New nude laws out

[simonsebs]

New nude laws out (http://www.mosmandaily.com.au/article/2008/01/09/1600_news.html)

I found this and thought I'd share.

[Bushnud2]

Great story Sebs. From Down Under via Texas and back to Down Under!
I missed that one! Thanks.

[Pete Knight]

At last, police who are able to distinguish between nudity and sexual behaviour, here in the Untied Kingdom we have too many stories of ALL naked people being rounded up because the odd few decide to spoil it by overstepping the line.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

This is just the sort of law we need here in the UK.


Nudists know where they can enjoy their chosen passtime without fear of being bothered by the authorities
The rest of us can go about our business confident that we won't encounter nudity
The police know what they are supposed to do and where.Everyone is happy!

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

Misinformation, big time:

>> Police say they will prosecute people who carry out offensive, obscene or indecent behaviour in the area.

and hence...

>> NUDISTS at Middle Head are being warned if they undress outside the legal and designated areas

These are two totally different things, stu... To stop obscene and indecent behaviour (read w#nkers) you don't need to send the nudist behind the fence. These are two totally different things.

This is yet again a display of the problem that a few looser-idiots mess it up for the rest. The side-effect is a reinforcement that nudism/nude beaches are a gathering place for perverts. All the police does is to send the offenders back into the nude area. Do you think that the indecent behaviour stops just because of that?! (at our local beach group we have done just the opposite, chase the w#nkers out of the nude area into the public "textile" areas - then it is what it really is: a community problem rather than a nudist problem, because these people aren't nudists at all)

Even here on CFF there have been posts recently that say something like "hey, if we are among consenting adults and we're discreet what the heck, let us be" (it was about sexually oriented PM's but in essence it is all the same). In that sense, Pete, your answers are rather contradictory.

[Pete Knight]

Misinformation, big time:

>> Police say they will prosecute people who carry out offensive, obscene or indecent behaviour in the area.

and hence...

>> NUDISTS at Middle Head are being warned if they undress outside the legal and designated areas

These are two totally different things, stu... To stop obscene and indecent behaviour (read w#nkers) you don't need to send the nudist behind the fence. These are two totally different things.

This is yet again a display of the problem that a few looser-idiots mess it up for the rest. The side-effect is a reinforcement that nudism/nude beaches are a gathering place for perverts. All the police does is to send the offenders back into the nude area. Do you think that the indecent behaviour stops just because of that?! (at our local beach group we have done just the opposite, chase the w#nkers out of the nude area into the public "textile" areas - then it is what it really is: a community problem rather than a nudist problem, because these people aren't nudists at all)

Even here on CFF there have been posts recently that say something like "hey, if we are among consenting adults and we're discreet what the heck, let us be" (it was about sexually oriented PM's but in essence it is all the same). In that sense, Pete, your answers are rather contradictory.
Not at all, read my indignant post on that thread, there is a world of a difference between unsolicited sexual advances and intimate messages between consenting adults, look up the word 'consent' in the dictionary. Your use of the word sexual changed the meaning of my post, I never suggested unsolicited messages of a sexual nature, read all my posts properly.

Other than the unjustified personal attack on me I agree with your post wholeheartedly.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but what is the problem here?

NUDISTS at Middle Head are being warned if they undress outside the legal and designated areas at Obelisk and Cobblers Beach they will face the full force of the law.

OK - so nudists have "legal and designated areas" at two beaches. They presumably know where they are so why should they undress outside of them?

Area manager Marg Bailey said the signs were part of a management plan for Middle Head to address concerns about indecent behaviour in the bush surrounding the beaches.

Hopefully now the police will be able to protect genuine nudists from people behaving improperly in the bush etc.

I would have thought nudists would be unanimous in applauding this.

Stu

[Dario Western]

Hi Stu,

I agree that there should be something done to protect nudists from inappropriate behaviour happening on the beaches in their presence. However, no amount of law enforcement or police action is ever going to stop some people from behaving in a sexual manner on nudist beaches.

My solution would be to turn the present nude beaches in Australia into Hippie Hollows which can be signposted that patrons may encounter sexual behaviour, forbid children from attending, and charge a day fee of about $5 to use the beach. I'm saying this because after returning from a holiday in Sydney and Coffs Harbour, I found the nude beaches to be hard to get to and out of the way from everything and everyone else.

I'd like the councils to allow genuine nudists to co-exist with textiles on main beaches and leave the nymphos to have their own fun on the remote beaches like Obelisk and King's Beach.

