Equality? "Male skinny dippers fined, woman not"

[richinoregon]

http://bangornews.com/detail/92567.html

[Georgia_Nude]

It really does seem a bit annoying. Those of us with a penis now have even more to be careful about while those without are provided a bit more freedom. The so-called "double standard" has been in play in the U.S. for years, but this certainly doesn't help. One of the problems I see is that this could set some really weird laws down segregated by sex, and who needs that?

[Naturist4Ever]

whatever happened to common sense in the land that so much praises itself for smartness. What an utter stupidity in these times.

One thing is for sure: I stay in where I am now, no-one here would even bat an eye, but the burger would not be free though.

[Pete Knight]

Since the seventies women have gained so much equality that they are now more equal than men!

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Since the seventies women have gained so much equality that they are now more equal than men!

Yup, I'll agree with that. Women should be fined equally with men.

Stu

[bendigonudey]

It was the practice in Queensland (Australia) a few years ago to charge naked men, but not naked women for skinny-dipping.

The "problem" was that the law was specific about exposure of "genitals", so police didn't bother to arrest women because it was almost impossible to prove that they had exposed genitals, unless they were behaving in a particularly lewd manner (and therefore not likely to be nudists or skinny-dippers).

Rob

[RalphVa]

In the case of prostitution, it's often the women who get fined or put in jail and their johns go free. A recent case in DC showed that. Some of those johns were either high rollers or in high levels and got off by money or by position.

[ken0254]

Yup, I'll agree with that. Women should be fined equally with men.

Stu


Stu,

Once again you got it wrong. If one of them is not guilty, than none of them should be found guilty. The law is supposed to side with the innocent. If one is found innocent, then all MUST be found innocent.

[Stu2630]

Ken

Let's be honest - the women in this case got off with the charge on a legal technicality. You know perfectly well that the purpose of the law is to stop this kind of behaviour.

The judge interpreted the wording of the relevant section literally, which is perverse. As I explained to BobS, most developed countries use a modicum of common sense when interpreting statutes and try to determine the intentions of the (elected) legislature rather than allowing smart lawyers to persuade them on the basis of some semantic nicety. The woman was lucky - she should have been convicted because she did exactly the same as what the men did.

Stu

[ken0254]

Their only crime was being naked. They were not being LEWD. CRUDE or RUDE!!! If the woman got off on a technicality, then so should the men! By the way... what was the technicality if I may ask?

[Stu2630]

Ken

Their only crime was being naked. They were not being LEWD. CRUDE or RUDE!!!

This was not a nudist venue or event - it was a textile one. Nudity in such circumstances is not generally expectable: is likely to cause offence and is therefore rude. I would have been offended if I had seen it.

If the woman got off on a technicality, then so should the men!

No. Two wrongs don't make a right. They were all guilty of the same behaviour, which was intended by the legislature to be a criminal offence, so they should all have been convicted.

By the way... what was the technicality if I may ask?

It is quite difficult to frame laws against nudity, which was undoubtedly the intention, so the legal draftsmen use terms like "expose their genitals" etc. A smart lawyer looks at the wording and points out that, whereas male genitalia was clearly visible, there is probably insufficient evidence that the female genitalia could be seen. The US is one of the last remaining developed countries to interpret laws literally. We used to do it here on the UK at one time, but we now expect our courts to look at the likely intentions of Parliament when interpreting sections rather than attempting to define every word or phrase. In other words, they are told that achieving justice is more important than playing semantics. We invest trust in our judiciary rather than tying their hands because of ill-chosen words. Don't worry, though. This is a hot issue with many American lawyers and I'm sure you'll catch up in due course.

Stu

[ken0254]

Ken



This was not a nudist venue or event - it was a textile one. Nudity in such circumstances is not generally expectable: is likely to cause offence and is therefore rude. I would have been offended if I had seen it.

This may have not been a nudist venue or event, but the advertising was if you jump nude in the lake, you get a free sandwich. "Two of three friends who jumped naked into Moosehead Lake last summer for a free Skinny Dip sandwich at the Black Frog Restaurant in Greenville were found guilty of indecent exposure Monday in 13th District Court."

