One of the “Weird News” stories going around yesterday was this one from the Leopold Museum in Austria, Nude Museum: Austria’s Leopold Lets Visitors Enjoy Without Clothes.
It was part of their current exhibit, “Nude Men from 1800 to Today”.
But there was something just not quite right . . .
It was kind of an interesting concept. The museum had this display of art featuring nude men, and folks thought, gee, with all the art naked, we ought to be able to see the art while being naked ourselves. So the museum did a special after-hours showing—with “nude” patrons.
You’ll see why I put “nude” in quotes.
Notice anything?
Here’s how that story starts:
These museum goers didn’t just leave their coats at the coat check. They handed over their shirts, trousers and underwear.
Everything, in fact, except their shoes and socks.
Let me remind them.
Nude:
1. Having no clothing; naked.
2. Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body
[From the The Free Online Dictionary.]
Or this.
Naked:
1. Having no clothing on the body; nude.
[Also from the The Free Online Dictionary.]
Those visitors are not nude.
Did the museum require them to clothe their feet? It doesn’t look like it, since there is one patron in that picture who does know what “nude” means (third from the left).
What the heck are they all doing wearing shoes? It’s not as if the museum isn’t warm enough (!). It’s not as if the floor there is covered in upright tacks. No, these people (and it seems, most nudists in general) somehow think that if their dangly bits are uncovered, then they are nude. They’ve managed to free their minds of the convention of covering the genitals, but are locked down on freeing their feet.
You’ll see this at nudist resorts too, for some unfathomable reason. Sometimes one can come up with a possible reason; the resorts are often a bit rustic, with gravel paths. In that case I can understand footwear (but not understand why the resort is using gravel for people who are supposed to be nude, not just dangly-bit nude.)
The thing is, a nudist will often extol the virtues of feeling the sun and wind on their skin. So why would they put up with the horrible stinky, sweaty restrictions of shoes.
Well, at least the artists know what the word “nude” means. All the exhibits themselves (as far as I can tell) demonstrate that “nude” includes “barefoot”, as in this sculpture.
(Though this one, “Youth from the Magdalensberg — 16th century copy from a roman original” seems to have trouble with the concept of “from 1800 to today”. 🙂 )
This is like the “barefoot shoes” thing all over again. Minimal shoes are not “barefoot”; you are not “nude” when wearing shoes of any kind.
I wish they would get it right.
(Sound of hair splitting…) (Sound of yawns…) Suggest you stick to feet; you’re out of your field! 😉
That is one thing I have never understood either, why nudists where footwear. I guess no matter how open-minded or free a person may seem on clothing, it doesn’t relate to the feet.
Out of my field? Hmmm. Turns out I’ve been a NAC Area Representative for something like 20 years, and have had a hand in defeating a fair number of anti-nudity bills.
Atta boy Bob! Thanks for your NAC service. I’ve often been perplexed by this too, both as an avid barefooter and a recreational nudist. From the above photo I can only hypothesize two things 1) they are trying to make some kind of statement and forgot to tell that one guy; 2) they have been led to believe throughout their entire lives that their feet are deficient and require shoes to function. I’d say the latter is more likely. I’ve seen this alot and frankly I have a hard time understanding it. When I am nude, I want to be fully nude meaning no shirt, no shoes, no gloves, none of that unless there is some functional purpose (like a hat to shield a bald head or gloves to pull poison ivy).
John, great point. I’ve said here before that shoes are tools, which sounds exactly like your hat and gloves.
NAC? Then it’s doubly sad that your fixation with feet leads you to a way to divide naturists into categories of ‘real’ (like yourself) and ‘fake’ (those with tender/cold feet) over something as silly as shoes. Some would say that such intolerance is an indication that someone doesn’t understand naturism after all.
.
Some would also say that elitism isn’t all that unusual coming from the direction of TNS in general…
.
I’ll not debate the non-issue here; you’re entitled to your opinion and hopefully not too many folks will be put off of naturism by such a silly attitude.
.
Dividing naturists? Wow.