[Stu2630]

Hi Dario

I'd like the councils to allow genuine nudists to co-exist with textiles on main beaches and leave the nymphos to have their own fun on the remote beaches like Obelisk and King's Beach.

Speaking as a textile, I have no more wish to co-exist with nudists on the same beaches any more than you have to co-exist with "nymphos". So that's not a solution.

If you want beaches which are not so "hard to get to and out of the way from everything and everyone else", then you should have them. But those beaches should be properly segregated from the rest of us by some physical barrier (or distance) and clearly demarcated with warning signs.

Stu

[boatsteve]

Hi Dario



Speaking as a textile, I have no more wish to co-exist with nudists on the same beaches any more than you have to co-exist with "nymphos". So that's not a solution.

Your views are not that of your average textile. There are many clothing optional beaches throughout Europe that have nudists co-existing with textiles without complaints.

If you want beaches which are not so "hard to get to and out of the way from everything and everyone else", then you should have them. But those beaches should be properly segregated from the rest of us by some physical barrier (or distance) and clearly demarcated with warning signs.


Actually, no they should not, because you can't give a decent reason for it being that way.

Stu, do you ever have a new argument to bring to the table? You sound like a broken record. I bet I could find at least 5 posts from you in the past that said the same thing.

[Bob S.]

I am not understanding how adding signage designating a nude beach will stop indecent behaviour from happening. It is like putting up a speed limit sign to stop tailgating. We are talking about two different things altogether.

The way to stop indecent behaviour on nude beaches is to treat them exactly the same as textile beaches with similar money spent for patrols or lifeguards who can make sure nothing improper occurs.

Dario"My solution would be to turn the present nude beaches in Australia into Hippie Hollows which can be signposted that patrons may encounter sexual behaviour, forbid children from attending, and charge a day fee of about $5 to use the beach. I'm saying this because after returning from a holiday in Sydney and Coffs Harbour, I found the nude beaches to be hard to get to and out of the way from everything and everyone else."

Why would you suggest forbidding children from nude beaches? And why charge money for areas so hard to get to? The ones closer to the road should be charged a fee if any do. Actually, the nude beaches should be equally accessible to the road as the textile beaches.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

boatsteve

Your views are not that of your average textile. There are many clothing optional beaches throughout Europe that have nudists co-existing with textiles without complaints.

The vast majority of European beaches are not clothing optional - they are textile. Some textiles are OK sharing beaches with nudists, most are not. So in that respect, I'm a pretty average textile.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" height="102" width="467"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> But those beaches should be properly segregated from the rest of us by some physical barrier (or distance) and clearly demarcated with warning signs. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Actually, no they should not, because you can't give a decent reason for it being that way.

Yes I can - they should be that way because many, in fact probably most, people prefer not to share their beaches with nudists. I only heard on a local radio station just this morning a listener being advised about the Greek island of Mykanos and being told by a travel expert "..but you may want to keep in mind that Mykanos does tend to attract a lot of gays and naturists" and the listener made it clear he wouldn't be going there in that case.

A lot of people don't want to share their beaches with nudists, and they shouldn't have to. Why on earth are we even debating this? Why would you want to risk upsetting textiles by foisting the sight of your nakedness on them when you know they could be offended by it?

Stu

[MoonShadow]

An average textile? LOL

Stu, come on now! Don't think you can honestly say that.

That is funny!

More whirrrrring on this thread too

[Stu2630]

Moonshadow

You know - and I know - that there are very many textiles who do not want to share beach space with nudists. So in that respect, I am not untypical and let's not kid ourselves.

A textile would likely the view that there is a very thin line between, on the one hand, a nudist who actually wants to expose his or her naked body to non-nudists and, on the other hand, an exhibitionist. I don't believe most nudists are like that inclined, but if that perception ever becomes popular, the majority will turn against nudism and even the most decent and considerate nudists will suffer because of it.

Stu

[boatsteve]

boatsteve
The vast majority of European beaches are not clothing optional - they are textile. Some textiles are OK sharing beaches with nudists, most are not.

I never said anything about how many beaches are C/O. Please stick to the words I actually posted. Oh, and please provide proof that most textiles are not ok sharing beaches with nudists.


So in that respect, I'm a pretty average textile.

You are not in any way an average textile. Please stu, you are making people laugh at you.

Yes I can - they should be that way because many, in fact probably most, people prefer not to share their beaches with nudists. I only heard on a local radio station just this morning a listener being advised about the Greek island of Mykanos and being told by a travel expert "..but you may want to keep in mind that Mykanos does tend to attract a lot of gays and naturists" and the listener made it clear he wouldn't be going there in that case.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove your point. It's only what one person will decide to do.

