Why Nudist Exclusionary Radical Feminists (NERFs) are harmful to the cause for equality, health and body image

by jovan1984

Like sex worker exclusionary radical feminists (SWERFs) and transgender exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), nudist exclusionary radical feminists (NERFs) are extremely harmful to the human rights cause in a lot more ways than one.

On Friday morning, I was commenting on a story on CBS San Francisco about Gypsy Taub’s plan to walk naked to a religious shrine in San Francisco – and even told a truth that many religious extremists today didn’t want to come out in broad daylight (post about why she is right forthcoming on Friday).

One thread starter trolled the whole thing by saying that Mrs. Taub had “too much time on her hands”.  I decided to bark back, rightfully saying that Mrs. Taub is picking up right where civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Junior, Sarah Weddington (one of the Roe Rangers), Harvey Milk, Mistress Matisse, and Laverne Cox left off.

One woman then made this idiotic response to my post, saying that because no nudist died, public nudity is not a civil rights issue:

I easily rebuffed that argument, and correctly noted in other comments to the piece (click here) that the denial of the right to be nude in public constitutes to sexual discrimination against men in 47 of the 50 states, and is also a violation of the Equal Rights Amendment in 36 states, including California, where the story in question takes place.

Nudity bans alone prove a lot of truths (five of which will be listed, starting with the next sentence) that are being blatantly censored in the USA. One, contrary to popular belief – not all people are created equal.  Two, only New Yorkers and Maineans are really free.  Three, we as Americans are being brainwashed by the mainstream media and politicians that nudity is harmful when in fact, not a single human being on Earth age 0 to 124 has ever been harmed by merely seeing a naked person.  Four, we are also being brainwashed into believing that clothes are natural and moral, when in fact clothing is immoral and unnatural and contributes to a violation of the Ten Commandments and is also one of the deadly sins.  And five, there are nudist exclusionary radical feminists – and they are even more harmful that the evil SWERFs and TERFs, both of which everyone in the movement has heard of.

And the previous sentence is the focus of this post.

Just like sex worker exclusionary radical feminists hold the belief that sex workers impede women’s rights and that they should be condemned, and just like transgender exclusionary radical feminists hold the belief that transgender and gender non-conforming people impede women’s rights and that they should be condemned, nudist exclusionary radical feminists, or NERFs for short, hold the belief that nudists and naturists impede women’s rights and that they should be condemned.  The screenshot of the comment in reply to me on Friday is a perfect example of what a NERF is.

It is a possibility that most of “feminist” movement are in fact NERFs, however, the percentage of NERFs are unknown at this time.  NERFs are actively opposed to legalizing public nudity, a move that would put everyone on equal footing as opposed to a certain group of people to have more rights than others (as is the case in 47 states).  In fact, some would dare say that NERFs are also “prudes”.

The agenda of the NERFs are severely damaging and can actually be fatal if we do not confront them.

Because nudity is banned in 47 states, most Americans are not getting the essential health benefits they need.  As I mentioned before, public nudity has health benefits that last a lifetime, much longer than the five years of benefits that breastfeeding holds.  Public nudity promotes a healthy self-image, as well as a healthy body image.  The reason why other nations have more world’s oldest people than the US does is because they allow nudity, most of America does not.  Nudity bans rob years from the lives of Americans.  Bans on public nudity is literally a death sentence for men and people of color, and that is the #1 reason why women outlive men and why whites outlive minorities.

Because nudity is banned in 47 states, body image events outside of New York City and Bangor, Maine are 100% meaningless.  Sorry, Terri O’Neill.  The National Organization for Women’s Love Your Body Day event isn’t promoting a healthy body image outside of states of Maine and New York, as event attendees are forbidden – unconstitutionally I wanna add – from being in their natural state during the annual fall event.  We can’t promote a healthy body image unless we address the big unconstitutional elephant in the room: bans on public nudity.

Children who see naked people are not harmed by the sight at all.  In fact, children who see naked people grow up loving themselves, rather than being suicidal, as this study that the media and claptrap right wingnuts tried to censor.

