When Ohio’s House Bill 249 was introduced last spring, Planet Nude raised concerns about its vague language, its expansion of obscenity definitions, and what it could mean for naturists and others whose bodies defy conventional dress norms. At the time, the bill hadn’t been assigned to a committee. It has now passed the Ohio House.

On March 25, 2026, HB 249—the Indecent Exposure Modernization Act—cleared the House by a 63–32 vote, largely along party lines. It now sits in the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee.

From suggestion to definition

What’s sharpened since our initial coverage is a specific statutory change that moves the bill from vague threat to explicit one. The bill replaces the term “private parts”—never defined in Ohio’s public indecency statute—with “private area,” a term already defined elsewhere in the Ohio Revised Code to include the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, and female breast below the top of the areola, whether nude or covered only by an undergarment.

Under the old undefined language, the legal status of topfreedom existed in genuine legal ambiguity that courts navigated case by case. Under the new language, the female breast becomes a named, codified body part whose exposure constitutes indecency. Rather than relying on vague standards like “affront” or “mature themes,” this version draws a direct anatomical line.

Laws that define indecency by specific body parts tend to reinforce longstanding asymmetries—male chests treated as neutral, female chests as regulated. For advocates of topless equality and body freedom, this is a familiar battleground. For naturists, the concern is less about any single body part and more about how expansively such definitions get applied once they’re in statute.

A topless sunbather, a nude figure at an outdoor art event, or a remote skinny dip can all become vulnerable to prosecution—not because of sexual conduct, but because of how a body is categorized under the law.

No exemption for naturist clubs

The bill’s only carve-out for breast exposure is narrow: a woman breastfeeding is not in violation if the exposed area is the breast. There is no exemption for private naturist clubs. There is no exemption for consensual adult recreational nudity. Ohio’s longstanding naturist resorts—several of them AANR-affiliated, some operating for decades—appear nowhere in the bill or its legislative record.

The statute does require that conduct be “likely to be viewed by and affront others” in the person’s proximity—language that offers private resorts some implicit protection, since guests at a clothing-optional facility can hardly claim to be affronted by the nudity they came to participate in. But that protection is factual and arguable, not codified. It depends on a jury’s reading of “affront,” on whether any portion of a resort is visible from neighboring property, and on the discretion of whoever decides to bring a charge in the first place. An explicit private-club exemption would make that protection real. The bill contains none.

Three committee hearings in the House Judiciary Committee focused almost entirely on the bill’s drag performance and gender-identity provisions. The ACLU of Ohio, in opponent testimony, raised concerns about enforcement discretion, noting that determinations of what is “patently offensive” are left entirely to the arresting officer and the charging prosecutor. That concern applies just as directly to a naturist resort as to a drag venue.

As we noted in our original coverage, this is Lovejoy’s Law in action: the appeal to child protection does real political work, keeping scrutiny fixed on drag performers while the broader definitional changes move through without comment. Rep. Angie King (R-Celina), the bill’s primary sponsor, called overbreadth concerns “the peak of fear mongering”—a response directed at critics arguing the bill could criminalize bikinis and sports bras, not at naturist concerns, which haven’t warranted a response at all. Organized naturism is watching. In a recent communication to members, AANR Executive Director Erich Schuttauf confirmed the organization is preparing to weigh in with the Senate Judiciary Committee directly.

The window

Senate Judiciary is where this can still be addressed. An amendment carving out private naturist clubs and consensual adult recreational settings would preserve the bill’s stated goals while ensuring Ohio’s naturist community isn’t collateral damage. Whether the Senate moves quickly or lets the bill sit is an open question—the 136th General Assembly runs through the end of 2026.

What’s no longer in question is the direction of travel. Over the past year, HB 249 has moved from a broad and ambiguous expansion of obscenity law to a more direct attempt to define where the boundaries of the body itself are drawn. Ohio naturists, and anyone tracking the legal landscape for body freedom, should be paying attention now. 🪐

More reading:

The American Association for Nude Recreation will hold its 95th national convention August 11–16 at The Willamettans in Springfield, Oregon, and this year there’s an actual theme: “Steampunk: Past, Present & Future.”

The Willamettans (“Willies” to regulars) was founded in 1953 and is the largest nudist club in the Pacific Northwest, a member-owned co-op on 40 acres outside Springfield. It’s a well-established host, with the space and infrastructure to carry a week-long national event.

Six days of programming spans social games, a steampunk parade, golf cart jousting, tie-dye, live music by the pool, a GAT Fundraiser auction, and tournament finals, with daily meal service and a full convention meal plan available.

Whether or not you have strong feelings about steampunk, AANR is at least giving people something to dress for this year. Nudist conventions were once highly social affairs, drawing crowds that came as much for the spectacle and community as for the governance. That energy has been harder to sustain post-pandemic, and a themed event is one way to try to rebuild it.

Registration and details are at willamettans.com. 🪐

Disclosure: The author serves voluntarily on the PR Committee of the American Association for Nude Recreation.

Mandy Zelinka, who co-founded the online naturist community Skinny Dippers Club with her husband Jeremy Ferguson, was found dead Tuesday at their home in Venice, California. She was 49. Ferguson was also found dead at the scene. Los Angeles police are investigating the deaths as a suspected murder-suicide. Zelinka’s family has stated that her death is not believed to be self-inflicted.

Most public reporting has centered on Ferguson’s career in politics and nonprofit management. Zelinka has been less visible in mainstream coverage, identified primarily as a Portland native and local artist. Within the naturist community, she was known for something else: an effort, during the early pandemic years, to build a more accessible and inclusive entry point into nudist life.

She and Ferguson co-founded Skinny Dippers Club in 2020—an online platform designed for people outside traditional club structures, with an emphasis on inclusivity and lowering the barrier for newcomers. She also launched the Naturism Podcast around the same time, envisioning it as a listening project that would eventually become a field guide to naturism compiled from community voices. Neither project fully took off, but the conversation Zelinka was trying to have about who the nudist movement was actually serving was a real one.

Zelinka came to naturism later in life, brought in by Ferguson, who had been part of the community for years. She appeared on the New Nudist Podcast in March 2021, co-hosted by Scott Cline and this writer, and talked with characteristic directness about mental health, body acceptance, and why she found clothing-optional spaces more honest than strictly nude ones.

In the interview, she described her first experience at a clothing-optional resort in Palm Springs—arriving uncertain, staying in her bikini for two days, then finally getting in the pool. She called it “so freeing.” On why she started Skinny Dippers Club, she was equally clear: “If you don't have access to nude beaches close by for your friends, you still want access to nude people. Not because they’re nude, but because of how they think about things... they’re just status quo disruptors.”

Before moving to Southern California, she and Ferguson lived at Tiger Mountain Family Nudist Park in Issaquah, Washington—an experience she eventually turned into Escape from Tiger Mountain, a documentary she wrote, directed, edited, and produced herself. The documentary screened at film festivals in 2023, winning awards. She gave interviews, ran social media, built things. She was not someone who kept this part of her life separate from the rest of it.

For those who encountered her through that work, Zelinka was part of a newer conversation about where naturism was going, especially around who felt included and how people found their way in.

The investigation into their deaths is ongoing. 🪐

Lupin Lodge, the historic naturist resort nestled in the Santa Cruz Mountains above Los Gatos, is no longer for sale. After more than two years on the market—listed first at $32.8 million and later reduced to $29.2 million—and several failed attempts, the property has ultimately failed to attract a buyer, and owner Lori Kay Stout has pulled the listing to reassess the resort’s future.

