Petition to designate portions of public lands for clothing optional use

Please, sign this petition! We're trying to reach 100,000 signatures by February 12th and it's an important cause. We would like for the Federal Government to designate portions of public land for clothing option use.

From the petition:

We, the undersigned call for the establishment of officially designated, properly signed, clothing-optional recreation areas within the national parks, forests and other federally managed public lands to allow fair and equitable access to users who enjoy outdoor clothing-optional recreation, modeled after the successful and popular Gunnison Beach clothing-optional recreation area that is part of the Sandy Hook unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area managed by the NPS.

To sign the petition, please follow this link. []

To learn more about this cause, visit


Note to Floridians who want to take action: You can find your local legislators by plugging in your address into this website... Remember you want your STATE representatives not your U.S. representatives

Copyright 2014 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible for
its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or
redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its
entirety and without alteration.

DATE : January 14, 2014
SUBJECT: Florida legislation
TO : Naturists and other concerned citizens

Dear Naturist,

This is an Action Alert from the Naturist Action Committee. NAC is asking for your immediate involvement to oppose House Bill 161, a Florida state legislative bill that would have a negative impact on clothing-optional users of public land in Florida. NAC has developed this Action Alert in close cooperation with South Florida Free Beaches, the stewards of Haulover Beach in Miami-Dade County.

1. Immediately e-mail or call members of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.
2. If you're near Tallahassee, attend the meeting of the Committee at which HB 161 will be considered. The meeting is scheduled for 12 NOON on Thursday, January 16, 2014, in room 404 of the House Office Building, 402 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. [MAP]

Entitled "Indecent Exposure," section 800.03 of the Florida Statutes addresses nudity, but it does so only in the context of lewd behavior. State court cases, notably Hoffman v. Carson (1971) and Goodmakers v. State (1984) have declared that absent lewdness, mere nudity is not a violation of 800.03, F.S.
Police officers and sheriff's deputies are familiar generally with the titles and substance of the laws they enforce, but they don't frequently carry with them a copy of a court ruling that may interpret or restrict a particular law. As a result, some law enforcement may be "per the book," while not being consistent with judicial holdings. That's especially true of 800.03. Unacceptable numbers of those who are merely nude are improperly charged each year under 800.03. Unfortunately, defending oneself from such improper charges can be expensive.
House Bill 161 seeks to authorize police to make warrantless arrests in cases involving 800.03, F.S. But allowing arrests to be made without warrants will not improve the accuracy of the arrests or address the misfires in which simple nudity is charged under a law that Florida courts have made clear is to be used for lewdness only. In fact, improper charges will likely increase.
Naturists recognize that 800.03 should not be applied to mere nudity. Some may find it awkward to be opposing "enhancements" to a law that should not be affecting us. The simple truth is that misapplication of the law affects us frequently. If 800.03 is made even easier to misapply, naturists MUST care.
NAC encourages you to e-mail or call the members of the subcommittee. Lawmakers gave minimal notice of the hearing for HB 161 in subcommittee. There is probably not enough time to rely on Postal Service mail to reach the subcommittee members.
NAC has compiled a complete list of subcommittee members, along with their phone numbers and instructions for contacting them online.

Find all that information at:

NAC encourages you to attend the meeting of the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee at which HB 161 will be considered.
WHEN : Thursday, January 16, 2014, 12 NOON - 3:00 PM EST
WHERE: Room 404 of the House Office Building
402 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 [MAP]
Eleven bills are being considered at this meeting. The order in which the measures are heard is at the discretion of the subcommittee chair and likely will not match the published numerical sequence. Members of the public are typically given an opportunity to make a very brief comment on the legislation being considered.

IF YOU INTEND TO SPEAK: You must fill out a form first. Paper forms will be available at the legislative committee meeting, or you may complete and print one online at: aspx?MeetingId=9683

NAC is requesting ALL NATURISTS and other concerned individuals to contact the members of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee on this important matter, regardless of your place of residence. Florida lawmakers understand the value of tourist dollars from out-of-state visitors who come to enjoy the state's beaches, lakes and streams. Providing diverse recreational opportunities for visitors, as well as for Florida residents, is important. While all are encouraged to make their voices heard, the participation of Floridians is, of course, particularly important.
Make a phone call or send an electronic message through each lawmaker's online text entry box.

