nudity as a scapegoat for problems including rubbish and drug use that necessarily appear in high-use recreation areas

without active management.
176. One of the greatest challenges faced by clothing-optional beaches is that their popularity, combined
with their scarcity, leads to intensive use, which in turn battles with environmental and management concerns.
This has been a source of issues at several beaches across the country, including Sandy Hook in New
Jersey, and Cape Cod National Seashore, which shut its traditionally nude shore seemingly for environmental
Rationales in the mid 1970s.272
177. The “secondary effects” of an actively managed nude beach have in actual experience proven to be
less crime, less inappropriate behaviour, no drug dealers, a rise in parking revenues, and an increase in business
in the adjoining commercial place.273
178. Nudity has regularly been repressed for financial reasons, not because it was considered wrong.
Bernard Rudofsky writes: “In the 1920s, in certain parts of Europe folks used to bathe in public without
feeling the need for a particular apparel. At the height of summer the beaches on the Black Sea swarmed with bathers
Who’d never seen a bathing suit except in papers and graphic magazines; their holiday was one of untroubled
simplicity. . . . The idyll came to an end a few years later when tourism reared its ugly head, as well as the demonstrations of
foreign visitors led to making bathing suits compulsory.” 274 The same thing has lately happened in the former
East Germany, where traditionally nude shores are now being restricted to appease more conservative European
179. We must never forget that for any independence that’s lost, we bear partial responsibility for letting it be
In the words of Frederick Douglass: “Find out just what people will submit to and you’ve found out the
Precise quantity of justice and wrong which will be visited upon them. . . . The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the
endurance of those who they oppress.” 276
Christianity supports Naturism.277
180. Genesis 1:27–The (naked) human body, created by God, in God’s own picture, is fundamentally decent, not
Fundamentally impure or sinful. The human body was made by God, and God can create no evil. It is created in God’s
Picture, and the image of God is entirely pure and good.
181. Genesis 1:31–God saw that everything, including nude Adam and Eve, was good.
182. Genesis 3:7–Many scholars interpret the wearing of fig leaves as a continuance and expansion of the
original sin, not a positive moral reaction to it.
Hugh Kilmer clarifies: “Man desired to put his life within his own control rather than God’s, so first he considered
the power of self-determination (knowledge of good and bad). Next, locating his body was not within , he
controlled it unnaturally by concealing it. After he was expelled from heaven, he started to hunt and eat animals; then to
gain complete control over others, by killing them (the story of Cain and Abel).” 278
183. Genesis 3:10–Many scholars believe that Adam and Eve’s sense of shame came not from their
nakedness, which God had created and called good, but from their knowledge of having disobeyed God.
184. An innate, God-given sense of shame related to nakedness is contradicted by the existence of
numerous indigenous societies in which nudity is the rule and a sense of shame is totally absent, and by the shortage of
shame felt by naked kids.
185. Genesis 3:11–It was disobedience that arrived between Adam and Eve and God, not nakedness. The
scriptures themselves handle Adam and Eve’s nudity as an incidental problem.

Robert Bahr notes that “when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they grew ashamed of what they’d done
and attempted to hide themselves from God, who was not the least bit concerned with their nakedness but was
mightily unhappy with their disobedience.” 279 Herb Seal notes that God supplied a covering by slaying an
innocent animal: the first prototype of the innocent one slain to act as a “covering” for sinners.280
186. Genesis 3:21–God made garments of skins for , but the Bible does not say the state of
nakedness is being condemned. Because of the Fall, Adam and Eve were no longer in Eden and were thus subject to
the types of weather and climate, and God knew they’d desire clothing. God loved and cared for them even
after they’d sinned.
187. To presume that because God made garments He was condemning nudity makes as much sense as
Reasoning that because God made clouds which blot out the sunlight He was condemning sunshine.
188. Genesis 9:22-24–Noah was both drunk and naked, but Ham was the one who was cursed–when he
dishonored his dad, by calling attention to Noah’s state, and making light of it.
The shame of Noah’s “nakedness” was considerably more than simply being undressed. It was his dehumanized,
drunken stupor which was black. Ham’s offense was not merely seeing his dad in this black state, but