Nude Nina in the news

[Pete Knight]

Another news snippet, this time a lady wants to bring WNBR to her home town of Crawley in West Sussex near to Gatwick Airport, London's second airport.

Crawley News (http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/crawley/news/blog/Nudist-wants-naked-bike-ride-Crawley/article-361264-detail/article.html?cacheBust=ad43NfJQmy4k#community)


Pete Knight

[BlobbyBob]

I wonder who "Stu" in the top of the comment box is :p

I saw this a while back though because I know Nina through some chatrooms and she told me she was doing this before it got published, it's interesting to see it being taken so positively (despite the couple of bad comments)

[Stu2630]

it's interesting to see it being taken so positively

Not really. The vast majority of comments were from people other than in Crawley (like St Albans, Brighton, Devon, New Zealand, Canada, New York, etc) and some of the names I recognised as nudist activists (like sarababe, and our old friend Pete). In other words, these aren't, for the most part, a reflection of the views of the people of Crawley, who are going to have to suffer this disgusting behaviour, but vociferous nudists from around the world - including this place!

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Hey, look who crawled out of the woodwork, the nudists friend Stu, here's what he had to say:

There is a world of difference between a nudist venue and a public street. It's high time our useless police got off their backsides and started arresting these exhibitionists - but they won't do it until someone makes a formal complaint. If these ridiculous and offensive people come to my town, I'll make a complaint that I was harassed, alarmed and distressed by their revolting behaviour.

Someone needs to chill, this is starting to look like a campaign to discredit a good cause.

Pete Knight

[Pete Knight]

Not really. The vast majority of comments were from people other than in Crawley (like St Albans, Brighton, Devon, New Zealand, Canada, New York, etc) and some of the names I recognised as nudist activists (like sarababe, and our old friend Pete). In other words, these aren't, for the most part, a reflection of the views of the people of Crawley, who are going to have to suffer this disgusting behaviour, but vociferous nudists from around the world - including this place!

Stu
I decided to break a golden rule and view one of Stu's posts, of course I now feel compelled to reply, this is the part I liked best:
"these aren't, for the most part, a reflection of the views of the people of Crawley"
Says the man from South Yorkshire, 206.5 miles away from Crawley.

Nice one Stu, you've made yourself look even more of a plonker than you previously have.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Nice one, Pete, I can always rely on you to miss the point.

OK - baby steps. Blobby Bob said "it's interesting to see it being taken so positively". My point was that we can't draw any conclusions from that because the vast majority of comments were made by people who are going to be unaffected by any naked bike ride in Crawley.

Do try to keep up, dear!

Stu

[lordshipmayhem]

Says the man from South Yorkshire, 206.5 miles away from Crawley.

Ah, we need Slashdot-style mod points!!!!

:laugh:

[Pete Knight]

Nice one, Pete, I can always rely on you to miss the point.

OK - baby steps. Blobby Bob said "it's interesting to see it being taken so positively". My point was that we can't draw any conclusions from that because the vast majority of comments were made by people who are going to be unaffected by any naked bike ride in Crawley.

Do try to keep up, dear!

Stu
Like you then!

Now this really IS the last response to Stu, back to the lepers colony with you.

[Stu2630]

Pete

Like you then!

Exactly. Anyone is free to comment on the article, just as i did, but my post on here was aimed at showing the comments weren't representative of the people of Crawley, who are going to be affected by this rudeness. The implication of BlobbyBob's post was that they wee representative.

Now this really IS the last response to Stu, back to the lepers colony with you.

I'll happily stay in my lepers' colony if you and your friends stay in your nudist colony and that way we won't have to see each other, will we? :D

Stu

[BlobbyBob]

Where did I say that I assumed everyone who commented was from Crawley?! Doesn't matter where they were from - they were mostly positive. Yes, some may have been nudists who stumbled across the article, but not all of them were. Also, I doubt there's been an uproar in Crawley about it because I'd have heard about it from Nina herself.

Besides which point, the world naked bike ride isn't just about nudism but it's about making a point, getting people to notice, about the environment.

[nimrod]

Not really. The vast majority of comments were from people other than in Crawley (like St Albans, Brighton, Devon, New Zealand, Canada, New York, etc) and some of the names I recognised as nudist activists (like sarababe, and our old friend Pete). In other words, these aren't, for the most part, a reflection of the views of the people of Crawley, who are going to have to suffer this disgusting behaviour, but vociferous nudists from around the world - including this place!

Once again explain to me how you can say that you are not anti-nudist. Describing this event as disgusting behaviour is not in any way supportive of nudist and is very anti-nudity.