Yeah, they look more like exhibitionists rather than naturists.
But I think that the reason may be hygienic. I think most of them were wearing shoes outdoors (still, it’s winter), so if they had been barefoot in the museum, their feet would have become dirty and they would have had to wash their feet before putting their shoes on or just put their dirty feet in the shoes (which doesn’t look like a good idea). At least, once I heard this kind of reasoning from a shod nudist.
It would be interesting to know what is the real distribution of different reasons.
@all-nudists.com, Bob and many others have frequently pointed out that when a news article says someone is “naked”, they are often still wearing underwear, or even full pants. Mainstream news will even call a woman wearing a bra and long pants “naked”! I’ve read this blog for years, and if you had too, you would know he is not a foot-fetish guy. I read your articles too, but I’m sorely disapointed in the way you’ve attacked this article. That’s fine if you think it splitting hairs, but the tone you used is ver condescending.
Logan – Condescending? In response to nonsense like, “most nudists… somehow think that if their dangly bits are uncovered, then they are nude”?
.
Really? Do we see a lot of ‘nudists’ walking around camp dressed but with their fly open? Maybe in Castro, but not around real nudists!
When one makes a foolish remark they should expect to be called on it, no? Was it not intended to be questioned?
.
Our response was the same as it would have been to anyone we come across making misleading or false statements about nudists/naturists. That statement was just a small, unnecessary put-down of nearly every nudist/naturist in the world by implying that wearing shoes somehow means they have failed to understand the freedom that nudism/naturism provides. Talk about condescending!
@All-Nudist:
For somebody claiming “I’ll not debate the non-issue here”, you sure are devoting a lot of attention to doing exactly that, and a lot of that pretty snide (and wrong).
All I was really doing here, using the museum as a kick-off point, was highlighting how much people buy into the idea that shoes are necessary when they are not. Even nudists, who have shown the willingness and ability to question and defy convention, cannot seem to break out of that mindset, as the photo demonstrated.
That museum is probably one of the most benign environments possible for going barefooted (they even turned up their thermostat for the evening). About the only thing more they could have done was carpeted the place. And yet, only one of the sixteen people in that photo thought to remove their shoes along with everything else. They were trapped, just like non-nudists, by their unexamined assumptions.
Don’t forget, reading comprehension is your friend.
(And c’mon, “dangly bits” is funny! And here I thought I might get criticized for not including women as nudists.)
I am naked under my clothes. It’s not like in the act of putting on clothes that my body disappears or is subsumed by the clothing. I still have feet even when I wear shoes, too. I’m guessing that this has something to do with definitions and the human tendency to categorize.
On a similar note, anyone who remembers 1974 knows that one of the biggest fads of the year was streaking – and the hit song by Ray Stevens “The Streak”. Part of the song says:
“Oh yes, they call him the streak
He likes to turn the other cheek
He’s always making the news
Wearin’ just his tennis shoes
Guess you could call him unique…”
Here it is during the barefoot era, when many college students were going barefoot everywhere, to classes, shopping and such, but usually wore sneakers when streaking. Quite ironic. Even the t-shirts of the day that said “keep on streakin'” showed a cartoon of 2 nude guys running, but wearing sneakers.
All I can say is that I consider myself a nudist and I prefer to wear socks when I’m inside, Even at home.
Sorry Mr. Nudist, if your wearing sneakers, your not nude. It underscores the inexplicable shoe fixation that is so prevalent in the Western world, even among those who prefer to “bare all”.
Funny thing about habits, people don’t know they have them…
If I’m nude I won’t wear shoes, but would I still be nude if I wear my eyeglasses? (I’m only moderately short-sighted so might well do without …)
In my role as Grand High Poobah for Determining True Nudity, I hereby declare that eyeglasses are not “clothing” (neither are rings or other jewelry), and hence those wearing them are still officially “nude”.
Another idea came to my mind: It seems that for some people the feet, for some strange reason, fall into a totally different category than the rest of the body when it comes to covering them or not. So in their minds you are nude whether or not you wear something on your feet, just as by just going barefoot you wouldn’t be any closer to nudity. One could see that as “Feet are not a part of myself” – disassociation from one’s feet. You don’t see them anyway if you wear shoes all day long.