Reporting from the Mercury News this week describes a range of serious but ultimately unsuccessful suitors: a Japanese developer with hotel plans, two schools looking to convert the property into a campus, and other buyers who fell through due to financing issues, retrofit concerns, or the ripple effects of tariffs. “Nothing stuck,” Stout told the paper.

For those who love Lupin, that’s genuinely welcome news. When the sale was first announced in late 2023, the outcome looked bleak—the real estate listing itself emphasized the property’s development potential, and most observers expected it would eventually go textile. I was quoted in The Guardian last year about what the possible loss of Lupin would mean for the movement. This feels like a reprieve.

Stout is clear-eyed about the broader context. She told the Mercury News that the nudist and naturist industry is on the wane both in the United States and worldwide. The summer ahead, she says, will be a time for reflection. “We will reassess after summer ends and when the weather starts to turn cold,” she told the paper. “We will have to see what’s going on with the naturist and nudist industry.”

Lupin has been the subject of significant coverage here on Planet Nude, including our special edition on the resort’s early history written by the late Glyn Stout. Founded in 1934 on the grounds of a Prohibition-era winery, it’s now the oldest continuously operated American nudist resort west of the Mississippi.

As it gears up for the summer, the resort is scheduling regular Spring and Summer events, including for Independence Day, International Skinny Dip Day on July 11, and its 92nd anniversary on August 1. The Naturist Society’s Western Gathering is also scheduled at Lupin this August, and that’s one I’m hoping to attend.

Lupin has survived economic collapse, a world war, recessions, wildfires, and a pandemic. It deserves a good summer. If you’ve been thinking about making a trip to the Santa Cruz Mountains, there’s no better time. 🪐

More reading:

Friends of Denny Blaine, the queer-led stewardship group that has defended Seattle's clothing-optional beach through years of legal pressure, filed a motion in King County Superior Court on Monday asking Judge Samuel Chung to clarify that toplessness remains lawful throughout Denny Blaine Park, including in the zone where the court-ordered abatement plan designates “clothing required.” A hearing is scheduled for May 1.

The filing is a response to something that has been reportedly happening at the park since the abatement plan took effect last August. As Planet Nude has reported, the abatement plan divided the park into two zones—a beach-level area designated “clothing optional” and an upper lawn area designated “clothing required”—installed under court order last July. According to FoDB, parkgoers have been “confronted, intimidated, and told to cover up their bare torsos by private security guards hired by neighboring homeowners—who have invoked the court-ordered abatement plan as justification for their directives.”1

Seattle Parks rangers and SPD officers have both said that toplessness is not prohibited anywhere in the park, but the guards have been calling the police on people anyway. Toplessness has no legal prohibition under either city or state law; Seattle repealed its lewd conduct ordinance in 1994, and Washington’s indecent exposure statute only applies when a person knows their conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. As SPD has put it publicly, it’s the conduct, not the nudity, that determines whether a law has been broken.

Inside the motion

The motion, prepared by Perkins Coie (the firm representing FoDB pro bono since it intervened in the lawsuit earlier this year) makes a detailed legal case that the “clothing required” designation was never meant to ban toplessness. The nuisance Judge Chung identified last July was specific: public sex acts, masturbation, and genital exposure with lascivious intent. Toplessness, the filing argues, was never part of the evidentiary record before the court, never part of what any party complained about, and cannot be read into an abatement order whose scope must be construed narrowly. The motion puts it plainly:

“Just as socks and scarves are not required to cover the feet and neck, shirts are not required to cover the torso.”2

The motion draws on deposition testimony from the plaintiff's own witnesses to make the point. Stuart Sloan, the real estate developer and neighboring homeowner whose security firm is named in the filing, testified that toplessness “is not the same as full nudity,” that it had been present at the park since at least the early 1990s, and that he did not consider it a nuisance. Another plaintiff member testified that topless sunbathing by a respectful group “would not preclude her from going.” If toplessness was never the nuisance the lawsuit complained of, the motion argues, the court-ordered remedy cannot be stretched to address it.

The motion also documents the enforcement pattern itself. According to court filings, private security through Security Services Northwest has monitored the park 24 hours a day, seven days a week since April 2025. Incident reports included in the filing describe guards photographing a topless woman sunbathing, calling SPD on a person who walked topless from the beach to their car to retrieve an item, and as recently as April 4 of this year, confronting a FoDB member twice on the upper lawn as she walked topless to the restroom, telling her “there are rules that say you need to be fully clothed while walking on the upper level at Denny Blaine.” A senior park ranger who arrived on scene confirmed that toplessness is not prohibited for parkgoers of any sex or gender identity. The guard’s claim, the motion states, was not enforcement of the court’s order. It was a misrepresentation of it.

A constitutional dimension

FoDB also raises Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in stronger terms than federal law, with no carve-out even for compelling state interests. The filing argues that selectively targeting some bare torsos while leaving others undisturbed, based on a guard’s perception of a parkgoer’s sex or gender, would be unconstitutional even if the city tried to impose it directly. A private security firm, the motion argues, cannot wield enforcement powers the government itself does not possess.

The stakes are sharpest for trans and gender-nonconforming parkgoers, who the filing identifies as among the most vulnerable and historically significant users of the park. FoDB notes that the guards’ own incident reports document attention to parkgoers’ gender presentation—whether bodies and voices matched the guard’s expectations about gender—raising obvious risks for people who don’t conform to those expectations. As FoDB put it in its statement accompanying the filing, the goal is to ensure “our state’s first official LGBTQ+ historical site isn’t erased.” Denny Blaine was added to the Washington Heritage Register last September—the first nude beach and first LGBTQ+ site so recognized in the state—a designation the motion invokes to underscore what’s at stake in how the court’s order gets interpreted.

The remedy FoDB is seeking is narrow: a court clarification that toplessness is not prohibited, and authorization for the city to update the park’s signage accordingly. The current signs read “clothing required.” FoDB is proposing language that says “bottoms covering genitals required west of fence”—specific enough to eliminate the ambiguity the guards have been exploiting, and clear enough that parkgoers of any gender identity know where they stand.

Planet Nude has been reporting on the campaign against Denny Blaine since 2023. The May 1 hearing will be the next turn in a fight that keeps finding new ground. 🪐

More to read:

2

FoDB’s full motion, filed April 20 in King County Superior Court, is attached here

Motion For Clarification Re Toplessness (2026

296KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

.

It started with a phone call. Earlier this spring, a woman who operates a nude taxi service in St. Albans—identified by local outlet The Bridge only as “Tara”—called the clerk’s office and police department in Barre asking about permits and applications to operate there. She says she had no real intention of setting up shop in Barre. But the inquiry was enough. The Barre City Council introduced a public nudity ordinance for a first reading on March 241—the city’s first in its 200-year history.

The official agenda packet states the reason plainly: “In response to an inquiry regarding a nude taxi permit, we are proposing that the City Council enact an ordinance outlawing public nudity.” According to The Bridge, the council unanimously adopted it at a subsequent meeting, with the law expected to take effect by late April. The council meets again tomorrow, April 21, when a final vote or public hearing may take place.