This is a scheduled event, so no one who does not want to participate does not have to, no one who wants to see it need not show up, and if someone does not want to see nudity and the route happens to go by their homes, they have ample warning to draw their blinds, or leave town for the day. So do not argue that it is not responsilble nudity.

[Stu2630]

Nimrod

Once again explain to me how you can say that you are not anti-nudist. This is not a nudist event. It is intended to occur in a busy city centre location. These clowns intend to be seen by textiles - that's the whole point of it. And that makes it exhibitionism.

This is a scheduled event, so no one who does not want to participate does not have to, no one who wants to see it need not show up, and if someone does not want to see nudity and the route happens to go by their homes, they have ample warning to draw their blinds, or leave town for the day. So do not argue that it is not responsilble nudityNot good enough. This event is not agreed with the people of the town. It has not been agreed with the authorities. Thos involved are simply taking advantage of the fact that our police force are often ignorant of the law and incompetent. I hope the people of Crawley complain and the local police commander has the balls to arrest these exhibitionists. This has nthing to do with responsible nudism.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Nimrod

This is not a nudist event. It is intended to occur in a busy city centre location. These clowns intend to be seen by textiles - that's the whole point of it. And that makes it exhibitionism.
Not good enough. This event is not agreed with the people of the town. It has not been agreed with the authorities. Thos involved are simply taking advantage of the fact that our police force are often ignorant of the law and incompetent. I hope the people of Crawley complain and the local police commander has the balls to arrest these exhibitionists. This has nthing to do with responsible nudism.

Stu
Crikey, I wish I could see Stu right now, I bet the veins on his forehead are raised and throbbing right now, boy oh boy is he uptight.

Now lets see, the nice lady said she was going to organise a WNBR for Crawley, now organising is the act of a responsible person, none of your spur of the moment stuff here, no sir!

There appears to be an awful lot of assumption on your part, where does it say she wasn't going to consult with the police and local authorities?

The other WNBR's are properly organised and have the full support of the local constabulary (I think this is the part that upsets Brutus the most.), they run on predetermined routes and bring joy to more people than are apoplectic, like Stu (Brutus) was at the time of writing the previous post.

Lets face it, this nudist hate campaign is personal, there are no thousands of offended people, there is Stu and a handful of other sorry people, the reality is the crowds loved the London WNBR and all the others around the world. They bring joy and happiness to thousands, all arond the world the streets are lined with happy smiling people.

I wonder if we could organise a WNBR for Sheffield, now that would be fun.

Pete Knight

[nimrod]

This is not a nudist event.
Stu

Just because it is not a nudist event does not mean that you are off the hook for being anti-nudity, or anti-nudist. Stop trying to rationalize your prejudice towards and hatered of nudity. Once again I was not looking for an arguement from you, I was just showing some facts to you, which once again you twist and then present your opinions as facts. Stating that people riding a bike nude is a disgusting behaviour is anti-nudity, and anti-nudist.

[Yasehtor]

The story about Nina organizing the WNBR for Crawley is a bit old. Apparently she has decided that she will not be organizing the event. :disappointed:

[Stu2630]

Pete

where does it say she wasn't going to consult with the police and local authorities?

It didn't say she was going to consult the police either. And I'm surprised you don't know that the police can't actually 'authorise' such a ride. If they get complaints, they are duty bound to respond, so all the organisers can do is to notify them and take advice.

there are no thousands of offended people, there is Stu and a handful of other sorry people, the reality is the crowds loved the London WNBR and all the others around the world. They bring joy and happiness to thousands, all arond the world the streets are lined with happy smiling people.

How do you know that some people aren't annoyed or upset by it? They see the gormless police there and so they assume that it must be approved of.

I wonder if we could organise a WNBR for Sheffield, now that would be fun.

Yup. I'd be on the phone to the district commander at West Bar like a shot and be making a statement of complaint before he could say "hello hello hello".

nimrod

Just because it is not a nudist event does not mean that you are off the hook for being anti-nudity, or anti-nudist.

I am anti public nudity, not anti responsible nudism. Big difference!

Stating that people riding a bike nude is a disgusting behaviour is anti-nudity, and anti-nudist.

Riding a bike nude at a dedicated nudist resort is fine. Riding a bike nude in a city centre is disgusting behaviour.

Yesehtor

Apparently she has decided that she will not be organizing the event.

Splendid! :D

Stu

[IDNude]

Riding a bike nude in a city centre is disgusting behaviour.

According to you. Exactly how many of these events have you gone to see to have made that determination?

I look forward to the day when you have to go to your secluded little textile place with your five other friends who are as freakishly afraid of nudity as you are to get away from it. When the rest of society has become more enlightend and realizes that nudity is just a natural way of life and is just a matter of fact.