[/QUOTE]No. Two wrongs don't make a right. They were all guilty of the same behaviour, which was intended by the legislature to be a criminal offence, so they should all have been convicted.[/QUOTE]

So are we convicting on the basis of thier behaviour or on the basis of thier nakedness?

[/QUOTE]It is quite difficult to frame laws against nudity, which was undoubtedly the intention, so the legal draftsmen use terms like "expose their genitals" etc. A smart lawyer looks at the wording and points out that, whereas male genitalia was clearly visible, there is probably insufficient evidence that the female genitalia could be seen. The US is one of the last remaining developed countries to interpret laws literally. We used to do it here on the UK at one time, but we now expect our courts to look at the likely intentions of Parliament when interpreting sections rather than attempting to define every word or phrase. In other words, they are told that achieving justice is more important than playing semantics. We invest trust in our judiciary rather than tying their hands because of ill-chosen words. Don't worry, though. This is a hot issue with many American lawyers and I'm sure you'll catch up in due course.

Stu[/QUOTE]


So male genitals, by thier placement on the outside of the body are deemed indecent. Is this how we measure what is indecent now? By the way, the womens breasts were seen also. Why were they not considered indecent exposure?

What's sad is if these people were convicted of indecent exposure, in some states they could be labeled as sex offenders. That is very sad!!!

[Stu2630]

Ken

but the advertising was if you jump nude in the lake, you get a free sandwich.

Presumably this was a public lake. If so, the restaurant in question had no business urging people to break the law in that way and they should have been prosecuted, too. My point was that, while nudists are as free to hold and express views on this issue as anyone else, it should not be regarded as a matter relevant to nudism. Just as nudists are entitled to enjoy their nudity-inclusive lifestyle, so are we textiles entitled to enjoy a nudity-free environment in our venues.

So are we convicting on the basis of thier behaviour or on the basis of thier nakedness?

Both. Their nakedness was intrinsic to their behaviour rather than discrete from it. It is the circumstances of nakedness (time, place etc) which makes it offensive, not so much the nakedness itself.

So male genitals, by thier placement on the outside of the body are deemed indecent. Is this how we measure what is indecent now?

Good point. I would say that indecent should encompass the entire groin area and buttocks rather than just the "genitals". You are highlighting the point I made that it is quite difficult to frame a law against nudity.

By the way, the womens breasts were seen also. Why were they not considered indecent exposure?

In my opinion, women's breasts should not be permitted to be exposed in public either.

What's sad is if these people were convicted of indecent exposure, in some states they could be labeled as sex offenders. That is very sad!!!

I agree. They shouldn't be labeled as sex offenders because they are not sex offenders. The offence should be one contrary to public order rather than a sex crime.

Stu

[WNYjoe24]

I agree and disagree with parts of many of the posts here. including Stu.

First of all, they were nude. Granted, in our minds nude does not equal lewd.
Stu says he for one would be offended and find it rude. That concept can be debated all over the place. But we, as a society need to move beyond creating laws that MIGHT offend SOMEONE and start looking at the bigger issue. Such as is someone actually harmed by the action?
Unfortunately, the law does recognize their nudity as being an issue. § 854 of Maine Penal code.

Secondly, is it fair for one gender, not the other: NO.
Stu is right. The intent here is no nudity! The fact that technically, women's genitals are inside of their bodies is irrelevant. As the law is currently written, all 3 should have been charged.

Thirdly, were they doing anything to cause alarm? in our society, yes! It is not normal to walk down Main St and see a nude person.

I am curious if NAC got involved with this or not. The justification that they were doing it for commercial gain, (a free sandwich) etc should not be relevant. The overal concept is really no different than if I was to decide as I finshed my meal that I wanted to go for a swim.


If they had done the same thing, with bathing suits on; there would have been no issue.

Ultimately, the whole incident is ridiculous and I am a firm believer that nudity laws need to be revised. But until there is an uprising of enough people, it won't happen.

Someone mentioned breast-feeding in a thread-possibly this one. Many people have expressed opinions about that. And as such, the laws in over half of the states say breast-feeding is not as bad. Again, I go back to my statement of we need to get more people accustomed to it and then change the laws.

