An article in the Guardian in 2022 reported that around 14% of the UK population – that is around 7 million people – describe themselves as nudists or naturists. If you compare that to some more visible demographic groups, such as there being around 7 million people who cycle regularly (2021), 5 million 18-24 year olds (2021), and 4 million Muslims (2021 census), you can see that nudism and naturism are a lot more common and regularly practised than we are led to believe.

To put that into perspective, if you are a naturist and work with around 13-14 other people it is statistically likely that there will be at least one other naturist in your group. When you go shopping you will no doubt encounter several without knowing it, and in any concert, football match, event, or performance you attend that has an audience something like one in every seven people around you will routinely or occasionally get naked in a social setting.

So why are naturists and nudists so completely ignored by the media? With statistics like that there should be at least one naturist in every TV show we watch (even if they never actually get naked on screen), and when nude beaches or clubs are mentioned at all they should not be there just for the amusement factor. Nudism, naturism, and other non-sexual nudity should be referenced at least as often as other demographic sub-groups of a similar size, and yet… there is nothing.

We should be trying to do something to rectify this. And the key to getting more representative nakedness in our media is to get advertisers on board.

Media content, whether we are talking about television, radio, print, online, or anything else is paid for by its investors and sponsors. In the case of television a lot of this comes from advertising revenue raised from companies that either sponsor the programme directly or who pay for advertising to be broadcast during the show. Advertisers will only sponsor or advertise in a show if it matches their brand, or they feel that the show itself has such a limited audience that any associations will not become mainstream. Advertisers are risk-averse and as such will avoid anything they think might be controversial, and so programme makers avoid making content that might scare them away.

Some high profile shows would seem to buck this trend, with True Blood, Westworld, and Game of Thrones all showing extensive nudity from the outset. But these shows were largely investment funded and were deliberately trying to be edgy to gain audience. As later series were produced and they became more reliant on advertising revenue the nudity reduced and they became ‘safer’, and some places that are still showing the early seasons now only broadcast edited versions of the shows to reduce the nudity content. You have to go looking if you want to find the naked people! And then away from the high-budget productions you get to the more everyday television shows and there is no nudity at all, even when it is completely illogical for the characters to remain dressed.

The only exception to this are the deliberately edgy shows such as Naked Attraction, Dating Naked, and the annoyingly pixellated Naked and Afraid. These would be a good place to start with getting nudity more visible, but they are all transmitted late at night, and fall into the non-mainstream category for advertisers. It also helps that they cost about £4.50 per episode to make (compared to something like Westworld), so advertising revenue is not as critical.

But if nudity is legal almost everywhere (in the UK), and one in seven people claim to be naturists, why are advertisers so shy of it?

Being openly gay was decriminalised in 1967, but despite there being three television channels by then showing a range of drama and magazine shows, it was some time before the first portrayal of a gay couple on any TV show (potentially 1985-1987 on Eastenders). And even then it was not until 1994 that Ikea became the first company to have an openly gay couple in their TV advert. The reasons behind that can be argued extensively, but it is clear that despite being legal it was still socially stigmatised for most of that time. It is estimated that around 4% of the population identified as gay in 2022 and there is no reason to assume that this was any different in the early 1970s, so around 2.25 million people were probably gay back then. That is 2.25 million people who were looking for identification and acceptance in the media, and it took nearly 20 years for that to come in TV drama, and a further 7 years for one advertiser to say “being associated with gay people will not hurt our brand”.

Advertisers are slow. As I already mentioned, they are risk averse and err on the side of “safety” when promoting their brands. So how do we get around that? And why should we try?

It is probably impossible to say which came first – the media acceptance of gay couples or the beginning of the reduction in social stigma although it is likely that it was a positive feedback loop, with some influence in both directions driving the change. We are still not quite there yet and continued use of “gay” as a slur shows there is still work to do. But there is no doubt that being gay is pretty much routine these days whilst in the 70s you would be mocked and ridiculed if you did anything “visibly gay” at work or in the pub.

With regard to nudity, I feel that we are in the equivalent position that gayness found itself in during the late 70s or early 80s. It is legal, a lot of people do it, but socially it is still seen as something funny, weird, or potentially threatening (you remember “that gay teacher will make my kid gay!”?). So we need to shift perception.

Changing the attitudes of a significant percentage of the population by showing them facts and reasoned arguments is an uphill struggle (just look at how well that worked in the run up to the 2016 referendum), and people will always double down on their entrenched views. So whilst explaining to people that nudity isn’t sexual, that it is good for you physically as well as mentally, and that more casual public nudity is likely to lead to fewer sexual crimes rather than more might win a few people over, but the rest won’t care.

No, what is needed is a shift in media portrayal (and a corresponding change in how complaints are handled by TV regulators), and that will be driven by advertisers looking for space in nude-friendly programming. Some brands such as beauty products will never embrace the naturist spirit because it goes against their interests, but for many it makes no difference whether their audience are nude or clothed. And those are the ones we can target.

So maybe it is time to start contacting brands and asking if they have any plans to market “nudist-friendly” versions of their products or if they are aware that 14% of the UK population might find itself unrepresented. Then contact production companies and explain that 14% of the population find the use of “nudist” as a punchline to be unhelpful, and could they start representing us properly please?

Narratives can change, but only if given a push.