[jon71]

[QUOTE=Stu2630;214160]Nimrod

This is not a nudist event. It is intended to occur in a busy city centre location. These clowns intend to be seen by textiles - that's the whole point of it. And that makes it exhibitionism.



If nudists show up, or at least if people show up nude I guess you'd have to say it is a nudist event. Maybe we could call it a nudist/textile outreach program like schools have a gay/straight alliance. I know the response is "some people will be offended". So what. Some people were offended when women could wear pants and black people could sit at a lunch counter. If being offended is the only argument to the contrary that simply isn't enough. Neither is tradition for the very same reason, that's no where close to enough. If the people who are against this can't find a better argument than "it's offense" then they need to grow up and get over it. If they have a better argument they should present that instead of the whiny nonsense we've heard so far.

[Ken Palmer]

Wow! It is unusual for me to see a lady pushing for a nudist activity. It is normally a male who embarks on such campaigns. Anyway, my hats off to her for her incredible bravery as well as her surprising open attitude towards the entire concept of nudism. Finally, I admire her for encouraging the World Naked Bike Ride to come to her hometown with such enthusiasm. Once again, my hats off to her and the best of luck to her too!

Ken Palmer



Another news snippet, this time a lady wants to bring WNBR to her home town of Crawley in West Sussex near to Gatwick Airport, London's second airport.

Crawley News (http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/crawley/news/blog/Nudist-wants-naked-bike-ride-Crawley/article-361264-detail/article.html?cacheBust=ad43NfJQmy4k#community)


Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

IDNude

Exactly how many of these events have you gone to see to have made that determination?

None. Why would I go to them? I'd only end up calling the police, and that would be perverse.

I look forward to the day when you have to go to your secluded little textile place with your five other friends who are as freakishly afraid of nudity as you are to get away from it.

Freakish? You are a member of a very tiny minority and you have the audacity to call me freakish? :laugh: In the article, several people, including locals, have spoken out against it. In fact, nearly half of all those from Crawley who commented were negative about it.

When the rest of society has become more enlightend and realizes that nudity is just a natural way of life and is just a matter of fact.

Thankfully, that's not going to happen in my lifetime. Or yours.

Jon

If nudists show up, or at least if people show up nude I guess you'd have to say it is a nudist event

If it's a nudist event it should be occurring in a nudist venue, not a city street. Major public places should never be venues for nudist activities.

Maybe we could call it a nudist/textile outreach program like schools have a gay/straight alliance.

Where you have such programmes, you have consent from everyone who is there for it to be happening. No such consent was ever sought from the people of the towns and cities for this kind of exhibitionism and we already know that quite a lot of people find it objectionable.

I know the response is "some people will be offended". So what. Some people were offended when women could wear pants and black people could sit at a lunch counter. If being offended is the only argument to the contrary that simply isn't enough.

If a behaviour is likely to cause serious offence, that is certainly enough to justify it being prohibited and our law supports that. I was around when women started wearing pants and, although not everyone actually approved of it, nobody was "offended" by it to my recollection. The colour bar issue is entirely different and I have explained why on here several times.

If the people who are against this can't find a better argument than "it's offense" then they need to grow up and get over it. If they have a better argument they should present that instead of the whiny nonsense we've heard so far.

People are entitled to enjoy their city strets, parks, beavhes and other public places free from behaviour likely to cause offence. That's why we don't allow litter, urinating in the street, sexual activity, the open display of pornography, profanity and so on. For many, if not most people, nudity is just as objectionable as these other behaviours.

Stu

[BlobbyBob]

The story about Nina organizing the WNBR for Crawley is a bit old. Apparently she has decided that she will not be organizing the event. :disappointed:
I'm not sure where you heard that - I asked her about it yesterday and she is still trying to get it sorted.

And Stu - do you post on other forums that don't interest you? There are plenty things in this world which we don't like, but why the hell waste your time on them? I despise the music of Abba but I don't spam fanboards insulting them for it (that was a random example).

People - stop feeding the troll. If you like you can actually go to your UserCP and there is an 'Ignore List' so if you type a users name into there, it will stop showing their posts in threads here.

[Yasehtor]

BobbyBlob, thanks for the update on Nina as well as the advice on the ignore list. ;)

[smoothm]

Pete

Exactly. Anyone is free to comment on the article, just as i did, but my post on here was aimed at showing the comments weren't representative of the people of Crawley, who are going to be affected by this rudeness. The implication of BlobbyBob's post was that they wee representative.