Narrowing framework and naturist response

Planet Nude has been tracking the erosion of Vermont’s unusually permissive legal framework for over a year. The state is one of the few in the country where simple, nonsexual public nudity is not explicitly criminalized—provided a person doesn’t disrobe in public view. That distinction has made Vermont a bit of an outlier, where social nudity and events like Montpelier’s World Naked Bike Ride could exist without running afoul of state law. But that framework has been narrowing, city by city.

In June 2025, we reported that Burlington was taking its first steps toward a ban, driven by complaints from residents and businesses about unclothed individuals appearing downtown and in city parks. By September, Burlington’s ordinance committee had unanimously finalized the law, prohibiting exposure of genitals or the anal region in most public spaces. Fines start at $100 for a first offense, doubling for a second, and reaching $500 for a third.

Barre’s ordinance follows the same template—City Manager Nicolas Storellicastro confirmed to The Bridge he modeled it directly on Burlington’s, with minor modifications.

The American Association for Nude Recreation has been watching with concern. “We have always appreciated Vermont’s ‘live and let live’ spirit and its atmosphere of body acceptance,” AANR executive director and general counsel Erich Schuttauf told The Bridge.2 “It’s disappointing when that changes, as is happening here.” He argued that “making laws to address unique situations usually leads to problem laws. Why change what usually works?” It’s a pointed question given that Storellicastro acknowledged to The Bridge there have been no recent nudity complaints in Barre.

Barre and Burlington aren’t alone. Montpelier also restricts “immodest” public exposure under its municipal code.

That municipal trend has recently gone statewide with a legislative push that Planet Nude first reported on in February. House Bill H.683, introduced January 14 by Representatives Gregory Burtt, Michael Tagliavia, and Kenneth Wells, would go much further than any local ordinance—making public nudity a criminal offense across Vermont, with penalties of up to six months in jail or a $500 fine. The bill’s language would extend even to private property visible from public spaces, meaning someone nude in their own front yard could face charges.

H.683 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on the day it was introduced and has seen no recorded activity since. No hearings have been scheduled, no testimony taken. But it hasn’t been withdrawn either—and every new municipal ordinance passed gives its sponsors a stronger argument that Vermont’s patchwork of local rules needs a uniform statewide solution.

Make your voice heard now

The Barre City Council is scheduled to meet tomorrow, April 21, at 6pm in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 6 North Main Street—a meeting that may include a public hearing on the ordinance before any final vote. If you’re in the area, attending is the most direct way to make your voice heard. If you can’t attend in person, you can contact City Manager Nicolas Storellicastro at citymanager@barrecity.org. But make sure you do it today.

Vermonts state law hasn’t changed—at least not yet. But the space in which it means anything keeps shrinking. 🪐

More reading

Last April, Planet Nude reported on a landmark conservation deal that put one of California’s oldest clothing-optional beaches in new hands. Now, more than a year later, the story has moved forward in concrete ways—and for regulars planning a visit this summer, there are some important logistics to know.

To recap: in April 2025, the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) announced a $10 million agreement to acquire San Gregorio Ranch, the 195-acre coastal property that has served as the informal gateway to San Gregorio’s clothing-optional beach since at least the 1960s. The deal was celebrated by conservationists as a safeguard against development—and watched cautiously by naturists wondering what new stewardship might mean for the beach’s longstanding nude tradition.

In March 2026, the California Coastal Commission approved a permit waiver allowing POST to convert the existing private beach access road into a formal public accessway. The improvements are modest but meaningful: restored gravel road and parking area, a new entrance gate, improved pedestrian path to the beach, portable toilets, picnic tables, and better signage. A deteriorated mobile home and its septic tank will also be removed. During construction, estimated at 8 to 12 weeks, the site will be closed to visitors. Once work is complete and the land is formally transferred to POST, the beach is expected to reopen to the public in Summer 2026. Going forward, at least initially, hours and fees will mirror those at the adjacent San Gregorio State Beach lot: open from 8am to sunset, with an $8 per vehicle parking fee.

The most significant long-term development buried in the permit documents is this: POST intends to transfer operation and eventually ownership of the property to California State Parks or another public agency, with that handoff currently targeted for Spring/Summer 2027. That’s a notable shift from the more open-ended language POST used in 2025, when the organization spoke broadly about finding “a long-term steward.” State Parks is now named explicitly.

For the naturist community, this matters

State Parks manages the adjacent San Gregorio State Beach, where nude use is not formally permitted. Whether the agency would extend the same tolerance—or lack of enforcement—to the newly acquired parcel is an open question, and arguably the most important one facing the beach’s future.

When Planet Nude asked POST directly about clothing-optional use last year, the organization acknowledged the beach's history while stopping short of any guarantees. Marti Tedesco, POST's Senior Manager of Media & Communications, told us the organization is “committed to a future where public parking and access to this property and its beach remain available”—notably sidestepping any mention of nude use specifically. That posture hasn't visibly changed. POST has described its goals for the property in terms of “safe public access” and “low-key recreational use”—language that feels deliberately broad.

The nudist tradition at San Gregorio is old and resilient. The beach has been documented as clothing-optional since 1966, survived multiple ownership transitions, and outlasted most of California’s naturist clubs and many of its peer nude beaches. That durability counts for something. But the formalization of public access—new infrastructure, set hours, an $8 parking fee—does represent a shift from the freewheeling, caretaker-managed arrangement that has characterized the beach for decades. More visibility and more structure don’t always spell trouble for nude use, but they do tend to invite more scrutiny.

The transfer to State Parks, if it happens as planned, will be the real inflection point. A public planning process is expected before then, and that’s where naturist voices could matter most. As we noted last year, no formal advocacy group currently exists to represent nude beachgoers in those discussions—something that remains a gap worth filling. For now, the most practical advice is this: if you’re planning to visit San Gregorio this summer, watch for news of the construction closure and anticipated reopening date. And if you care about the beach’s future beyond this season, pay attention to what happens when State Parks enters the picture. 🪐

More reading

I was in the room in Zipolite when delegates voted to bring the next World Congress to Hungary, and while the vote was close, the choice felt well supported by the delegation. Now it’s confirmed: the INF-FNI’s 40th General Assembly will convene near Kecskemét in September 2026—and the agenda shaping up around it may make this one of the more consequential gatherings the federation has held in years.

Hungary is a fitting host. The country has a longstanding naturist culture, several well-established clubs and resorts, and a legal environment broadly supportive of clothing-optional recreation. Kecskemét sits in the heart of the Great Hungarian Plain—a very different backdrop from tropical Zipolite, but a welcoming one for a movement that draws delegates from more than 40 countries.

Hungary is a fitting host, and not merely by reputation. The country's relationship with naturism reportedly dates all the way back to 1903, when the first official naturist camp was established on the shores of Lake Balaton—making Hungary one of Europe's earliest adopters of organized nude recreation. That tradition has held. Roughly one in five Hungarians has visited a nudist beach.1 The Federation of Naturists in Hungary, NAMASZ, has been the country's official INF-FNI member since 2007 according to the INF-FNI website, and Hungarian delegates were present in Zipolite when the vote was cast.

That long historical arc gives the 2026 gathering a commemorative weight, but the immediate agenda is anything but ceremonial. Chief among the unresolved items is the federation’s membership fee structure. The current 100% rule—requiring national federations to register and pay for their entire membership base—has long been a barrier to fuller global participation. In Zipolite, the vote to reform it fell just shy of the required two-thirds majority, while the Naturisten Federatie Nederland (NFN), the world’s largest naturist federation, was granted a two-year grace period to bring itself into compliance with Dutch consumer protection law. Both issues expire at this Congress. Delegates in Hungary will need to find a durable solution—one that opens the door to broader international participation without fracturing the federation’s structure.

