Bear vs bare

Confronting the reality of women's safety in naturism

“Meltdown” Christy Schwathe (2016 oil)

Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear? 

Overwhelmingly, women have chosen the bear in this thought experiment across social media. It’s not a setup to say men are bad, but given that there’s no way to know who’s dangerous until it’s too late, women have to play the odds and assume all men are dangerous based on either personal experience or what has become normalized in society.

• “If the bear attacks me, no one will ask what I”m wearing”

• “If I survive the bear attack, I won’t have to see the bear at family reunions.”

• “A bear wouldn’t film it and send it to all his friends.”

• “If I scream loud enough, there’s a better chance that the bear would run away.”

• “No one will say I liked the bear attack.”

• “The worst the bear can do is kill me.”

• “The bear sees me as a human being.”

Sobering. Painful. Realistic.

Not all bares

I’ve previously touched on safety in naturism for women when writing for Planet Nude. It’s a difficult subject to approach for several reasons. One is that the implication in speaking about safety for women is that men are dangerous, and that can cause backlash and be internalized by some men as standing judgments about me (as the writer) and about women in general. I am resistant to offering proof points about my friendships with men because that feeds the discourse. The discourse on social media has offered up a phrase that “‘Not all men’ is not the point,” which feels apt. This subject is just as critical and much a part of the environment as is legislation, waning/waxing of participation in naturism, and countless others. It’s a subject, not an opinion. It’s a fact, not a solicitation of rebuttals.

The other aspect that makes it difficult to approach is that the subject of women in naturism seems to have already been set to be about women’s fear of sexual objectification and low self-esteem surrounding our bodies, in addition to the majority of images about families in naturism featuring women. It’s as if there is a narrative that women are filled with negative messages that we, as naturists, need to persuade them are untrue and will be healed/changed if they become naturists as opposed to an acknowledgment of the existence of these. 

To borrow a popular term, it feels like gaslighting and this is happening prolifically already. Just these past weeks, seeing the video of Sean Combs brutally assaulting Cassie Ventura accompanied by prevaricating headlines such as “Sean “Diddy” Combs reacts to viral video of him allegedly beating Cassie”, “ ‘Gut-wrenching’ video allegedly shows Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs beating ex-girlfriend” and “Video appears to show Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs assault singer Cassie in 2016” convinces me that if it were a bear attacking a woman, no such ambiguity would occur. Fear of sexual objectification and danger is not an ambiguous belief that lives in women’s minds. It’s a reflection of reality. And it is spawned by the same cultural and social groups that shame bodies, both women’s and men’s. The issue isn’t women’s fear or mindset—it’s the same issue that makes women want to choose the bear, it’s the need to play the odds because of what’s been normalized in society.

We talk far less about that than we do about sexuality in naturism. Why?

How much change can you bear? 

I really enjoy the conversations here at Planet Nude, on other substacks, as well as in-person conversations I’ve had with naturists. A lot of these conversations have been with men, of course, many of whom are open, conscientious, seeking to grow, etc. I’ve thrown my head back and laughed a couple of times when I’ve read the equivalent of “Well, we’ve messed things up plenty, we should just let the women lead, they’d do better jobs.” Personally, I don’t think anyone has messed things up individually. There’s been a lot of effort and caring that goes above and beyond what’s expected. Yet, we still have a mindset that functions with the belief that we are different from the textile world but with all of the adopted systems from the outside world, as if those systems are neatly separated from the practices and won’t encroach on individuals who are disadvantaged by the system practice.

For example—many naturist organizations have elected positions of president, vice president, secretary, etc. The election process and the power contained within those positions mimic the textile political system, whose foundation is based on men in power, aka patriarchy. When women gather naturally, that kind of system doesn’t exist. Women occupy positions based on natural talents—someone who organizes, maybe another person organizes food, another helps with rides, etc. The support of each other within the organization is implicit. In fact, past matriarchies are not the inverse of patriarchy but are instead egalitarian. Why does the elected structure of the textile world step into the naturist world, and what does that mean for everyone?

Another example—there are various women-only groups (mentioned in various articles here) that are conduits for women experiencing their bodies without clothes, similar to naturism. Yet, how many naturist organizations make space for women-only areas? I have heard and considered the position that since respect is a core ethic of naturism, both genders should be able to be socially nude together without repercussions; I respect the philosophy and idealism behind it; yet, I also reject it as not being reality-based and taking into consideration both the trends that are being seen outside of naturism (while the inside conversation is about how we increase numbers) as well as the reality that in the world outside of naturism, the bear is perceived as the safer choice. 

If 1 in 3 men were being attacked by bears, you would say we’d have a bear problem. How much would you change to fix that? 🪐

A large figurine from Bavaria from the family factory Hutschenreuther, designed by artist Karl Tutter, depicting a forest nymph dancing with two bears. 1930s and 40s.