From our earliest civilizations until around 1850, people who wished to swim would find a secluded place at the edge of a natural body of water, like an ocean, lake, or river, and enjoy themselves. Naked.
They didn’t strip down and swim in their underwear, as so many later bathers did. Before the mid-nineteenth century, underclothes were so heavy, voluminous, and incredibly expensive to clean that a romp in the water was not worth the soggy consequences of the outfit being unable to be worn home or, worse, often ruined beyond repair.
It was not until the early twentieth century that appropriate swimwear began to be produced in volume, led by the Jantzen company in 1910. Also, by this time, newly-manufactured inexpensive underwear could easily survive a swim. Now, for the first time, nude outdoor bathing was regarded with disdain by upper and middle class society.
Instead, swimming enthusiasts could strip down to their low-priced “skivvies” or they could wear their swimsuits beneath their clothes and leave their outerwear folded neatly on the ground or on a bench as they frolicked in a stream or river. And with this advent of attractive swimwear, public and private swimming pools started to pop up everywhere.
It seemed that the cycle was complete, starting with early people privately swimming nude in nature, and developing into the full socialization of swimming, with appropriate garb and public pools, where people swam openly while enjoying the refreshing water and each other.
But perhaps there is something in our DNA that always harkens back to our primitive side. After about two generations of enjoying the more sophisticated pleasures of the swimming pool, by about 1950 there were those on the fringes of society — especially young people — who longed for a return to less socially acceptable fun.
First they were called “beatniks”, then “hippies”, then “flower children”. They had a common need to flout conventional mores and manners. Once public and private pools came into their sights as institutions ripe for undermining, they eagerly embraced a return to a more natural, uninhibited water romp than social swimming. Along with their “making love not war” and “socking it to The Establishment”, these counter-culture kids helped invent a new term for a very old custom which they brought back to life: “skinny-dipping”.
What a lovely term it is. The “skinny” part reminds us of how once there was nothing between swimmers and the water except their natural skin. And the “dipping” part did away with the very modern idea of swimming as a regimented exercise to improve oneself aerobically. Nobody dips in a pond to gain humble-bragging rights later.
Although the terms “beatnik” and “flower child” now are quite dated, the skinny-dipping they popularized is as “cool” an activity today as it was when it was first named seventy-five years ago. Perhaps one of the most lovely aspects of skinny-dipping is that it implies it is done only with a small, select group of close friends or family. In this age of anonymity behind home computers, where many can fool others by hiding behind grossly distorted identities, the notion of being naked with those you completely trust, all enjoying a cleansing relaxation in pure waters, can hold great appeal (even if it’s just a fantasy for those whose bodies are more in line with chunky-dunking!).
Of course, skinny-dipping has never appealed to all. Take the old farmer who headed to his pond, grabbing a five-gallon bucket full of fruit. As he neared the water, he heard teenage girls laughing, and discovered they were skinny-dipping. When they saw him approach, they scurried to the deeper end and told the farmer they wouldn’t come out until he’d left.
“I didn’t come here to see you ladies swim naked,” he shouted. Holding his bucket up, he continued: “I’m just here to feed the alligator.”