NAC encourages you to send copies of your electronic communication to:

When you speak or write:
a) Be polite.
b) Be known. Give your name and address. If you are a Florida
resident or a frequent visitor to Florida, be sure to point
that out. Anonymous communications have very little impact.
c) Be focused. Keep your correspondence brief and on target.
d) Be clear. Say that you OPPOSE HOUSE BILL 161.
e) Request that the lawmaker VOTE AGAINST HB 161 in the subcommittee.
Additional talking / writing point:
1) Clothing-optional recreation is well supported by the public.
A public opinion survey on this topic was commissioned in 2006
by the Naturist Education Foundation and was conducted by the
prestigious Roper polling firm. In that national poll:
74 percent of Americans believe that people who enjoy nude
sunbathing should be able to do so without interference from
local officials as long as they do so at a beach that is
accepted for that purpose.
View details of the 2006 NEF Roper Poll: _poll_2006.html

Additional information and links are available, along with this NAC Action Alert on the web site of the Naturist Action Committee.
Use this convenient shortcut: Among the material on the NAC site, you'll find:
the complete text of House Bill 161
Text of related legislation
contact info for lawmakers on the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee
link to details of the 2006 NEF Roper Poll
link to the text of section 800.03 of the Florida Statutes
links to court opinions: Hoffman v. Carson and Goodmakers

The Naturist Action Committee is the volunteer nonprofit political adjunct to The Naturist Society. NAC exists to advance and protect the rights and interests of naturists throughout North America. Fighting for the clothing-optional recreational use of public land is expensive. To do its job, NAC relies entirely on the voluntary generosity of supporters like you.
After you've contacted lawmakers, please take a moment to send a donation to:
PO Box 132
Oshkosh, WI 54903
Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation:

Thank you for choosing to make a difference!


Bob Morton
Executive Director
Naturist Action Committee

The Importance of Screening for Breast Cancer

As part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Vita Nuda would like to remind all of our readers about the importance of regular breast cancer screening.

Breast cancer is the second most common form of cancer among women in the U.S., according to the Susan G. Komen foundation. In 2013, it is estimated that there will be over 200,000 new cases of breast cancer and close to 40,000 deaths resulting from breast cancer. Even for survivors, this disease can take a huge toll on people’s physical and psychological wellbeing. However, breast cancer treatments, like most cancer treatments, benefit from early detection which is why it’s important to screen regularly for breast cancer.

Breast cancer screenings should be done regularly by women over 40 and there are three options for screening. Self-massages can be done often and in the comfort and privacy of your own home. Clinical breast exams are another tool for finding unusual lumps and detect any cancer that may be forming. These techniques, however, are not as effective as mammograms. However, it is recommended that mammograms are performed once every three years, as they involve X-Ray radiation and can be dangerous in and of itself if done in excess. However, yearly mammograms or mammograms three times a year should be safe.

If you think it may not be in your budget, the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) requires that health insurers cover mammograms, with no cost to the recipient, every one to two years for women over 40. Medicare will completely pay for mammograms once every year with no upper age limits.

Also worth noting that breast cancer isn’t only found in women. Some men can get breast cancer as well. Typically, screening isn’t recommended for men because there is a low chance that men can get it. Men can be at higher risk, though, if they have inherited a gene mutation or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer. If that is the case, men should be screened at the same frequency as women.

Next time you see your doctor, talk to him or her to find out what kind of screening is appropriate for you or a family member.

The Right to Bare Breasts

By Jonathan Griffin

One of the things that make America great is its love its people have for fairness, freedom and equal rights. We’re all aware of what the Founding Fathers wrote about all men (this now includes women, too) being equal.

Rights for women in our society have certainly come a long way since the 18th and 19th centuries. Women can now vote and hold the same jobs as men.  Yet when it comes to going to the beach or to the pool, women are still required to cover their chests.

  "[...] the structure of a man’s chest and a woman’s breast is very similar. Both have breast tissue – albeit women’s usually much larger – the areola area, and the nipple."

"[...] the structure of a man’s chest and a woman’s breast is very similar. Both have breast tissue – albeit women’s usually much larger – the areola area, and the nipple."