I'll happily stay in my lepers' colony if you and your friends stay in your nudist colony and that way we won't have to see each other, will we? :D

Stu

Maybe the people from Crawley aren't "affected enough by this rudeness" to post comments to the article.

[IDNude]

None. Why would I go to them? I'd only end up calling the police, and that would be perverse.


And yet you've made the determination that it would be grotesque? At least we agree on something, calling the police would be perverse.



Freakish? You are a member of a very tiny minority and you have the audacity to call me freakish? :laugh: In the article, several people, including locals, have spoken out against it. In fact, nearly half of all those from Crawley who commented were negative about it.


I certainly hope you don't claim to represent those people or think you're included with those people as normal. The extends that you've admited to have gone for various cases is definanly not the norm. You've also admitted to having an extreme view on the subject. I would have to say overall your views are as much of a minority as mine is. Just because people posted some negative comments about this particular case doesn't mean they're as extreme minded as you are. Maybe not feakish but you're phobia about nudity is certainly not normal.



Thankfully, that's not going to happen in my lifetime. Or yours.


I guess we'll have to wait and see. I know you'll fight it kicking and screaming just like people do on every issue we've overcome the last hundred years. Who would have thought that people could be openly gay, or that women would be able to vote or be able to wear as liitle as a bikini to the beach, or that a black person would be elected president of the United States. There was (is) people like you fighting all the way. Without people willing to push what was accepted by society, and the extreme vocal minority trying to decide what was best for all of us, none of these things would have come to pass.



Where you have such programmes, you have consent from everyone who is there for it to be happening. No such consent was ever sought from the people of the towns and cities for this kind of exhibitionism and we already know that quite a lot of people find it objectionable.


And yet, these people will line the streets to catch a glimpse of it.



I was around when women started wearing pants and, although not everyone actually approved of it, nobody was "offended" by it to my recollection.

How can you know if anyone was offended by it or not? You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what everyone thinks. I can say that every one who made a negative comment in this article simply disapproved of it. They're not offended. But I forget... you know everything.

[Stu2630]

BlobbyBob

And Stu - do you post on other forums that don't interest you?

This subject does interest me - especially from an intellectual standpoint. I also consider myself to be a supporter of responsible nudism in places set aside for it. Naked cycling through city streets is not responsible nudism: it is rude, yobbish and revolting.

People - stop feeding the troll.

If you check out all my posts, you will see that I am often in agreement with many posts here, and others here often agree with my posts. I have actually made friends on here who I have a friendly dialogue with away from this forum. Does that sound like a troll?

When someone is defeated in a debate by someone who takes an antagonistic viewpoint to the prevailing one on the forum, it's a cheap shot to dismiss that person as a "troll". In reality, it just shows that they can't sustain the level of debate. :)

IDNude

And yet you've made the determination that it would be grotesque? At least we agree on something, calling the police would be perverse.

No, I didn't mean that. Going to see them knowing that I would be offended would be perverse. If I were unaware of the event and called the police, that would not be perverse.

Just because people posted some negative comments about this particular case doesn't mean they're as extreme minded as you are.

Quite true. I have never held myself up as a typical textile (whatever that is). But my view that nudity should not be allowed in non-nudist public places is shared by a sizable proportion of the population.

I know you'll fight it kicking and screaming just like people do on every issue we've overcome the last hundred years.

I don't think I'll have to in this case. You see, I really don't think people generally want to see naked people in public and they are quite happy with our existing norms and the law which is founded on those norms. Skimpy bathing costumes have been around since the 1930s, that's three-quarters of a century ago, and then, suddenly, people decided that enough was enough: exposing the genitals was a step too far. I see little interest from the majority non-nudist population towards changing that. If anything, with the growth of religious fundamentalism, and respect for other cultures like Islam (which finds public nudity entirely unacceptable), I think we'll see a shift towards more covering, not less. Anyway, if you have your nudist areas, why do you care what happens in textile ones?

And yet, these people will line the streets to catch a glimpse of it.

Of course they will. People used to gather in massive crowds to watch public executions, but that doesn't mean they approve of the death penalty. People will stare at road accidents, fights, and all manner of stuff, because they seem to like to be shocked. That doesn't mean we should endorse such voyeurism.

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

BlobbyBob, I assume Nina = Gypsy (looks like her picture and what I infer from your posts), maybe you can relay back that not only has she all our support, but also she is dearly missed from the clubhouse!.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ignore button is all very well and nice but it doesn't help if the subject at hand - the ra(bbi)t from Doncaster - should be ignoring US and not the other way around. Calling "us" (i.e., those that take part in the wnbr) exhibitionists is way off the mark (maybe our genetically modified self-problaimed intellectual could look up the definition of exhibitionist instead of playing a selfish child that doesn't get his candy before he has had the last word)

[jon71]

Actually I'd say in every school the gay/straight alliance encounters plenty of bigots. That's basically the point. To confront those who hate and try to open their eyes. Challenging that viewpoint is the primary reason such groups exist. By occasionally taking a nudist event into a public area more people can be introduced to the idea and that's great.