Joe

[Georgia_Nude]

Ken


In my opinion, women's breasts should not be permitted to be exposed in public either.

Stu

Then a man shouldn't be allowed to expose his either. Our breasts tend to expand just as a woman's, it's just determined by our age and how well we keep in shape. Equality runs both ways.

[Riot.EXE]

As much of an *** as I'm going to sound like for saying this, I'd have said that the technicality in question was simply that she was a woman. Think about it.

[Stu2630]

Joe

But we, as a society need to move beyond creating laws that MIGHT offend SOMEONE and start looking at the bigger issue. Such as is someone actually harmed by the action?

Public order laws, and even some sex laws, work on the basis of offence rather than quantifiable harm. That's why you wouldn't be allowed to display billboards in public with obscene words or pictures on them (and I reckon most nudists wouldn't want those to be permitted either). The law recognises the duty of public authorities to make public places as benign and comfortable as possible for as many people as possible. Many people are not comfortable around nudity and they shouldn't be forced to modify their personal sensibilities just to accommodate the desires of a tiny number of exhibitionists (such as these people at the restaurant) or less considerate nudists.

I am a firm believer that nudity laws need to be revised.

I agree they ought to be clarified so that the intentions of the legislator are not frustrated by courts making nonsensical, literal interpretations.

But until there is an uprising of enough people, it won't happen.

There isn't going to be an uprisin on this because I don't believe people generally want to share their public spaces with naked people.

Georgia-Nude

Then a man shouldn't be allowed to expose his either. Our breasts tend to expand just as a woman's, it's just determined by our age and how well we keep in shape. Equality runs both ways.

I don't have a problem with that as I don't tend to go topless in public.

There is a counter-argument that says men don't actually have breasts as such - where women have breast tissue, men have subcutaneous fat deposits and do not function as breasts. Also, women's breasts are widely regarded as an intimate part of their anatomy in western societies just as the genitals are, although perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, whereas men's chests are not. So you are not really comparing like with like.

Stu

[ken0254]

So why should genitals by themselves be considered "indecent"? If there was no sex involved or flaunting them in a sexual manner they shouldn't be considered "indecent"!

[Pete Knight]

So why should genitals by themselves be considered "indecent"? If there was no sex involved or flaunting them in a sexual manner they shouldn't be considered "indecent"!
Absolutely spot on, only in the most twisted of minds could the human form be considered obscene.
What people do is obscene, the people themselves are not the obscenity.

Pete Knight

[ken0254]

Absolutely spot on, only in the most twisted of minds could the human form be considered obscene.
What people do is obscene, the people themselves are not the obscenity.

Pete Knight


Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stu2630]

Ken

Why do we find anything indecent? Why is the 'f' word obscene while the word "duck" is not? And why is that same word obscene when the word "intercourse" is not obscene? Why do we single out sexual activities to be indecent when done in public while other natural behaviours, such as eating, are not? The whole concept of indecency and obscenity are emotionally based rather than logical. They are arbitrary and follow cultural rather than scientific notions.

Few nudists want to abandon all their cultural values and follow the strict rules of logic, Mr Spock fashion. They don't want their children exposed to indecent language or imagery because, like me, they are cultural beings. The difference between us is how we define indecency etc. You would probably define it to include pornography and profanities, as would I. But I, and I believe most other people, would also include exposure of the genitals whereas you, being a nudist, would not. Neither of us is right or wrong - it's just a question of where our limits lie. Public places should be regulated in such a way that any behaviour which is likely to offend prevailing sensibilities is not permitted. The question of whether those sensibilities are logical or not is irrelevant because all sensibilities are, strictly speaking, illogical, but we are all entitled to an expectation of comfort when in the public domain.

Pete says: "What people do is obscene, the people themselves are not the obscenity." In my book, getting naked in the presence of people who may well be offended by it is, by definition, obscene.

Stu

[ken0254]

Ken

Why do we find anything indecent? Why is the 'f' word obscene while the word "duck" is not? And why is that same word obscene when the word "intercourse" is not obscene? Why do we single out sexual activities to be indecent when done in public while other natural behaviours, such as eating, are not? The whole concept of indecency and obscenity are emotionally based rather than logical. They are arbitrary and follow cultural rather than scientific notions.