A lot of people don't want to share their beaches with nudists, and they shouldn't have to. Why on earth are we even debating this? Why would you want to risk upsetting textiles by foisting the sight of your nakedness on them when you know they could be offended by it?

Stu

Why on earth have you started the same argument we have already gone through a hundred times before? As I said, show me proof that they don't want to share beaches first of all. Then you need to prove they would be offended by it. And THEN you need to realize that the laws in most places do not protect you from offense.

Same old argument, different day month year!

[Stu2630]

boatsteve

please provide proof that most textiles are not ok sharing beaches with nudists.

Certainly. This is a survey that Fishy Dave linked to on here and was conducted on behalf of British Naturism:

http://www.british-naturism.org.uk/mediacentre/files/briefing_statistics(2).pdf

If you were walking along the coast on a hot day, and you came across a
group of naked people sunbathing, swimming or playing cricket, would
you:
a) ignore them and keep walking? 78%
b) be alarmed and keep well away from them? 2%
c) go naked yourself? 2%
d) settle down but keep your swimming costume on? 13%
e) call the police because you were frightened or distressed? 1%

From that you can see that only 15% would feel that they wanted to remain among the naked people while 85% would get away from them. :)

You are not in any way an average textile. Please stu, you are making people laugh at you.

I am a pretty average textile in that I avoid going to nudist places and I don't feel comfortable being around nude people.

Yes I can - they should be that way because many, in fact probably most, people prefer not to share their beaches with nudists...

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove your point. It's only what one person will decide to do.

OK, but I have shown you the BN survey.

As I said, show me proof that they don't want to share beaches first of all.

Done that.

you need to realize that the laws in most places do not protect you from offense.

Most countries have laws which make it illegal to behave in a way which could reasonably be expected to cause distress or offence - perhaps not in those exact terms but something along those lines. Here in the UK we have the Public Order Act 1986 which makes it an offence to behave in a way which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It is widely accepted that inappropriate nudity can give rise to these emotions and so this law has been used successfully against such behaviour.

Stu

[boatsteve]

Here is a great example of how you twist things stu.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> If you were walking along the coast on a hot day, and you came across a
group of naked people sunbathing, swimming or playing cricket, would
you:
a) ignore them and keep walking? 78%
b) be alarmed and keep well away from them? 2%
c) go naked yourself? 2%
d) settle down but keep your swimming costume on? 13%
e) call the police because you were frightened or distressed? 1% </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
From that you can see that only 15% would feel that they wanted to remain among the naked people while 85% would get away from them.


The question wasn't about wanting to be with the nude people. It was about walking by and their reaction. The great majority would ignore it or join in. This blows your whole post.

Why waste my time and yours on games like this stu? I have better things to do than play word games with you.

It's so obvious that you are a lawyer! :rolleyes:

[Naturist4Ever]

...whirr...whirr...

It's so obvious that you are a lawyer! :rolleyes:

Not a particularly good one as it was an obvious giveaway.

Only 3% was distressed. The 78% was walking and - as planned - stayed walking and never minded the naturist anyway. 2%, was likely naturist and was walking with the intention to reach the naturist area. 13% also stayed on the beach, but clothed. Wow, so actually 14% of new arrivals to the beach that planned to stay there (those are the ones that really count) are naturists - that's not a minority at ALL!

[MoonShadow]

tape is full .... time to change it it


whirrrrrr.........whirrrrrrrr........whirrrrrrrr

Boatsteve, you are kind with just "at least five"; more than like five times 100. LOL

[walter05]

Police and prosecutors like easy and clear to prosecute offenses.

A naked man masturbating could claim to be putting on suntan lotion. I know this sounds ridiculous, but it could be claimed. Then the officer would be in the difficult and embarrassing position to say how or he or she knew the man was masturbating. Any ambiguity would make a conviction more difficult.

The law is probably drafted with the idea that a nude beach would be crowded enough to make public sexual acts less likely.

If someone does something outside of that designated area, simply being nude would be clear grounds for prosecution.

It appears that the Australian authorities want to provide for wholesome nude recreation and discourage bad behavior. As a first step, I think this law should be applauded. The Australians are designating nude recreation areas and attempting to keep them safe.

[Nude in the North]

Atleast they are trying to seperate the nudists from the perverts.

In most parts of North America they would simply Ban Nudity all together and arrest everyone.

Nudists have to fight for every square inch of space they get. But it only takes one problem and they lose it all.

Some people call that Fair.