[nimrod]

I am anti public nudity, not anti responsible nudism.

Riding a bike nude at a dedicated nudist resort is fine. Riding a bike nude in a city centre is disgusting behaviour.

Do you totally ignore what you do not want to see? We have already established that it is responsible nudism if it is a planned event. This is why I do not like to debate you, you cannot see the facts for what they are, facts. You think any nudity is a disgusting behaviour, the only difference between it being at a resort and a city center is that there is the remote possiblity that you might see it.

[atalanta]

[QUOTE=Stu2630;214191]IDNude


Freakish? You are a member of a very tiny minority and you have the audacity to call me freakish? :laugh: In the article, several people, including locals, have spoken out against it. In fact, nearly half of all those from Crawley who commented were negative about it.


If, as Stu might say, only 5% of people support nudism, one supposes that 95% of comments should be negative. A win for the nudists then, I think.

[Riot.EXE]

At least that man ain't takin' the law "into his own hands"...

I roll my eyes everytime he shows up...like the kid at an arcade that keeps on trying to play with the big boys, consistently loses with the greatest of ease...but doesn't ever learn from the losses.

[Stu2630]

jon

By occasionally taking a nudist event into a public area more people can be introduced to the idea and that's great.

What if swingers decided that they should have public sex to introduce more people to their ideas? Would that be "great", too? We should treat people as intelligent adults and assume that, if they want to know about nudism, they will seek out nudist places.

nimrod

We have already established that it is responsible nudism if it is a planned event.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? I haven't accepted any such thing.

The naked bike rides may be "pre-planned", but that doesn't make them right any more than pre-planning a drunken riot is OK, or pre-planning a harcdore porn shoot is a shopping mall is OK. There are public spaces set aside for the small minority of people who want to be nude among strangers. Shoving nudity into people's faces whether they want to see it or not is reprehensible.

You think any nudity is a disgusting behaviour,

No I don't. I think public nudity away from designated places is disgusting. I already said that.

the only difference between it being at a resort and a city center is that there is the remote possiblity that you might see it

Quite right - not just me, but others who are like me in that they find it objectionable.

atlanta

If, as Stu might say, only 5% of people support nudism, one supposes that 95% of comments should be negative. A win for the nudists then, I think.

If the comments had come from a cross-section of the local community, then that would be a win for nudists. If you read the comments, it's evident that most of them have come from nudists - and nudists from all over the world. Nudists approving of nudity is hardly a surprise, is it?

Stu

[jon71]

What you don't get is that nudity is not indecent. You have the right to be a vegetarian but you don't have the right to bar someone else to eat hamburgers even if you're Hindu and consider it blashpemous. You have the right to wear clothes but you don't have the right to be upset at other peoples nudity whether public or private.

[Stu2630]

jon

What you don't get is that nudity is not indecent.That's your opinion - it's not mine. It's not so much the nudity as the circumstances (i.e. time and place) of the nudity which is indecent.

You have the right to wear clothes but you don't have the right to be upset at other peoples nudity whether public or private.I have the right to determine what kind of environment I live in. I choose not to live in, or visit, an environment in which people are nude, so I stay away from Cape D'Agde etc. I don't have a problem with nudists visiting my town centre, but they should respect the conventions and sensibilities of the rest of us and keep their clothes on.

Like it or not but it's a fact that a clear majority of people want nudists to have their own beaches etc, and they are fine with them going nude on those, but they don't want them to be allowed to be nude elsewhere in public.

Stu

[nimrod]

Who is this "we" you are talking about? I haven't accepted any such thing.

Well you see that is my point, and why I do not like to debate you, you do not accept it even though it is a fact you do not accept it.

I think puplic nudity away from designated places is disgusting.

Are you changing your story again? You have said in the past that you find all nudity to be repulsive, even your own. I would think that most people are repulsed by the things they think to be disgusting.

[Stu2630]

nimrod

you do not accept it even though it is a fact you do not accept it

It's a fact because you say it is a fact. Hmm :rolleyes:

Are you changing your story again? You have said in the past that you find all nudity to be repulsive, even your own. I would think that most people are repulsed by the things they think to be disgusting.

You are conflating two different things.

