U.S. bailout
North American investors looked beyond a political stalemate in Washington and piled...
Local Updates
The naked truth
Nudist mag or nudie mag? The difference between advocacy and pornography is all about context
Jennifer Parks, edmontonjournal.com
Published: Friday, April 04PayPal's recent decision to revoke services to the Federation of Canadian Naturists reveals just how misunderstood nudists are in our society.
The e-commerce giant has cancelled its subscription processing contract with the FCN, claiming their club magazine takes nudity too far because it depicts naked minors.
"It's an incredibly ignorant stand that shows they haven't done their research as to what a naturist is," says Karen Grant, President of the Federation of Canadian Naturists.
View Larger ImageSome kinda sick puppy, that.
Illustration by Nickelas Johnson
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
"Child pornography is a very specific and sad part of our society right now. But this is not it. I'm a mother of two kids, and I wouldn't be a nudist if I felt my child were in any danger."
Like any special interest magazine, the FCN's publication, Going Natural, promotes a hobby or lifestyle, and provides information on holiday destinations, products and other tips relevant to that lifestyle.
"Yes, the magazine does carry some pictures of naked families, including children, but there's nothing pornographic or gratuitous about them. For some reason, in our culture the word 'nude' evokes sex. But is that the only reason we undress?" asks Grant, who lives in Edmonton.
PayPal says the content of the group's magazine is "obscene" and violates their acceptable user policy, according to e-mails sent by PayPal to FCN.
"PayPal prohibits all account holders from buying or selling any sexually oriented goods or services involving minors or made to appear to involve minors," says PayPal spokesperson Jamie Patrichio.
"While we generally do allow nudist websites to accept payments with PayPal, when those sites feature children, we will typically take a stricter approach."
If you've ever skinny-dipped or lounged around at home in the buff, there's something to be said for letting it all hang out. As adults, many of us worry that our parts are imperfect: too big, too small, too stretched or too flabby. But young kids haven't yet learned to judge themselves so harshly. Intuitively, they know that being naked is perfectly natural. They take to it like fish to water, and embrace the freedom of being in their own skin, which is all too often lost as one grows up.
That is why, as a society, we celebrate childlike innocence, and why we protect it tooth-and-nail from the ugly realities in life, like pedophiles or child predators. But is PayPal taking things too far?
While one long-time member of a local nudist association applauds our society's desire to guard children against exploitation, he says this is a case of misplaced concern.
"I don't know if PayPal did it out of political correctness, but someone thought, 'adults and kids -- nude? Uh-oh. We don't want to be associated with that.' There will always be people who equate sex with nudity. No point in trying to explain your lifestyle to the closed-minded," says Perry, 48, a two-decade member of Helios Association in Tofield, Alberta.
"Lust," he adds, "is in the eye of the beholder, not in a naked child at play."
If so, then society's prurience can be summed up in a Google search for the words "naturism" or "nudist," which quickly inundates a person with pop-up windows hawking every nude sexual fantasy imaginable.
And it probably doesn't help that a magazine like Going Natural is the easiest legal access a pedophile has to nude material. But why should wholesome and family-oriented groups like FCN have to pay the price for others' ignorance or perversions?
"It's a fine line, what's pornographic or not," says Patrichio. "PayPal is erring on the side of caution. Whenever there are children involved, we want to be stricter with our policies."
Alberta Film Classification Board director Paul Pearson says there are no hard and fast rules about discerning sexual content in his line of work.
"We ask why there's nudity in a film. Is it gratuitous, or integral to the story line? Is it sexual or non-sexual nudity -- because there is a difference," says Pearson. "It's all about context."
An honest look at context is what's missing from PayPal's assessment.
"Generally, naturism is typically non-sexual nudity," concludes Pearson. "And non-sexual nudity tends not to be rated as high as sexual nudity."
So why isn't PayPal making that distinction, wonders Ryan, 23, a born-and-raised nudist.
He says he wouldn't trade his childhood days of skin-bare freedom at the Helios nudist club for anything.
"It was just a place to hang out and meet other kids my age, play games and swim," he says. "We just happened to be naked a lot of the time."
You can't compare their brand of nakedness to porn at all, he adds.
"It's not related. We're just people who don't like tan lines. It's about comfort, and being comfortable in your own skin," says Ryan. "As kids, nudism taught us to be ourselves and not pass judgment on others. It was a great way to grow up."
The PayPal vs. nudists case evokes the tale of the psychoanalyst whose patient only saw sexual images in his ink blot tests.
"What do you see?" asks the doctor, holding up a card. "I see a naked girl," says the patient. Displaying another ink blot, the doctor asks, "What do you see in this one?" "I see a naked girl eating ice cream," replies the patient. Flashing a third card, the doctor asks, "And now, what do you see?" To which the patient replies, "I see a naked girl on a bike."
"Why are you such a pervert?" condemns the doctor. "What do you mean?" responds the puzzled patient. "You're the one with all the dirty pictures."
The naked truth, in this case, has less to do with skin-bare minors than with fear and blame over our lost innocence. FCN is merely a scapegoat for society's anger at those who reduce our children to the objects of sexual enjoyment. And PayPal is pointing their finger at the wrong target.
© Edmonton Journal 2008
