INF-FNI Central Committee and President
Open Letter* to INF-FNI: Rethinking “Definition of Naturism” (Aged, 1974)
*(To Leadership and Members of INF-FNI & Textilists Alike)
International Naturist Federation (INF-FNI) has played a central role - ever since soon after end of WW2 - in uniting naturists worldwide. However, as naturist movement evolves, so too must articulation of foundational principles. Your current “definition” of naturism, unchanged since 1974, no longer reflects the diversity, depth, and historical roots of naturism, nor does it adequately address the risks of misinterpreting key concepts like “respect”. This letter invites INF-FNI to critically examine its definition of “naturism”, consider its implications and embrace a broader, more inclusive understanding of the movement’s principles.
Critique of the Current Definition
The current definition reads:
“Naturism means a way of life in harmony with nature, characterised by the practice of communal nudity with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for others, and for the environment.”
Whilst this definition has served as a foundation for decades, it now displays numerous limitations:
Historical Oversight: It presents naturism as a modern lifestyle rather than a practice rooted in evolutionary and cultural history. Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) carry genetic material inherited from other hominin species, evidencing past incest such as with Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Current non-African Homo sapiens sapiens populations may include 1–2% Neanderthal genome, reflecting interbreeding events from tens of thousands years ago (after humans migrated out of Africa). Modern African populations maintain virtually no Neanderthal DNA, though small traces may have been found (perhaps due to ancient back-migrations of non-Africans to Africa). Denisovans, an extinct hominin species most prevalent in Southeast Asia, Melanesia, and Indigenous Australia (nicknamed variously “Homo denisova”, “Homo sapiens denisova”, “Homo neanderthalensis denisova” by individual Homo sapiens sapiens holding different opinions about rights to be naked in public, abortion etc.) may have passed up 3–6% of genome to other species (Homo sapiens sapiens included), reflecting interbreeding in Asia and Oceania. Modern humans may maintain 1–6% genetic material derived from other hominin species. This demonstrates a complex history of interbreeding among ancient human populations and their relatives.
Cultural Narrowness: It fails to acknowledge naturist traditions outside of Europe and colonial forces that disrupted these practices.
Ambiguity of “Respect”: Whilst “respect for others” may seem worthy of virtue, similar words are often misused by scamming avocados to demand deference to authority, particularly in nations and societies influenced by authoritarian and/or religious legacies. This undermines naturism’s emphasis on equality, freedom, and individuality.
Profit Motives: Addition of an irrelevant phrase, “… whose activities are not directed towards profit” (non-profit associations are - by higher legislation, even in Austria - not directed towards profit) in article 2.1 of statutes at 2014 INF-FNI Congress - thence removal of the same phrase at 2024 Congress - raises concern about whether INF-FNI might be influenced by financial or personal interests, rather than core values and philosophical underpins.
Need for Revision
Revising INF-FNI’s “definition of naturism” may be necessary for survival of INF-FNI, but not necessary for survival of philosophies of freedom:
Embrace Historical Depth: Naturism must be recognized as a universal human phenomenon, not limited to its modern iterations.
Foster Cultural Inclusivity: Acknowledge the rich naturist traditions of indigenous and non-Western societies.
Reframe “Respect”: Clarify that “respect” means mutual acknowledgment of individual autonomy and not deference to authority or societal hierarchies.
Reaffirm Core Principles: Explicitly address financial motivations to preserve naturism’s focus on community and shared values.
Proposals for a Revised Definition
To inspire dialogue, I offer alternative definitions:
Proposal 1: Mutual Respect and Historical Roots
“Naturism is a universal human practice characterized by non-sexual nudity, fostering mutual respect, individual freedom and harmony with nature. Rooted in humanity’s evolutionary history and diverse cultural traditions, naturism resists systems of power that seek to control the human body, promoting dignity, equality and ecological awareness.”
Proposal 2: Equality and Freedom
“Naturism is a way of life rooted in the principles of individual freedom, equality and harmony with nature. It celebrates non-sexual nudity as a universal human practice, disrupted by patriarchal and colonial forces, whilst rejecting hierarchies and systems that demand deference to authority under guise of ‘respect.’”