1. I am repulsed by the nudity of others. That does not mean to say I don't believe people shouldn't be naked anywhere, ever: that would be ridiculous! I have said many times that I support responsible and considerate naturism.

2. I find the behaviour of people going naked in non-nudist public places to be disgusting behaviour and those who do it should be prosecuted. That is not considerate and responsible naturism.

Stu

[jon71]

I have the right to determine what kind of environment I live in.


NO YOU DON'T. Nobody does. There is only one world that we all live in. We all have some influence on how that world is but no one has final say in our environment. You make decisons for yourself but you can't just veto everyone else's right to live their life the way they want to. Somethings like murder and robbery are obviously made illegal but we know they still happen. Some things like freedom of speech, assembly (what we're talking about here) and religion are guaranteed rights for all. Some things are in a disputed area. The bottom line is you have ZERO right to tell other people they can't live they're lives just because YOU are offended. You have NO right to live a life free from being offended, nobody does. If that was the case there wouldn't be any conservatives or prudes left because that offends me.

[Stu2630]

Jon

NO YOU DON'T. Nobody does. There is only one world that we all live in.

But it's a big world and many environments can exist within it simultaneously.

You make decisons for yourself but you can't just veto everyone else's right to live their life the way they want to.

If they want to live a lifestyle different from mine, then they should live in their environment and I should live in mine. Nudists create their own environments (like Cape D'Agde) where they can enjoy their lifestyle while not impinging on the nudity-free lifestyles of others. I choose to live in a nudity-free environment because I don't want to have to see or be in the company of naked people.

The bottom line is you have ZERO right to tell other people they can't live they're lives just because YOU are offended. You have NO right to live a life free from being offended, nobody does. If that was the case there wouldn't be any conservatives or prudes left because that offends me.

I have every right to segregate myself from people who have lifestyles and values which conflict with my own. Your preference for going naked is very much a minority preference. Most people do not want to share their public spaces with you when you are naked. So it is incumbent upon you, as a minority with a socially incompatible preference, to negotiate places where you can be naked and not inflict your nudity on people who don't want to have to see it.

You are right that none of us can expect to live our lives without ever being offended, but we are entitled to regulate our public spaces in such a way that behaviour that is almost guaranteed to offend a sizable number of people is prohibited.

Stu

[BlobbyBob]

The irony is that the World Naked Bike Ride isn't actually a specific nudist activity. Certainly there will be nudists who use it as an excuse to take the chance to experience being nude somewhere other than nude beaches or clubs, but that isn't the point of the rides. The point is to show that we are too reliant on cars and we're burning up too much fuel, while there are those of us who would rather cycle, using a means of transport which don't affect the environment. The point of the nudity is both as a means of drawing attention to the event, and also to show how vulnerable cyclists are - alongside cars we might as well be nude for all the protection clothing, a helmet and pads can provide. Sad that this whole fact has been overlooked and turned into yet another pointless argument over nudity.

[Stu2630]

BlobbyBob

Certainly there will be nudists who use it as an excuse to take the chance to experience being nude somewhere other than nude beaches or clubs,

In other words, it's an excuse to expose their genitals to the wider public. That's not responsible nudism, it's exhibitionism. And it's revolting.

The point is to show that we are too reliant on cars and we're burning up too much fuel, while there are those of us who would rather cycle, using a means of transport which don't affect the environment.

They could have a mass cycle protest with heir clothes on.

The point of the nudity is both as a means of drawing attention to the event,

In other words, exploiting the "shock" value of nudity. That's why they should be arrested and prosecuted.

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

BlobbyBob>> Certainly there will be nudists who use it as an excuse to take the chance to experience being nude somewhere other than nude beaches or clubs,

The Ra(bbi)t from Doncaster>> In other words, it's an excuse to expose their genitals to the wider public.

No it is not, and these are also two different things anyway, so the "in other words" is blatantly incorrect -- are you in addition dyslectic or what? -- and what should be more distressing to you is that CFI not only supports "family friendly naturism" (as you claimed for yourself in another post, how supportive you are), but also if not more the WNBR and similar events. So what, are you riding the fence too?

[Stu2630]

Naturist4Ever

My name is Stu. You can call me Stu. There is no reason to call me anything other than Stu. I don't call you "The Nutcase from Norway" or "The Cockroach from Oslo", so why do you insist on trying to get away with using offensive epithets to address me? It's very childish.

I think my "in other words" parallel is quite valid. Nudists wanting an excuse to be nude somewhere other than a nudist beach or park can be nude at home, at their friends' homes, at nude events, at nude sessions at swimming pools. There are even nude cycling events away from the general public. To be nude in a busy city street knowing that you will be seen by non-nudists, and not caring whether they could be offended or not is exhibitionism. They are little better than the dirty old men who flash their penises at little girls in the park. They are despicable.