Some of the facts this study, by Paul Okami, et. al. in 1998, use in destroying inane arguments against allowing public nudity include:

Given the vehemence with which clinicians and child-rearing specialists often condemn childhood exposure to parental nudity, it is paradoxical that their dire predictions are not supported by the (scant) empirical work that does exist. Findings are at worst neutral or ambiguous as to interpretation, and there is even the implication of possible positive benefits in these studies (particularly for boys) in domains such as self-reported comfort with physical affection (Lewis and Janda, 1988) and positive “body self-concept” (Story, 1979). Although these investigations are methodologically limited, their results are consistent with the view of a smaller group of child-rearing specialists and other commentators who have stressed the potential benefits to children of exposure to nudity in the home, in areas such as later sexual functioning, and capacity for affection and intimacy (cf. Finch, 1982; Goodson, 1991; Martinson, 1977; Mead, cited in Goodson, 1991). Although some of these writers (cf. Ellis, cited in Goodson, 1991) make reference to the cross-cultural ubiquity of childhood exposure to parental nudity – although objecting to alarmist positions taken by Western commentators who fail to provide supportive data – the cross-cultural record is not generally explicit on the question of actual exposure of children to parental nudity. It does, however, present a strong case for the universality of parent-child cosleeping or room sharing (e.g., Barry and Paxton, 1971; Caudill and Plath, 1966; Gardner, 1975; Lozoff et al., 1998; Morelli et al., 1992; Stephens, 1972; Whiting, 1964; Whiting and Edwards, 1988). It may tentatively be inferred that under such conditions large numbers of the world’s population of children are exposed to parental nudity. Finally, a third group of writers stress the importance of the context in which childhood exposure to nudity takes place, insisting that outcomes are mediated by such contextual variables as gender, age of child, family climate, cultural beliefs, and so on (Okami, 1995; Okami et al., 1997).

The Okami study was also cited in a post about children and nudity from 2004.

What Casler wrote about childhood experience with naturism in 1964 applies just as well to children a mere forty years later. There is nothing harmful with either being human or appearing fully human. Children’s welfare must be safeguarded, but so too must they be given the chance to learn to respect their own bodies and those of others. There is no evidence that children are harmed by nonsexualized social nudity, and there is good reason to believe they are benefited by it. Proposals for laws banning to children the innocent experience of being human, appearing human, and seeing others as such are unwarranted, unfounded, and have no scholarly basis.

The results of the study were clear: “Consistent with the cross-sectional retrospective literature (and with our expectations), no harmful main effects of these experiences were found at age 17-18” (376). Okami continued: “Exposure to parental nudity was associated with positive, rather than negative, sexual experiences in adolescence, but with reduced sexual experience overall. Boys exposed to parental nudity were less likely to have engaged in theft in adolescence or to have used various psychedelic drugs and marijuana. […] Thus, results of this study add weight to the views of those who have opposed alarmist characterizations of childhood exposure […] to nudity” (377).

These pieces lay bare the outrageous and blatantly false claims that children are harmed by nudity.  They also eliminate the excuses prudes like those commenting on Savannah media pages on Facebook for why nudity should not be allowed in public.  Summarily, the same pieces also expose the silent, but deadly agenda of the NERFs and others like them, who have long infiltrated the feminist movement with their bigoted and discriminatory beliefs against nudists and naturists.

I was intersectional before intersectionality became cool.  The same thing that people have said in response to SWERFs and TERFs can be said in response to NERFs: my feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit.

Intersectionality is recognizing that sex workers, transgender people and nudists are real human beings and working to advance their rights as well.

Mark Storey
TAASA.org (must have a browser other than Internet Explorer to view document)

  • Okami. P. (1995) .” Childhood exposure to parental nudity‚ parent-child co-sleeping‚ and ‘primal scenes’: A review of clinical opinion and empirical evidence,” Journal of Sex Research, 32: 51–64.
  • Okami (1998). “Early childhood exposure to parental nudity and scenes of parental sexuality (‘primal scenes’): an 18-year longitudinal study of outcome, 1-18. [link]