Beyond the procedural agenda, the 2026 Congress arrives at a moment when the movement has a lot to talk about. Germany’s FKK culture is under demographic pressure, with clubs losing members and municipalities scrambling to preserve dedicated nude spaces. Brazil’s naturist beaches have faced municipal crackdowns that are now being contested in the courts. And the INF-FNI itself led a coalition of organizations from over 40 countries in an open letter to Meta, demanding an end to the censorship of non-sexual naturist content on social media. These are more than peripheral or passing concerns, they’re some of the big issues naturism faces, and they’re the challenges that a unified international body exists to address.

Details on registration and attendance will come through national member federations in the months ahead. I hope to be there. 🪐

More reading:

The reopening restores direct access to one of Florida’s few publicly recognized clothing-optional beaches after a closure that stretched for much of the past year, with county estimates repeatedly slipping from late 2025 into early 2026. In a recent update to members, Treasure Coast Naturists—which has been in regular contact with county officials throughout the process—confirmed the parking lot is open.

For regulars, the reopening ends a long and messy stretch in which access problems at Blind Creek helped push some visitors north toward Little Mud Creek, where nudity is not permitted and where a series of arrests last fall brought unwanted national attention to the beach. It also arrives at the start of sea turtle nesting season, which runs from March 1 through November 15 in St. Lucie County. Beachgoers are being asked to avoid marked nests, stay clear of posted areas, and fill in any holes they dig in the sand before leaving.

A year of renovations

The parking project has been a moving target for months. Treasure Coast Naturists newsletters show that beachgoers were being told as far back as late 2024 that work on the parking area was expected to begin around the end of December or the beginning of January. By fall 2025, the main lot was closed for what became an extended reconstruction effort. Early county estimates pointed to a reopening around December 1, 2025. That date slipped into early January, then later January, then March. At one point, TCN said county staff had cited unexpected electrical problems as the reason for further delays.

The prolonged closure has been more than just an inconvenience, it’s changed changed how people moved through the beach. With the main lot out of service, some visitors began using the Little Mud Creek access point to the north and then walking south toward the designated clothing-optional area. That northern access route sat outside the legal nude zone, and the resulting confusion proved costly. In October 2025, sheriff’s deputies arrested six people near Little Mud for being nude outside the designated area. Two more arrests followed later that week. The cases drew a burst of lurid coverage after the sheriff’s office posted mugshots online, even though there were no allegations of lewd conduct.

All eight cases were later dismissed.

Treasure Coast Naturists, which has worked with county officials since 2014 and helped secure Blind Creek’s official clothing-optional designation in June 2020, repeatedly warned beachgoers during the closure to stay within the designated boundaries and not cut through the construction zone. The group also helped connect some of those arrested with legal support. In later updates, TCN noted that under Florida law, simple nudity without sexual intent is not a crime.

Still, the arrests exposed how fragile the beach’s hard-won stability can be when access shifts and visitors misread the boundaries.

That history is part of why the reopening is important, as it restores the normal path into a beach that has become one of the most important naturist gathering places in the state.

Credit goes to Treasure Coast Naturists

Blind Creek’s rise has been unusually organized by Florida standards. TCN has spent years building relationships with county officials, promoting beach stewardship, and supporting its Beach Ambassador program. In public materials and planning discussions, the group has argued that Blind Creek’s naturist use is not incidental but one of the main reasons the shoreline draws visitors from around Florida and beyond. Before the beach received formal county backing, Blind Creek had long been used informally by naturists. Since 2020, it has stood out as one of the rare places in Florida where that use has been clearly sanctioned at the local level.

The rebuilt south lot is also part of a larger county investment in the site, including paved parking and upgraded facilities. TCN has argued that the improvements reflect the county’s recognition that Blind Creek is no marginal stretch of sand but a major public amenity with economic and recreational importance. For now, though, the more immediate message is practical.

Beachgoers returning to Blind Creek should use the reopened main lot, remain within the designated clothing-optional section, and give extra care to the shoreline during turtle nesting season. Marked nests should not be disturbed, and even shallow holes in the sand can create hazards for hatchlings and other visitors. After a year of closures and confusion, Blind Creek has its front door back. And just in time for spring break. 🪐

More reading:

When Planet Nude first reported on Praia do Pinho last December, the situation was stark: Balneário Camboriú had just banned naturism across its entire coastline, ending four decades of recognition at Brazil’s first officially designated naturist beach. The Federação Brasileira de Naturismo (FBrN) responded within days of the first arrest, filing legal challenges that produced two successive court victories—first blocking criminal charges for nudity in late December, then securing a broader safe-conduct order in January that prevented police from arresting naturists on the sand and in the sea while the case proceeded.

That protection is now gone.

What ended it was not one ruling but two developments in the same week. On March 18, Balneário Camboriú's new city master plan—Complementary Law 130/25—came into effect, removing naturism from the list of permitted activities on any of the city's beaches. According to FBrN, this new plan eliminated the legal basis on which the earlier injunctions had rested: those protections had been granted partly on the argument that the original ban exceeded the authority of the previous master plan. With a new master plan now in force, that argument no longer applies. Then, on March 24, Brazilian news outlets Página 3 and ND Mais reported that a Santa Catarina court denied FBrN's separate bid to suspend the municipal ban through a civil action the federation had filed in February. In a clarification statement shared with Planet Nude, FBrN confirmed that the earlier injunctions shielding naturists from arrest have lost their validity as a result of both developments. Police can enforce the ban again.

The city called it a vindication. “We are acting with responsibility, transparency, and respect for the public interest,” city attorney Diego Montibeler said in a statement reported by Diarinho. FBrN is not treating it as a final defeat—FBrN lawyer Anselmo Machado told Página 3 the outcome was not a surprise, and the federation’s core argument that the ban was passed in violation of Brazil’s City Statute remains before the court. An appeal is coming.

Still, the practical reality has shifted. Brazil’s first officially recognized naturist beach—where naturism officially took root in 1984 and was formally written into the city’s master plan in 2006—is now legally closed to nudity with no court order standing in the way.

The pattern is hard to miss. FBrN president Paula Duarte Silveira told Planet Nude in December that naturists had spent years asking Balneário Camboriú for more security at the trails leading to Pinho, where problems unrelated to naturism had taken hold. They were told there wasn’t enough personnel. After the ban, enforcement appeared fast. “It’s surprising how quickly enforcement resources increased after the law banning naturism was approved,” she said.

Brazil’s back-and-forth

The ruling lands twelve days after a court 90 minutes down the coast went the other direction. On March 12, as Planet Nude reported, the Santa Catarina Court of Justice issued preventive habeas corpus protection for naturists at Praia da Galheta in Florianópolis—blocking arrests for nonsexual nudity on the sand and in the sea while the city continues to debate formal regulation. Galheta has spent nearly a decade in legal limbo since a 2016 reclassification stripped its naturist designation without explicitly banning the practice.

Just as Galheta gets good news, Pinho gets the opposite.

