Nude Family swim at Stoke Waterworld

The benefits of naturism - freedom and choice are two.

We, as parents, recognised that our children enjoyed being clothes free - they had nappy/clothes free times as infants, often ran around after bath time without clothes, sometimes slept naked, and of course loved being naked on the beach. As I have previously mentioned, my husband and I were comfortable naked around the home too.

Around the age of three years old, I imagine, is the sort of age where on a clothed beach you’d let your child be naked but after that, the societal norm is probably that they’d wear clothes. And that is more for the comfort of others than the child themselves.

Discovering naturism where we could be as family, with families like ours, where we were happy to continue allowing them to be naked if they wished, particularly outdoors, or swimming, meant we could step outside the preconceived notions that after a certain age children ‘should’ be dressed.

That choice also extends to if a child just wants to wear a t shirt or just underwear, again were the norm in society is that they would wear ‘more’ than that.

Same for adults, we can wear sarongs, or a t shirt if it’s a bit chilly, but not have to go the whole hog and get fully dressed.

People on this thread have mentioned things like the benefits of seeing natural bodies, body positivity and they are also benefits. Seeing body confident people is another one - people with mastectomies, disabilities, operation scars, tattoos etc.

There’s many more and not one that is a singular thing, so it all contributes to our experience of naturism as a family...

Yes, I take the point that a DBS check will screen out convicted paedophiles.

But it's not typically needed in situations where children will usually only be present with their parents. For instance, shop workers are not DBS checked, yet clothes shops have changing rooms where children might be in a state of undress. If parents cannot safeguard their children by being present - again, that is a parenting issue, not a naturism issue.

As I said upthread, if you have a silently compliant child, unfortunately they will be at risk in many situations. Children being raised in an atmosphere of silent compliance is a parenting issue, not a naturism issue.

they do not need to be naked to enjoy themselves

Of course not - no one is saying nudity is an essential component of enjoyment. But whether nudity itself is enjoyable is a subjective matter. I'm not particularly interested in walking round naked, mainly because these days, I have to wear a bra 24/7 to be comfortable. But I do love a naked swim, where water buoyancy means painful saggy boobs are not an issue.

those leaders are DBS checked so a level of safeguarding has at least been attempting

DBS checking is of no use if the paedophile has never been convicted. And British Naturism has a safeguarding policy - most importantly children cannot attend events without being chaperoned by their parents - which is not the case with sports coaching, youth groups etc.

I can acknowledge that my child’s teacher or sports coach could potentially unfortunately be a pervert, so why can’t they reason that a paedophile could exist in a naturist club?

That is exactly the point I am making in defence of naturism. I can't speak for others, but I recognise that paedophiles may be found in any environment. And the evidence (previously linked) shows that, while paedophiles have occasionally been found within naturism, unfortunately they are far more common in environments where children are unchaperoned - and they are able to do far more damage in those environments because they have physical access to abuse children, in addition to voyeurism.

I don't understand why naturism is being vilified as a hotbed of paedophilia because there's no evidence at all that it is. All I am hearing is prurient speculation that a child free person in a naturist environment must be in want of wank-fodder.

1. Non-consent. I agree children shouldn't be forced to attend naturist events against their will. There have been examples on the thread of that happening and I agree it's wrong. However, if the children raise no objections, that isn't an issue.
I disagree that not raising objections is the same as consent. Silent compliance isn't consent. That's a dangerous road surely.

Assuming that silence, or even a lack of cognisance of their own rights or discomfort, is consent?...that it isn’t an issue? You clearly have no knowledge of how things like this affect children.

But this assumes there is something inherently wrong with nudity. There isn't - being clothed is merely a societal norm in the UK. There are situations when clothes are a practical necessity, but swimming isn't one of them. Discomfort at being naked is a learned response, as is titillation at the sight of the naked body (hence women's breasts, normally covered, are seen as erotic, but men's chests are not).