The "F" word is partly considered obscene because it is considered a profanity and used to verbally hurt someone. "Duck" is a noun... as is "intercourse", not QUITE the same thing. To tell someone to "Go intercourse yourself" doesn't have the same meaning as "Go F yourself"

[/QUOTE]
Few nudists want to abandon all their cultural values and follow the strict rules of logic, Mr Spock fashion. They don't want their children exposed to indecent language or imagery because, like me, they are cultural beings. The difference between us is how we define indecency etc. You would probably define it to include pornography and profanities, as would I. But I, and I believe most other people, would also include exposure of the genitals whereas you, being a nudist, would not. Neither of us is right or wrong - it's just a question of where our limits lie. Public places should be regulated in such a way that any behaviour which is likely to offend prevailing sensibilities is not permitted. The question of whether those sensibilities are logical or not is irrelevant because all sensibilities are, strictly speaking, illogical, but we are all entitled to an expectation of comfort when in the public domain.[/QUOTE]

Why is exposing genitals so taboo? There was a time in society when revealing a womans ankles was taboo and quite the scandal. Then it became the calves, then the knees, etc, etc, etc. Genitals are just another part of the body that have a use... just like hands, eyes, ears, noses and mouths. Just because it has come to be dictated that they are obscene doesn't make it so. It just so happens that our Creator in his wisdom decided to put them between the legs at the bottom of our abdomens where they would be convenient. So now it seems that because of where our genitals have been placed, they are getting a bad rap so to speak. To say they are indecent because of thier placement OR function ludicrous. Thier function is no more or less indecent than any other limb or organ.

[/QUOTE]
Pete says: "What people do is obscene, the people themselves are not the obscenity." In my book, getting naked in the presence of people who may well be offended by it is, by definition, obscene.

Stu[/QUOTE]


Maybe YOUR book is wrong and maybe it's you and YOUR issues that are way off base.

[Stu2630]

Ken

The "F" word is partly considered obscene because it is considered a profanity and used to verbally hurt someone.Exactly the same as nudity. Some people regard that as a kind of visual profanity; to a confirmed textile, it's no different in essence to someone masturbating in public.

Swearing does not physically harm anyone any more than nudity can, but both can cause offence. And, like nudity, some people use profanities because that's just what they like to do and not with the intention of hurting anyone. The fact is that both profanity and nudity are physically harmless but are restricted in public because they can cause offence. Same thing in essence.

"Duck" is a noun... as is "intercourse", not QUITE the same thing.I'm not sure how word classification is relevant to this, but both words are nouns and verbs, e.g.

"I see a duck" (noun) - "I don't give a f***!" (noun)

"If someone throws a rock you should duck." (verb) "Go and f*** yourself" (verb)

To tell someone to "Go intercourse yourself" doesn't have the same meaning as "Go F yourself"True - but why is that? The only difference between the F word and intercourse is the arbitrary social convention that dictates that the latter is profane and the former is not. Similarly, a social convention dictates that exposing your penis in public is indecent whereas exposing your elbow is not. See my point? :)

Stu

[WGANude]

I think what most nudists posting here would like to see is more legal opportunity for nudity in areas or events set aside for it. And, therefore, would like to see our US culture become less prudish. I'm waiting for the Onion to come up with a headline: "Infant Charged for Arriving in the World Nude."

With regard to the story which led to this Thread, I think the restaurant has to bare some responsibility. If it had closed off the area to the water from the restaurant from view of the general public, thus making it temporarily a nude venue, only those consenting customers would have viewed the event.

BTW, I have not seen an answer to my previous query on this site: Why are some nude events, such as the Nude Bike Rides held in many locations, legal, whereas, others, like this one, was not?

[Stu2630]

WGANude

I think what most nudists posting here would like to see is more legal opportunity for nudity in areas or events set aside for it.

I totally agree. There should be more such opportunities for nudity in areas or events set aside for it.

With regard to the story which led to this Thread, I think the restaurant has to bare some responsibility. If it had closed off the area to the water from the restaurant from view of the general public, thus making it temporarily a nude venue, only those consenting customers would have viewed the event.

I agree with that, too.