One detail that connects the fight at Pinho to the one 90 minutes south: according to FBrN’s clarification statement, it was the lawyer for AGAL (the Florianópolis-based association that has been defending Praia da Galheta) who answered the federation’s call and filed the original habeas corpus at Pinho, when no local legal representation was available. The two organizations are fighting different battles on the same coastline, and as FBrN’s statement makes clear, they have been doing it together and with shared resources.

Two courts, same state, twelve days apart, opposite conclusions. Neither beach is settled. Neither fight is over. What the rulings together make clear is that naturism in Santa Catarina is not moving in any single direction—it is being contested, ruling by ruling, by people who have decided that showing up is the only way to keep these places alive. 🪐

More reading:

Sandy Bay, a secluded beach near Cape Town long used for clothing-optional recreation, is now under formal review by South African National Parks (SANParks), which says the site “has never been an official naturist beach.”1

The beach, located within within Table Mountain National Park, has been used for naturist recreation since at least the 1970s, with a more established nude presence by the 1980s as word spread among local beachgoers. By the mid-1990s, it was widely referred to as Cape Town’s “unofficial” nudist beach, a status that persisted through tourism guides and local knowledge. Its secluded, hike-in access helped sustain that arrangement, allowing clothing-optional use to continue largely undisturbed for decades.

Despite that history, its status has always been informal. That ambiguity is now being challenged from two directions. According to Cape {town} Etc, SANParks spokesperson JP Louw said the agency has engaged with the City of Cape Town, law enforcement, and community safety groups following concerns about unlawful activity, and that new signage is being prepared under legal review to clarify what is permitted at the site.

A petition launched on March 17 is calling for Sandy Bay to be formally recognized and regulated as a naturist beach, following growing concerns over enforcement, safety, and the beach’s uncertain status. The campaign passed 1,100 verified signatures within days, signaling that tensions around the site had already begun to surface publicly.

The petition argues that the lack of official status has created predictable problems: harassment, voyeurism, non-consensual photography, and recurring disputes over expectations. It proposes a regulated model with defined naturist zones, clear signage, enforceable rules, and a ban on sexual activity and non-consensual filming.

A background of battles

This is not the first attempt to formalize Sandy Bay. In 2014, the Western Cape Naturist Association led a similar campaign, also framing regulation as a way to improve safety and establish behavioral standards. That effort did not result in official designation, leaving the beach in its current legal grey area.

Recent reporting suggests that grey area may be narrowing. Some naturists have reported being told to cover up, though SANParks has said its rangers were not instructed to harass visitors. The agency has instead emphasized the need for clarity, pointing to complaints about unlawful conduct as a driver of the current review.

South Africa has limited precedent for formal naturist recognition. A section of Mpenjati Beach in KwaZulu-Natal was approved as the country’s first official nude beach in 2014 and opened in 2015 after public debate and opposition from local groups.2

The recent cancellation of Cape Town’s long-running World Naked Bike Ride announced last week comes at the same time as the heightened scrutiny of Sandy Bay. Together, they seem to suggest a noticeable shift in the naturist cultural landscape around Cape Town.

The review now underway forces a decision that has been deferred for decades.

For supporters of naturist use, the petition represents a chance to demonstrate demand for a regulated, recognized space. As authorities consider new rules, the number of voices behind that effort may help shape what comes next. 🪐

Sign the petition

Marvin “Marv” Frandsen, a longtime Florida naturist advocate and key figure in the legal battles surrounding Canaveral National Seashore, has died following complications from cancer. He was 67.

Frandsen’s path into naturism began in Florida. Trained as a physicist with a Ph.D. in solid state physics from the University of Illinois, he relocated to the state for defense work and discovered a nude beach at Navarre after a colleague quietly pointed him in that direction. The experience stayed with him.

He later moved to central Florida, arriving as a conflict was beginning to take shape at Canaveral National Seashore.

That conflict would define much of his work.

Organizing on the beach

During the 1990s, local officials and the National Park Service moved to restrict long-standing clothing-optional use at Playalinda and Apollo beaches. Frandsen became part of a small group organizing in response, first through Space Coast Naturists and later Central Florida Naturists, where he served as legal-political chair and vice president.

The group pushed the issue across multiple fronts. They worked with city and county officials, engaged the state legislature, and challenged federal policy. Frandsen focused on the legal side, researching case law and scientific literature, and often representing himself in court.

In 1996, he was among those cited under Brevard County’s anti-nudity ordinance. The question was whether the county had authority to enforce that law on federally managed land. The dispute moved through the courts as part of a broader effort to keep naturist use alive at the seashore.

At the same time, Frandsen and others organized protests at the park entrance and surrounding areas. These actions were designed to test enforcement and force legal clarity.

One of those protests led to U.S. v. Frandsen.

U.S. v. Frandsen

Before the case became a First Amendment victory, the government tried to keep it from ever being about free speech at all.

In 1997, Frandsen and fellow activist Bryan Morris were cited for gathering without a permit while expressing opposition to the crackdown. The National Park Service charged them under federal regulations requiring permits for public expression. Frandsen challenged the charge and represented himself through much of the process.

The case moved through the federal system. A magistrate judge and district court upheld the convictions. Frandsen and Morris continued their appeal.

In 2000, the Eleventh Circuit reversed those convictions and struck down the permit scheme as unconstitutional. The court found that the regulation lacked the procedural safeguards required under the First Amendment and gave too much discretion to officials. The ruling has been cited in later cases and contributed to changes in how the National Park Service regulates expressive activity.

As he later wrote for the B.E.A.C.H.E.S. Foundation website, “the NPS completely rewrote its permit scheme” and adjusted its national free speech regulations in response to the case, extending the impact beyond Canaveral.

After the appellate win, his legal work drew attention beyond naturism. An ACLU attorney later used his briefs to support a separate free speech case in Miami, extending the reach of his arguments into a different context.

Frandsen’s impact in Florida

Frandsen’s work did not end there. He challenged a Florida state parks “free speech rule” in administrative court, securing a change in how the rule could be applied, particularly in preventing content-based distinctions. He supported efforts around topfree equality, including cases in which members of his own family served as co-plaintiffs, and continued to follow legal developments closely.

In time, the National Park Service posted signage at Apollo and Playalinda formally recognizing naturist recreation, and clothing-optional use at Canaveral continued. Even then, access and expression at the seashore remained a constant negotiation.

As Erich Schuttauf, executive director of American Association for Nude Recreation, recalled to Planet Nude, “Even as [Marv] was successful in stages of the permit wars (litigation) they continued to put up roadblocks and challenges and he met them. For example, he was often relegated to areas of the park where he would not be likely to make his point where it could be heard or seen.”

Frandsen’s influence extended beyond Canaveral. Alongside others in the Florida naturist community, his work helped lay the legal and organizational groundwork that made future efforts possible, including the establishment of Blind Creek Beach by Treasure Coast Naturists, one of the state’s most visible and successful clothing-optional public beaches.

He also documented what he learned. He organized legal materials, tracked cases, and shared analysis within the naturist community. His writing reflected a consistent approach: careful reading, attention to detail, and a focus on how decisions would function in practice.

Years later, when Marv sent me materials from the case, he included a copy of the refund check the federal government eventually mailed back for the fine assessed against him. It was the kind of detail he appreciated: archival proof, a small bureaucratic artifact, and a dry little coda to a fight he had helped win.

