Bella’s discussion considers the ‘cold climate’, both of temperature and temperament, that the hardy Brits of the early and mid-twentieth century had to brave. We learn that the early ‘Gymnosophists’ in the 1920s were publishing their beliefs under the rallying cry “our clothes lie behind us,” keen for others to understand that taking clothes off socially “offered physical moral and spiritual comfort to all.” Countercultural expressions by free thinkers and health enthusiasts encountered hostilities from a public for whom even sunbathing was a new and subversive practice.
Early magazines insisted that nudism was wholly separate from sex, emphasising the “profound healing powers” of nudism in publications such as the 1933 journal Gymnos, subtitled “for nudists who think.” However, readers, Bella notes, were bringing different perspectives, and the response by magazines was greater emphasis on posed female model bodies. The intention was (at least in part) the promotion of values of youth and health and the ideal body. Yet fitness, ideals and bodies selected for viewing were informed by eugenic thinking. What emerged were increasingly large numbers of pages where images of slim young white women accompanied every text no matter what aspect of health and well-being were under discussion – warts, body-odour and all.
There were unsurprisingly many more readers of naturist magazines than practising naturists. Bella takes us through the clash of cultures as ambitious photographers piggy-backed the naturist agenda in a battle for greater freedoms. The obscenity laws insisted that genitals and pubic hair were not shown, and in a crusade for full appreciation of “perfect womanhood”, photographers like Roye developed campaigns to test the limits of the censor. Notably the model bodies he selected were professional showgirls rather than stalwart gymnosophists, and so nude models illustrated a movement in which they played no meaningful part.