The rest of your post is incoherent, so I can't respond to it.

Stu

[jon71]

The majority DOES NOT have the right to tell the minority how to live. People do not lose their rights just by being in the minority. That was done with Jim Crow laws in America (I'm unsure if there is a British equivalent) and THAT WAS WRONG. A person doesn't have to be in the majority in order to have rights. In America we are promised "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The constitution does say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as at least 50% of the public approves of what you're doing". I know you're going to give a ridiculous example to this. For something to be illegal, for the govt. to step in and say "no you can't do that or you'll go to jail", there needs to be a sound reason and "it offends people" is pathetically weak as reasons go. I like the adage "the right to swing my fist ends where the other guys nose begins". In other words I can do what I want UNTIL I harm someone else or infringe upon their basic rights. Offending somebody doesn't meet this standard. Stu no one has the right to harm you (murder, robbery, assault) and no one has the right to infringe upon your rights (religion including not practicing a faith, voting, assembly, petitioning the govt., etc.) but you don't have the right or the expectation to go through life without being offended. We are all offended by something and most of us deal with it without the endless whining you bring.

[Stu2630]

Jon

The majority DOES NOT have the right to tell the minority how to liveI completely agree. But, where a minority practice is incompatible with the prevailing system of values, then society has the right to insist that the minority conducts those practices in a place segregated from everyone else. Textiles do not have the right to dictate to nudists that they must not practice nudism - but if it decides it does not want nudity in public, then it has (1) the right to require nudism to be practised out of its view, and (2) the responsibility to provide sufficient and suitable areas where it can be practised.

I want to live in a nudity-free environment. I respect your right to want to live a naked lifestyle. It is therefore desirable for there to be two distinct environments - one for you and one for me. Your environment is nudist beaches and places like Cape D'Agde and I promise never to go to such places. But you are free to enjoy my public spaces, so long as you abide by the rules that are created to maximise public comfort.

While I accept your point that we can not guarantee we won't ever experience assaults on our sensibilities, we do have a right to expect public places to be regulated so they are pleasant for all to use. Even though some people use profane language in their everyday conversation, many people are offended by it, so we don't allow such words to be printed on advertising billboards. Profanities don't cause physical harm, but they mitigate against the environment being benign and pleasant. Some people advocate public sex, and that, too, is physically harmless. But again many people would be offended by themselves or their children encountering couples copulating on park benches. so we don't allow that, either. Nudity is in the same class of behaviour, perhaps not to you, but to the majority of people, and they don't want it in their daily public environment. So enjoy your nudist places and allow us to enjoy our textile ones - nudity free.

Stu

[nimrod]

It's a fact because you say it is a fact.

No it is a fact because everyone else, but you, agrees that it is a fact. The only reason that you do not think it is a fact is because there is the off chance that you might see nudity. Just because the nudity is not within your very limited confines does not mean that those participating are being irresponsible.

[Stu2630]

nimrod

it is a fact because everyone else, but you, agrees that it is a fact.

When you say "everyone else", you mean "everyone else here on this nudist forum". I reckon the majority of people in society at large would agree that nudity in public is indecent.

The only reason that you do not think it is a fact is because there is the off chance that you might see nudity.

No, I think it is indecent because it is contrary to the prevailing norms and values in our society. Most people will accept nude beaches, but most people don't believe people should have the right to go nude on all beaches. Even more people would be likely to consider it indecent to go nude in a town or city centre.

Stu

[BlobbyBob]

The funny thing is that people complained in Seattle and almost got nudity banned there (it's legal in parks and such) - they had 6 complaints, yet they had thousands of people walking the streets and cheering the riders on. Shame when the minority thinks that they can be in charge - and often are, sadly.

[Stu2630]

they had 6 complaints, yet they had thousands of people walking the streets and cheering the riders on

The number of formal complaints lodged is no indicator as to the number of people who find the behaviour objectionable. A few years ago, my local authority was asked why it had not done more to eradicate dog fouling in one of our parks and it responded by saying it had received barely a handful of complaints about it. When the local paper asked people why they didn't use the parks more, a massive number stated that there was too much dog mess in them! You'll find it's what happens with regards to most things people find objectionable in public - they tolerate it rather than having the gumption to go to the trouble of making a formal complaint, either because they think someone else will, or else they don't have any faith that their concerns will be addressed by the authorities.