Decades of nude beach stewardship

Frandsen has remained active in the years that followed. He served as president of the B.E.A.C.H.E.S. Foundation and later as a compliance officer, and was involved with AANR-Florida. He stayed connected to the same issues that had defined his earlier work, including public access, policy, and the legal framework surrounding naturism.

I met Marv in 2024 at the INF conference in Zipolite in Mexico, after corresponding with him about these earlier cases over the course of a year or so. He was soft-spoken and analytical, with a dry sense of humor. He listened carefully and responded with precision. The same qualities that show up in his writing were there in person.

The conflicts he engaged in at Canaveral remain active in different forms. Questions about public land use, administrative authority, and the treatment of nudity continue to surface across the country. Many of those debates now rest on legal ground established during that period.

Frandsen was part of the group that helped establish it. He stayed with the work long enough to see how those decisions played out and how the rules changed.

He focused on the details and followed them where they led. 🪐

The future of one of Germany’s last dedicated naturist camping areas on the North Sea coast is now uncertain, as a growing petition seeks to stop the planned closure of the FKK section at Hooksiel campsite.

Launched in March by a regional naturist association, the Naturistenbund Wilhelmshaven-Friesland e.V., the petition calls on site operator Überland Services GmbH to reverse its announced decision to eliminate the clothing-optional camping area beginning in the 2027 season. Within days, it had gathered hundreds of signatures, with supporters describing the site as a rare and irreplaceable space for community, continuity, and cultural expression.

“This is about preserving a space of freedom and community,” the organizers write. “Its closure would destroy a place that has grown over generations.”12

The campsite was previously operated by the municipality of Wangerland before being sold to the private company Überland Services GmbH, reportedly due to financial pressures. Under private ownership, the site is now being evaluated more closely for profitability, with occupancy in the naturist section declining relative to the rest of the site. The company plans to repurpose the area for broader camping use aimed at a wider tourist base.

Naturists stand up

The issue has begun to extend beyond the local level. While the petition is organized by a regional association, it has drawn support from grassroots advocates, including Get Naked Germany, which has helped raise awareness of the situation among a broader audience. It has also attracted attention from Germany’s national naturist structure and beyond, including the Deutscher Verband für Freikörperkultur (DFK) and the International Naturist Federation (INF-FNI).

In a joint letter, the DFK and INF-FNI have urged the campsite operator to reconsider the planned closure, pointing to the site’s cultural and tourism value and its place within Germany’s longstanding FKK tradition.3 The organizations are also engaged in discussions with local stakeholders, including the municipality of Wangerland, aimed at finding a solution that would preserve a defined naturist area.

Both groups have indicated a willingness to support a compromise, including potential modernization or restructuring of the site, rather than full elimination of the FKK section.

Hooksiel holds a particular place within Germany’s naturist landscape. Located in Lower Saxony’s Wangerland region, the campsite sits alongside a designated nude beach, creating one of the few remaining coastal environments where visitors can stay, socialize, and recreate nude in a continuous space.

Along Germany’s North Sea, naturist infrastructure has always been more limited than on the Baltic coast, making this kind of integrated setup increasingly rare.

Germany’s FKK tradition has long depended on a mix of informal public access and structured environments like associations and campgrounds. Hooksiel belongs to that latter category, a managed space where naturism is intentional and sustained through infrastructure rather than tolerated use.

Sign the petition

Across Europe, those types of spaces have faced growing pressure from redevelopment, shifting tourism models, and land-use decisions that favor broader market appeal. In many cases, naturist areas are not explicitly restricted. They are reallocated.

At Hooksiel, the planned closure would remove the FKK section while leaving the larger campsite intact, replacing a specialized use with general tourism.

Supporters see that pattern clearly.

“There are hardly any places left for FKK users. They are being pushed out more and more,” one wrote.

“Every lost FKK site is one too many,” another added.

The petition remains open through September, with organizers aiming to reach 2,000 signatures as discussions continue. Readers who want to follow the effort or add their name can find it online as local advocates and international organizations push for a solution.

Sign the petition now

Hooksiel is losing one of the few remaining places where German FKK culture operates as a fully integrated environment rather than a designated corner.

The timeline stretches to 2027, but the outcome will shape access on the North Sea coast well beyond that date.

If spaces like this continue to vanish, what replaces them? 🪐

Cape Town’s World Naked Bike Ride did not roll this year. After 18 years of annual rides, organizers have canceled the 2026 event, saying local authorities imposed new conditions requiring participants to be fully clothed. For a protest built around public vulnerability and visibility, that condition effectively ended the ride.

The event is traditionally held the day before the Cape Town Cycle Tour, placing this year’s ride on March 7. Event coordinator Marthinus Pretorius told local media that previous rides were approved through meetings with the City of Cape Town under the Public Gatherings Act. This year, he said, the process stalled. Communication broke down, approvals never materialized, and organizers were ultimately told the ride could not proceed as a nude event.1

Pretorius framed the decision as part of a broader tightening around public nudity in Cape Town. He said police have recently told people to cover up at Sandy Bay, the city’s long-time unofficial nude beach.

The city’s legal rationale has been conveyed largely through organizer accounts and media reports. Officials reportedly cited sections 9 and 22 of South Africa’s Sexual Offences Act, which restrict public exposure where consent cannot be assumed—an issue difficult to manage in an open street protest.

That ambiguity has lingered for years without stopping the event. Launched in 2004 as a global protest linking cycling safety, fossil fuel dependence, and body acceptance, the World Naked Bike Ride has taken place in Cape Town since 2008, operating more through informal negotiation than clear legal consensus.

Even in 2025, the ride went forward under tighter constraints. Participants were encouraged to wear minimal coverings or body paint, though many remained fully nude. Whatever tolerance existed then appears to have narrowed sharply in the past year.

What’s next

Supporters see it as protest and expression, connecting environmental concerns with bodily autonomy and the vulnerability of cyclists in traffic. Officials, or at least those managing permits and legal risk, appear to view it as a public nudity issue moving through spaces where consent cannot be guaranteed. That tension is reflected in both legal interpretations and public reaction.

Pretorius has said that organizers have filed a complaint with South Africa’s Commission for Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Rights, arguing the decision raises broader questions about expression and community rights. The commission has the authority to investigate and mediate such disputes, though its involvement does not guarantee any immediate change to permitting decisions.

For nearly two decades, Cape Town allowed the ride to go forward, even as the legal footing remained unclear. In 2026, that changed. Whether the cancellation is temporary or marks a longer shift may depend on how the city chooses to handle public nudity in the future.

At least for this year, the bikes stayed parked. 🪐

An Arizona bill designed to address revenge porn and synthetic sexual imagery is drawing concern from naturists and free speech advocates, who warn that its broad language could create unintended consequences for lawful, nonsexual nude content.

House Bill 2133 expands existing laws around nonconsensual sexual imagery while establishing new requirements for websites that publish or distribute certain kinds of visual material. The bill focuses on consent, age verification, and recordkeeping, particularly in response to the rise of AI-generated “deepfake” sexual content.

It requires commercial websites hosting covered material to verify that each person depicted consented and was at least 18 at the time the image was created. Those records must be retained for at least seven years and made available to the state attorney general upon request. Violations carry steep penalties, including civil fines of $10,000 per day and up to $250,000 in cases involving minors.

For naturist organizations and publishers, the issue is not the intent of the bill but its scope.