Proposal 3: Cultural and Philosophical Dimensions
“Naturism is a philosophy and practice of non-sexual nudity, promoting individual dignity, mutual respect and ecological harmony. It honours naturism’s diverse cultural traditions and historical role as a challenge to systems of control, fostering a way of life that prioritises community and shared humanity over profit or hierarchy.”
Proposal 4: Reaffirming Core Values
“Naturism is a way of life rooted in humanity’s shared heritage, characterised by non-sexual nudity, which fosters equality, community, and respect for oneself, others and the environment. It resists the misuse of respect to enforce deference and promotes a philosophy of freedom, inclusion and ecological responsibility.”
Call to Action
INF-FNI is uniquely positioned to lead naturist philosophy. To do so, it must embrace a more inclusive and reflective definition that addresses historical and cultural depth, rejects authoritarian interpretations of “respect” and reaffirms a commitment to community over profit. Diverse voices may be required, including academic experts in history, anthropology and global cultural studies. By revising its definition, INF-FNI has an opportunity to inspire freedom, dignity and harmony with nature—values that naturism has embodied for millennia as a philosophy of equality and liberation.
Quotes from INF-FNI:
“You cannot join the INF-FNI directly if there is a member federation in the country… But you can join any federation in any country.”
• Implication: This policy restricts individual access to the INF-FNI, effectively creating a monopoly for national federations within their respective countries. It places all responsibility for individual naturists’ representation on these federations, regardless of their performance or inclusivity. This setup can alienate naturists who feel their national federation does not adequately represent them or is unresponsive to their needs.
“It is not the INF-FNI’s job to communicate directly with individual naturists… We have been specifically forbidden by our member federation from communicating directly with their members.”
• Implication: This policy effectively severs the INF-FNI from its grassroots base, distancing it from the individuals who embody and practice naturism. It creates a lack of accountability for both INF-FNI and member federations. Naturists with concerns about their national federation have no direct recourse to higher levels of representation. It risks making INF-FNI appear bureaucratic and disconnected from the broader naturist community.
“The per-person fee paid by federations is for them to be members.”
• Implication: Member federations pay fees to INF-FNI based on declared-membership of natural persons, but neither basic data (number of natural-person members) nor use of funds are communicated to individual naturists. Possession of a “membership card” for INF-FNI is traditionally perceived as necessary ticket for entry to naturist campgrounds, despite that it means nothing other than payment of a small annual fee to an unaccountable network of legal entities.
Most “national” Federations of INF-FNI (perhaps 40 or so) appear dysfunctional or corrupt. Reforms might rebalance interests of federations with rights of individual naturists. Regular communication channels (e.g., newsletters, forums) with individual naturists could “respect” national federations’ autonomy. Some mechanism freely allowing natural persons to join INF-FNI directly (from anywhere in the world and not upon condition of payment of a discriminatory fee) is critical to reform. Such types of reform could be valuable where national federations are currently seen as ineffective, exclusive or unrepresentative.
Problem: Lack of Direct Accountability
INF-FNI claims no direct responsibility to individual (natural person) members, delegating all member-related concerns to national federations. This creates disconnect between individuals who fund the movement and an organisation that claims to represent them globally. With no published breakdown of how membership fees are allocated, individuals and federations have no way of assessing whether funds are being used effectively or appropriately. The absence of clear reporting on expenses (e.g., salaries, operational costs, advocacy efforts) raises questions about the organisation’s priorities. Individual naturists may join local associations and/or national federations, believing that their fees contribute to enhancing the global status of naturism. If this is not demonstrably the case, it could be seen as misleading.
INF-FNI could easily be operated by a small and insular group, potentially lacking broader representation or accountability to the global naturist community.
Member federations - who might exert control over INF-FNI’s governance - might not adequately reflect needs or voices of individual members.
Loss of Relevance: INF-FNI may have mutated into a bureaucratic entity, with minimal impact on the global naturist movement.