If a child is unable to speak up about things that they object to, or which make them uncomfortable, they will be at far more risk from grooming situations than they will from organised naturism - in other words, that points to a parenting failure, not an issue with naturism per se.

I’m sure most of them will be fine, if they’re used to it they’ll be oblivious, but their privacy and dignity is being denied without their consent. It goes against all the safeguarding advice they are given at school.

There are two separate issues here.

1. Non-consent. I agree children shouldn't be forced to attend naturist events against their will. There have been examples on the thread of that happening and I agree it's wrong. However, if the children raise no objections, that isn't an issue.

1. Safeguarding. Creating a hue and cry about a chaperoned and vetted naturist event is counterproductive - it distracts attention from where the real dangers lie - situations where children are unchaperoned by parents, or where parents are complicit in abuse.

A voyeuristic paedophile might turn up anywhere, and children do not need to be naked to be 'used' for voyeuristic purposes. It's wrong and it's sickening but unfortunately it's largely undetectable - I say 'unfortunately' but at least the children are spared the distressing knowledge of it in those instances.

Organised naturism events are not high-risk events for child abuse. I'm absolutely not suggesting this applies to anyone on this thread, but have you considered that the motives of people making it into a media sensation might not be entirely honourable? Misdirection leaps to mind.

Any paedophile, who is not on the police register, or radar, can just walk into the place, disrobe, and be around naked children.

Yes - they could also become a P.E. teacher, youth activity leader, nurse, doctor or simply a babysitter and achieve the same end.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51653184

So obviously no one under the age of 18 should be coached in football, in case a paedophile slips through the net.

He successfully joined a naturist group, before he was added to the register. And had been to Alton Towers, and this particular waterpark.

Again, it's about safeguarding.

Any paedophile, who is not on the police register, or radar, can just walk into the place, disrobe, and be around naked children.

No grooming required. They don't have to groom anyone for years to get close to their children. Just join a naturist group, take their clothes off, and be naked with children.

I mean what is there, actually, to stop them?

Genuine question, because I feel like I'm missing something here.

Can any naturist on here with children tell me? What are the checks and balances that are carried out with new members?

What is the criteria? How do they ensure safeguarding?

I can't help wondering whether the question should be about what naturist parents get out of having their children appear naked in front of naked adult strangers. Making a decision to go naked as an adult is one thing but deciding it's good for children to go naked in front of strangers is something else.

Here's the article linked to in the OP for the hard of reading which confirms that a convicted paedophile did join a naturist group and did go to Waterworld with them.

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4047602.convicted-brierfield-paedophile-member-naturist-club/

Despite being a convicted paedophile.

But as it’s a water play park, still plenty of opportunity to see children naked in a variety of inadvertent ‘active’ positions where their legs are akimbo. Plenty for the wank bank if you’re the wrong sort of person who ‘likes’ children.

And you imagine the wearing of a swimming costume would stop that happening?

Paedophiles can use the showers and toilets in swimming pools/leisure centres simply by paying on the gate.

A paedophile bought a ticket to this one-off event - and guess what, he's been identified, that's how come you're able to make that statement - because there are controls in place that probably aren't in place for 99% of the events and situations you'd happily place your children in.

Pelleas

It's a one off event, to which a known Paedophile bought a ticket!

They don't have to groom anyone. They just pay for a ticket.

I don't agree that because children will be abused anyway, we might as well create the perfect scenario for it.

It's far from the perfect scenario. Children are accompanied by their parents at all times. It's a one-off event, so there will be no opportunity for grooming.

The perfect scenarios are those where abusers are given unchaperoned access to children, over an extended period of time which allows grooming to take place.

Pelleas

If you can't see that curtailing children's lives to the point of damaging restriction, isn't the same as not promoting a situation where they are all naked amongst strange adults, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't agree that because children will be abused anyway, we might as well create the perfect scenario for it.