Why are some nude events, such as the Nude Bike Rides held in many locations, legal, whereas, others, like this one, was not?

The nude bike rides are tolerated because the police are largely ineffectual and not sure what to do about it. Fortunately, many towns and cities around the world have either banned these rides, or placed restrictions on them (as they did in Copenhagen where they required the cyclists to wear something to cover their genitals).

Stu

[IDNude]

I totally agree. There should be more such opportunities for nudity in areas or events set aside for it.


And yet when there was one, you complained to the manager to get it changed.


They even tried it at Center Parcs (http://www.centerparcs.co.uk/) some years ago and it meant I couldn't use the spa or aqua sana with my wife. :mad: I wrote a letter of complaint to their head office and persuaded a couple of others to complain too, and they binned the whole idea a few weeks later. Nowadays, the Center Parcs spa facility requires costumes to be worn at all times during mixed sessions.

Stu

What I am curious about is that you stated that you couldn't use the spa or aqua sana with your wife (meaning you didn't want to have to go nude). Does that mean your wife doesn't have a problem with it? Is that why this is such an obsession with you? Was your complaint that you had to go nude or that your wife was able to? In this post you complained that it was manditory. Does that mean you would have been ok with it if it had been optional so you could have gone in with your wife? Do you still freqent this place or did you just go there long enough to get them to change their nudity policy?

You say, on this forum, you're not anti-nude and that you believe there should be places set aside for it but your true nature keeps slipping out. When we see your posts on other forums you have a very different tone.

What exactly is your agenda?

[Stu2630]

ID Nude

And yet when there was one, you complained to the manager to get it changed

That wasn't an "area or event set aside for nudism". This was a facility in a non-nudist holiday camp I had paid to use, but they decided to make the adult spa etc compulsorily nude. In other words, confirmed textiles were unable to use this important part of the facility. I wouldn't have minded if they had set aside a session or two per week for nudity, but they insisted on it for all sessions. That's not fair.

Does that mean your wife doesn't have a problem with it?

My wife was never really comfortable with nudity. She has become far more that way over the years.

Was your complaint that you had to go nude or that your wife was able to? In this post you complained that it was manditory. Does that mean you would have been ok with it if it had been optional so you could have gone in with your wife?

My complaint was that we were not able to use that facility firstly because nudity was compulsory. I complained first to the staff, but they just said we should try it because we would soon get used to it and nobody would be bothered. That was not a satisfactory response. Secondly, we complained because we said that we detest being around nakedness and we wanted to be able use the facility when other people were what we regarded as "decent", i.e. in swimwear. The staff on site were unsympathetic but fortunately the firm's directors were persuaded that the "continental" rule was perhaps not appropriate for a largely British clientele.

Do you still freqent this place or did you just go there long enough to get them to change their nudity policy?

We generally go to a Center Parcs about once every year, or maybe every other year. It's a lovely place for a few days relaxation and in natural surroundings.

You say, on this forum, you're not anti-nude and that you believe there should be places set aside for it but your true nature keeps slipping out...What exactly is your agenda?

To be precise, I am a supporter of responsible nudism in places set aside for it. I am very anti public nudity elsewhere. Being in the presence of nudity should be consensual, not something you are just expected to tolerate.

Stu

[Ken Palmer]

Judging from what I read about this story, I would say that this is a bit unfair. Yes indeed, I do believe the "double standard" rule is being applied in this situation unless there is something I missed when reading the article. Does anyone know why the lady was not fined or found not guilty out of curiosity?

Ken Palmer


http://bangornews.com/detail/92567.html

[Pete Knight]

Judging from what I read about this story, I would say that this is a bit unfair. Yes indeed, I do believe the "double standard" rule is being applied in this situation unless there is something I missed when reading the article. Does anyone know why the lady was not fined or found not guilty out of curiosity?

I believe it was because the prosecutor couldn't prove that the woman had exposed her genitals, of course in some states they have included the anus in their exposure laws, in which case the woman would have been prosecuted. The strange thing is that the anus is no more visible than the vagina in a normal stance, we men are unfortunate in that our genitalia is outwardly visible and an easy target for over zealous police. Is this discrimination?

Pete Knight