A narrow definition with broad uncertainty

HB2133 applies to “sexual material” as defined under Arizona law, which incorporates a “harmful to minors” standard. That definition is narrower than simple nudity, requiring that the material appeal to prurient interest, depict sexual content in a patently offensive way, and lack serious value for minors. On paper, that would appear to exclude most nonsexual social nudity.

In practice, the concern is less about what the law clearly covers than how it might be interpreted. Organizations that publish large volumes of images or maintain long-term archives could face challenges documenting consent years after the fact. The seven-year recordkeeping requirement is a particular pressure point in communal environments where participation is fluid and records are not always preserved indefinitely.

The bill also does not include a provision allowing parental consent for minors in covered material. While consistent with its focus on preventing exploitation, that omission raises questions for family-oriented contexts—though only if such images were interpreted as falling within the statute’s definition of “sexual material.”

The bill does not explicitly target naturism, nor does it clearly criminalize nonsexual nude imagery. The concern centers on compliance and interpretation. Organizations that qualify as “commercial entities” may face new administrative burdens, even if their content ultimately falls outside the law’s scope. That uncertainty could lead some publishers to remove or limit material preemptively, a familiar pattern when broadly written internet laws intersect with protected expression.

Advocates raise concerns

The American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) has reportedly begun tracking the bill and conducting outreach with a lobbyist in Arizona. In a recent member update, the organization described HB2133 as placing “substantial restrictions” on publishing images and warned of the “significant compliance/documentation burden” associated with the legislation. As of mid-March, the bill remained in the legislative process and had not yet reached the governor’s desk.

HB2133 reflects a broader challenge: how to address real harms in the digital environment without sweeping too broadly. Efforts to regulate nonconsensual and AI-generated sexual content are increasingly urgent. At the same time, laws built to address those harms can intersect with constitutionally protected expression, including artistic, educational, and nonsexual representations of the human body. For naturists, the question is whether those lines can be drawn clearly enough to avoid unintended consequences. 🪐

The American Association for Nude Recreation has published the results of its first Naturist Choice Awards, a community survey that asked nudists and naturists to name their favorites across a handful of core categories.

Awards voting ran from January 10 through February 15 on AANR’s website. Voting was open to anyone, not just members, with the goal of capturing a broader slice of the community. In total, over 900 votes were submitted and counted. Three members of AANR’s marketing committee tallied the results independently, according to their website.

The structure was pretty simple, just five categories: favorite resort, nude-in-nature spot, non-landed club, naturist website, and social media account. Each question also included a comment field asking voters why their pick mattered.

Resorts, as always, come down to people

Florida’s Suwannee Valley Resort took the top spot, followed by Glen Eden Sun Club and Laguna Del Sol. The rest of the top five included White Tail Resort and Cypress Cove.

The comments tell the story better than the rankings. People talked about being treated like family, about safety, about long-term friendships. Amenities come up, sure, but mostly as background. What stands out is how often people describe these places as somewhere they belong.

Non-landed clubs keep gaining ground

The Rocky Mountain Naturist Club ranked first among non-landed groups, followed by the Southern California Naturist Association and Indiana Naturists.

These clubs don’t own property. They organize events, trips, and meetups instead. That flexibility shows up in the comments. People like the variety, the lower cost, and the chance to connect without committing to a single location.

You can see why this model keeps growing.

The most popular place to be nude? Home

In the nude-in-nature category, the top answer wasn’t a beach or a trail. It was “My Backyard.”

That result lands exactly how you’d expect. For a lot of people, privacy is still the easiest way to practice naturism. After that came familiar public spots like Black’s Beach, Playalinda Beach, and Blind Creek Beach, along with Lake Tahoe’s Creek Beach.

Naturist websites reflect a shifting landscape

In the website category, AANR.com came in first, followed by GlenEden.com.

Planet Nude placed third. The comments there are worth sitting with for a moment. One voter described Planet Nude as “a living, breathing digital magazine” that brings together journalism, essays, and photography in a way that feels current. Another called it “the absolute best source of naturist news.” Others pointed to its global scope and the range of voices it brings in. That mix—reporting, commentary, history, and creative work—is still relatively new in this space. It’s encouraging to see it resonate. Thanks to all who voted.

The rest of the top five included NaturistHub.com and SuwanneeValleyResort.com.

What the survey says, and what it doesn’t

AANR also asked voters to rate the importance of its outreach efforts. Protecting nudist rights scored highest, followed closely by public acceptance and expanding access to places where people can go nude.

None of this is especially surprising. But it’s useful to see it laid out this clearly.

This wasn’t a scientific survey, and AANR doesn’t present it as one. It’s a snapshot. A way of asking a simple question and letting people answer it in their own words. That alone makes it valuable. 🪐

Check out the full awards list:

2026 Naturist Choice Awards

Disclosure: The author serves in a voluntary capacity on AANR’s public relations committee.

A Brazilian court has ruled that people visiting Praia da Galheta in Florianópolis cannot be arrested or detained simply for practicing naturism, marking a significant legal development for one of the country’s best-known unofficial nude beaches.

The decision, issued March 12 by the Santa Catarina Court of Justice (TJSC), grants a preventive collective habeas corpus protecting beachgoers from police action based solely on nonsexual nudity. The ruling orders police and municipal authorities to refrain from making arrests, coercive detentions, or issuing criminal citations when the only alleged offense is naturist nudity on the beach or in the sea.

Judges concluded that the practice does not meet the legal definition of an “obscene act” under Brazil’s Penal Code when it lacks sexual intent.1

The case was brought by the Associação Amigos da Galheta, which sought legal protection for beachgoers amid uncertainty about how authorities might enforce laws against public nudity.

Praia da Galheta, located on the eastern side of Santa Catarina Island, has been associated with naturism since the late 1970s and remains widely known among international naturist travelers. Although the beach once had municipal legislation recognizing the practice, that framework was effectively removed in 2016 when the area was reclassified as a protected natural monument, leaving regulation unresolved.

The court emphasized that the ruling does not create an official authorization for naturism. Instead, it establishes that criminal law cannot be used to punish nonsexual nudity while the city continues to debate formal regulations.

The decision also sets clear geographic limits. The protection applies only to the sand and the sea at Praia da Galheta, and does not extend to trails, vegetation areas, decks, or parking areas leading to the beach. Authorities remain free to enforce laws against harassment, sexual activity, environmental damage, or other crimes.

The ruling will remain in effect until Florianópolis adopts a final legislative framework governing naturism at the site. 🪐

More reading:

According to reporting by SFGATE, two “nude beach” signs at Canaveral National Seashore’s Playalinda Beach were included in a database of park materials flagged for internal review.1 The database, leaked by anonymous federal employees and first examined by The Washington Post, lists hundreds of signs, exhibits, brochures, and educational materials submitted by park staff as part of a broader content review ordered by the U.S. Department of the Interior to identify materials that might “inappropriately disparage Americans.”2

Much of the attention around the review has focused on historical interpretation related to the Civil War, Indigenous history, and climate change, signaling familiar culture-war–driven cuts and scrutiny within the current federal government. But the list also includes some unexpected entries, among them signs near the northern access points of Playalinda Beach alerting visitors that they may encounter nude sunbathing beyond certain boardwalks.

The signs do not promote nudity, of course. Rather, they serve a practical purpose warning visitors that the far northern stretches of the beach have long been used by naturists.