Stu

[jon71]

Typically complainers are more likely to speak up than supporters and that's a shame. When I interned for a congressman we could easily spot it when Limbaugh, Dobson, or one of them told their listeners to call or write in. We'd get a bunch of people saying the same thing and they clearly had no idea what was going on. They weren't taken seriously. We also learned to spot it when the same person was always calling in about one thing or another. A city council office might not be as used to this as a congressional rep.s office but considering Seattle rejected the idea of banning nudity apparently they have their heads on straight enough to not be frightened by a few malcontents. I actually saw a clip from the local news and it suggested what they might do is put up more signing as to what going on and that's why they rejected a nudity ban. That's reasonable enough. More advertising should be good for both nudists and non-nudists alike.

[nimrod]

When you say "everyone else", you mean "everyone else here on this nudist forum". I reckon the majority of people in society at large would agree that nudity in public is indecent.

No, I mean everyone else but you. If there is a warning that an area is going to be used for a certain purpose, no matter what that purpose is, that is different from the usual function of that area, that is responsible behaviour.

[barenaked1]

Moderators: Do we really have to put up with these insults? "suffer this disgusting behaviour"


In other words, these aren't, for the most part, a reflection of the views of the people of Crawley, who are going to have to suffer this disgusting behaviour, but vociferous nudists from around the world - including this place!

Stu

[Stu2630]

jon

I actually saw a clip from the local news and it suggested what they might do is put up more signing as to what going on and that's why they rejected a nudity ban. That's reasonable enough. More advertising should be good for both nudists and non-nudists alike.

I entirely agree. Places for nudity and places for non-nudity and signs to show people which is which. That would keep me happy. :)

nimrod

If there is a warning that an area is going to be used for a certain purpose, no matter what that purpose is, that is different from the usual function of that area, that is responsible behaviour.

It doesn't work like that. If I want to use my town centre as a race-track, but I give everybody "a warning" first, does that make it OK? What if I want to organise an orgy in my local park - is that acceptable so long as I let the press know about it first? When it comes to public thoroughfares - everybody should be able to use them all the time. Some people may be offended by nudity yet have no real choice but to use those streets. Folks have to get to work, or they may even work in the streets. No, this is neither necessary nor acceptable when there are places set aside for nudism and where it would offend no-one.

Barenaked1

Do we really have to put up with these insults? "suffer this disgusting behaviour"

Read what I said in context. The "disgusting behaviour" I was referring to is people riding through city streets naked and regardless of whether it offends people. I think that's a pretty disgusting thing to do. I am also sure that there are nudists who wouldn't ever dream of behaving in that way.

Stu

[jon71]

Actually Nimrod is right. The signing I mentioned was to let people know that on such and such a day a naked bike ride is coming through the public park. That sort of thing is routine. A certain group whether social, religious, political, will hold a function in a public place whether it's a park or a march down mainstreet. Sometimes it will be offensive. I despise the klan and what they stand for but I know they have rights to speak and assemble, even to hold a rally in a public park or march down mainstreet. I would argue that the best response is not to try and stop them but to have a counter speech/march. I've seen cases where the people who reject racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, nativism, etc. will have ten times the number that the klan gets when the marches are compared in size. That's the way to go.
I've been going back and forth about your constant use of the example of swinging and whether or not you had any point. It's actually conceivable in the distant future it would be as public and open and tossing a frisbee in the park but that won't happen anytime soon. I think what really makes it invalid is that the naked bike ride is speech (there is a political message of both body acceptance and a rejection of dependence on fossil fuels) and a big orgy would not be speech it would be an activity. I know this confuses a lot of people because speech (legally speaking) is often not verbal. It can be interpretive dance, sign language, waving placards, marching, or riding bicycles naked. On the other hand something can be declared an action and not speech even if it is verbal such as yelling fire in a crowded theater which is not considered speech at all. For that matter hate speech (and this gets a bit self contradictory but that's why we have the term "legal fiction") is often an action as well. I think the best idea is to let people know "hey on tues. a naked bike ride runs throught the park" and let people attend or not as they choose.

[Stu2630]

jon

Sorry, but I'm afraid I agree with you again! If they want to hold a nude bike ride through my local park one day per year, then so long as everyone has fair warning and the nudity can not be seen from outside the park, that's fine by me. In fact, I would support it! It's no different to nudists hiring a public swimming pool or some other facility.

That is a totally different proposition to riding naked through a town centre, where people have to go to get to work or keep appointments or where they may be passing through as strangers and so could easily be entirely unaware of such an event.

Arrangements can be made to facilitate nudism in places other than nudist beaches, if there is a demand. But those arranging and permitting such events should ensure that the only people who are going to be exposed toi the nudity are those who actually want to by free choice. You can do that in many parks, but you can't do it in a town centre.

Stu