When analyzed, this seems very odd. Modern day society has mainly used clothing in the name of public decency. The fear of exposure to genitals comes from genitals automatically being linked to sex. Breasts are lumped in the same category. This is strange, considering that breasts are used to feed and nourish children. Not only that, but the structure of a man’s chest and a woman’s breast is very similar. Both have breast tissue – albeit women’s usually much larger – the areola area, and the nipple.  So what sufficient reason is there to say a man can go top-free but a woman can’t?

If it’s not considered lewd for a man to go topless, it should be considered even less lewd for a woman to do so. For what are breasts, but badges of potential motherhood for women to comfort their babies so that they can better bond with their mothers!

But this beauty is lost in many states and communities, many choosing instead to see it as obscene. States such as North Carolina want to even go so far as to make a woman who exposes her breasts in public punished with a felony up to six months in prison for first time offenders. The thought of this is frightening, considering that a topless woman is almost looked at such a threat to classify it as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Yes, breasts, something used to feed children, are apparently looked at being obscene, like a heinous crime.

Aside from the puritanical roots of our culture, which have influenced this mode of thinking, modern society hasn’t helped much at all, either. The MPAA is notorious for being lenient with violence in movies, but not so much with skin. If a pair of breasts is shown on screen in a nonsexual situation the movie will still at least be slapped with a PG-13. Yet a man being shirtless can still retain a G. Again, it begs the question why should something that feeds and nourishes babies be considered so taboo? If it’s about sex, it’s not like a man’s chest can’t be looked at sexually by women, just as some men look at women’s chest sexually.

Ironically enough, while society is afraid of bare breasts they are not afraid of heavily sexualizing the breasts with skimpy swimwear. It’s considered okay for women to wear skimpy bikini tops, something that really draws attention to the breast and turns lustful heads toward them, but it’s not okay for a woman to bare breasts in their natural state. Skimpy bikini tops do far more to sexualize and degrade women in our society than any exposed pair of breasts could ever hope to do. Bikini tops are usually brightly colored with vibrant designs or neon colors, thus alluring male eyes to breasts in the process. This also creates an air of mystery.

   "Still, some communities have allowed for top-freedom. [In] New York City [...] women are allowed to walk down the streets topless. Very few do, but you get a few brave souls that want to advocate for freedom and equality"

 "Still, some communities have allowed for top-freedom. [In] New York City [...] women are allowed to walk down the streets topless. Very few do, but you get a few brave souls that want to advocate for freedom and equality"

Still, some communities have allowed for top-freedom. New York City is a case in point, in which women are allowed to walk down the streets topless. Very few do, but you get a few brave souls that want to advocate for freedom and equality; that or they just feel comfortable doing so.  

This freedom and equality is important for everyone. It’s important that we advocate it. Making breasts hidden and taboo does more damage to a society, causing young men – and older men for that matter – to see them as nothing more than lustful objects for their pleasure. This so-called trying to preserve a woman’s decency has done the exact opposite, making her indecent, something that shouldn’t be. They were what most of us drank from when we were children. They need to be seen in a healthy light. But this fear of them, this fear that they are inherently indecent when seen in public have warped a lot of minds, helping fuel pornographic desires and unhealthy fantasies of peoples’ mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters.

In the end, we can only hope that most cities will take New York’s lead, offering a more progressive way of life rather than a more restrictive one. We also have to educate people, proclaiming that women are not obscene without tops. In the end, this battle can be won for the betterment of peoples’ mental health.

Vita Nuda is honoring Pinktober!

October is here, and you know what that means? Yeah, yeah, Halloween, but more importantly, it's Breast Cancer Awareness month! We here at Vita Nuda feel an aweful lot of respect for the human body, and a big part of that is taking care of your body.

We'll be posting a series of blog posts about breasts, breast cancer prevention, and early detection!

Vita Nuda Orlando

Now launching... The Vita Nuda Blog!

Introducing the new Vita Nuda blog. In this blog we'll have editorials on topics important to young naturists and also post news about upcoming Vita Nuda events and events for other young naturist groups!

Make sure to check back to this blog to keep up with the latest nudist news and to see what's happening with Vita Nuda and youth naturism in general.

Vita Nuda Orlando