Playalinda’s clothing-optional culture has developed through an unusual patchwork of jurisdiction. While the seashore itself is federally managed, Brevard County’s anti-nudity ordinance technically applies near the southern access points. For decades, visitors seeking a clothing-optional experience have walked north toward the Volusia County side of the park, where enforcement has historically been more tolerant. Informational signs have helped prevent confusion for newcomers encountering the beach’s informal naturist zone.

The beach is one of only a handful of public sites in Florida where social nudity remains either officially authorized or widely tolerated, alongside places such as Haulover Beach in Miami-Dade County and Blind Creek Beach in St. Lucie County.

Recent years have also brought occasional reports of inconsistent enforcement at Canaveral, adding to uncertainty around the beach’s long-standing but unofficial nude section. The seashore also faces pressures from expanded rocket launch activity at nearby Kennedy Space Center, and indeed the beach is currently closed in advance of an April launch.

It remains unclear whether the Playalinda signage will ultimately be removed or altered. The Interior Department has said the leaked database reflects draft internal materials rather than final decisions, and officials have criticized the release of the documents.

For now, the flagged signs illustrate how even routine visitor warnings—meant simply to inform people what they might encounter on the sand—can become entangled in broader debates about how America’s public lands are interpreted and presented. The episode also hints at the persistent challenges naturists face in shaping public perception as they advocate for wider acceptance of nude recreation on public lands. 🪐

More reading

Nudists expect a certain level of privacy at their favorite beaches or resorts. However, the nature of their lifestyle has long attracted unwanted onlookers. Beachgoers have, for decades, contended with individuals in the bushes and behind the dunes using binoculars or cameras. In recent times, individuals have also begun taking covert photos with their smartphones at resorts and events. Unfortunately, rapidly advancing technology presents new challenges, and nudists concerned about privacy must remain alert to these developments.

On September 20, 2020, at the annual Facebook Connect conference, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a partnership with EssilorLuxottica, the parent company of Ray-Ban, to produce a line of smart eyeglasses with integrated audio and photography capabilities. A year later, the first of these glasses, dubbed the Ray-Ban Stories, was released. Equipped with a built-in 5MP camera capable of taking up to 500 photos and 30 short videos, the device sold roughly 300,000 units during its initial release.

In 2023, the first-generation Meta smart glasses became available, featuring 12MP cameras, 3K video technology, and improved audio recording. By 2025, the company had partnered with eyewear company Oakley (also a subsidiary of EssilorLuxottica) to produce a second generation of smart glasses and added AI capabilities to its Meta Ray-Ban Display line of products, including a data screen built into the right lens, as well as a feature that allows the user to control the eyewear’s various functions through subtle wrist motions. The Display line can also access Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and video conferencing tools, including a screen-sharing application.

By the end of 2025, Meta smart eyeglasses had sold over 7 million units.

Growing privacy concerns

While the Meta eyewear products include certain privacy features, most notably a small light near the temple that activates when recording, serious concerns have emerged regarding the effectiveness of such features, particularly in sunny conditions or in situations where a user might purposely conceal the light in order to make clandestine audio and video recordings of others.

More alarmingly, the devices have sometimes been paired with online facial recognition programs that can link a recorded individual’s face to their name, phone number, and home address, raising fears about personal safety and security.

A recent investigation by the Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten revealed that an AI center in Nairobi, Kenya, had exposed highly sensitive information to a team of Meta contractors whose jobs are to help “train” the device’s AI to better identify and label various objects and situations. Among the images the contractors reported seeing were sensitive financial statements, whatever a user was looking at on computer monitors or television screens, nudity, and even sexual encounters.

As troubling as privacy issues with smart glasses are currently, the situation is set to worsen in the near future. On February 13, 2026, a New York Times report revealed that Meta planned to embed facial recognition technology into its smart glasses. If implemented, these glasses could identify anyone in their field of view in real time, raising serious privacy concerns.

A new problem for nudists

The privacy and surveillance issues surrounding the growing presence of smart glasses should concern all individuals. Private conversations in public spaces may no longer be so private. A nearby stranger may well be recording an individual’s credit card data, medical records, or other sensitive information with their eyewear.

All nudists should be aware that this emerging technology can not only illicitly photograph or record them while nude at resorts, beaches, or events but also instantly broadcast such images worldwide. If facial recognition is integrated, strangers could instantly access their name, phone number, home address, employer, and contacts. The person ogling others at the beach may leave with much more than just a mental image.

Meta’s partnership with EssilorLuxottica means the company now conceivably has access to over 80% of the world’s eyewear brands and retail optical chains. It is safe to assume that as the popularity of these devices grows, privacy may erode quickly.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has sent letters to the Federal Trade Commission, asking regulators to “act now to prevent this planned feature from being deployed in every bathroom, clinic, classroom, and house of worship” in the country, arguing that facial recognition technology poses a “grave risk to privacy, safety, and civil liberties and would cause widespread harm to the public.”

To confront this threat, apps are being developed that can potentially identify nearby smart glasses. One such app, Nearby Glasses, works by scanning the area for the device’s unique Bluetooth signals.

It is uncertain how effective these and similar apps might be, given the constantly evolving nature of technology and the growing popularity of smart glasses. However, they are one tool that individuals, especially managers of nudist resorts and event organizers, may use to identify those who have these devices on their properties. Policies and signage that prohibit smart glasses may effectively discourage guests with ill intentions at resorts. Unfortunately, privacy or anonymity in public spaces like beaches may now be a thing of the past. 🪐

More reading

The protest unfolded near the Louvre Museum during International Women’s Day, when large demonstrations took place across the French capital calling attention to gender inequality, violence against women, and labor rights. Amid the larger marches, the Femen action stood out for its theatrical staging and stark imagery.

Video and photographs from the scene show several activists appearing topless with slogans painted across their chests and backs. The demonstrators wore pig masks and staged brief choreographed poses aimed at condemning wealthy and politically connected men accused of enabling sexual exploitation networks. Some slogans referenced figures associated with the Epstein case, while others appeared to call for accountability from those linked to the scandal.

The protest lasted only a short time before police moved to disperse the activists, but images from the demonstration circulated widely online and through international media.

Femen has become known for this type of visually confrontational protest since the group formed in Ukraine in 2008. The organization describes its tactics as a form of “sextremism,” using the female body as a political symbol intended to confront patriarchal power structures and attract media attention. Over the years, the group has staged topless protests at churches, embassies, political rallies, and international events. France has served as one of the movement’s primary bases since several members relocated to Paris in the early 2010s, making the city a frequent stage for its demonstrations.

International Women’s Day has also become a recurring moment for the group’s activism. While the day typically features large marches organized by labor unions and feminist organizations, Femen’s smaller interventions often aim to produce striking images that circulate beyond the protest itself.

The use of nudity as protest remains a point of debate even within feminist circles. Supporters argue that reclaiming the naked body can transform it into a symbol of defiance and autonomy. Critics counter that the spectacle of nudity risks overshadowing the political message or reinforcing the media dynamics it seeks to challenge. Femen has continued to rely on the tactic nonetheless. The group’s demonstrations are typically brief and involve only a handful of activists, but the imagery often travels widely through news photography and social media.

That dynamic was on display again in Paris. Within hours of the demonstration, images of the topless activists wearing pig masks and displaying body-painted slogans had spread internationally, placing the protest — and the issues it sought to highlight — into the global conversation surrounding International Women’s Day. 🪐