I don’t share that view, I’m myself from head to toes and I try my best to give each part of the body the care, love and attention that it needs and deserves!
incu,
You have a point. E.g. in Russian the words одежда и обувь (clothes and footwear) are often used together as a complementary pair. There is also the expression “одет и обут” (“clad and shod”, meaning a certain degree of minimal material well-being). So probably “without clothes” would not mean “without footwear”. These are distinct entities.
My idea of “nude” is “barefoot up to my neck”. I accept Bob’s strict definition of “barefoot”, and “barefoot shoes” is an obvious oxymoron in my mind. For me, “naked” is more related to “exposed” or “vulnerable”, and I can be naked without regard to the garments I’m wearing, depending on the situation. I wouldn’t consider myself completely nude if I were wearing shoes and socks, but I would probably consider myself naked.
Thanks a lot for your intelligent comment. You should all take a look on this thread where I left a comment; Try to read the other comments. It seems to be the case that even devoted “nudists” are abosolutely chocked about the idea of being barefoot:
Here is the thread:
http://askanudist.com/2012/01/22/if-you-are-wearing-no-clothing-or-material-on-your-body-except-for-a-pair-of-shoes-are-you-still-naked/
Reblogged this on home clothes free.
This is bull. try going barefoot at Shangrila, AZ, or over in Grapevine, TX area, or even Turtle Lake MI, you wouldn’t last a day. I have been to all 3 more than once.This is BS. It may be your your opinion, but I doubt you are a true nudist, no matter how much you fight for it, a true nudist knows when to wear sandals and knows when not to wear them. Your post is meaningless dribble.
I’ve been to Turtle Lake. Was barefoot the whole time. And I just returned from a hiking trip where I barefoot hiked the Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, and Chaco Canyon. So maybe you’re the one producing meaningless (and ignorant) dribble.
Oh, and of course inside the museum is a perfectly safe place to go barefoot—which was the whole point of the blog entry.
One reason that I sometimes keep my footwear on is that I suffer occasionally from Athlete’s Foot, (I know: Eeeuugh T.M.I.!) which can be passed on by walking in the footsteps of an infected person. In a situation like this I would prefer not to take the risk…
Athlete’s foot is almost entirely a shod disease. It is pretty much unknown among barefoot populations. The fungi need a dark, warm, moist environment to thrive—like the inside of the shoe.
Going barefoot as much as possible has a good chance of banishing it.
Man, this is fun. I guess All-Nudist isn’t really All-Nudist, lol.
But yes, it seems staggering and amazing that even when someone sees clothes as unnatural and wants to go about without, that doesn’t seem to apply to their feet. Of course, as we have seen, we still get those same assumptions from feet as always and that is why they do it. Are you truly naked if you cannot feel the ground under your feet? Well, how could you be!?
john d, the thing that causes and exasperates athlete’s foot really is shoes. After all, doesn’t everyone know that what fungus really loves is warmth and damp? There’s a reason you only tend to get it between your toes and legs – warm soft sweaty skin from being constricted, wrapped up, and protected.
Of all the things I thought a nudest, by definition, ought to appreciate!
I always find this disturbing as well. The sanity argument is the most disturbing since feet are self cleaning when continously exposed to air, sunlight and the act of walking barefoot’s exfoliation, but shod feet become nasscient cess pools of toxic filth incredibly quickly….and in general if your feet are “dirty” you wash them before doing something that needs to be clean… For them to not was their feet after being in a musuem or lockeroom is akin to touching every toliet handle and door knob and then not washing your hands, i mean sure some people dont wash their hands, but come on thats terrible logic. Just wash your feet if you think they are dirty, it takes LESS time than washing your hands(AND WASHES your hands at the same time) and you can do it at any sink you could comfortably wash your hands at. (From a naturist/nudist point of view since the lifestyle offers great body flexibility and control/balancing stability/etc)