High school streakers

[Bob S.]

St. Francis High School in Minn. has had a spate of streakers at its football games this year. Five very brave students have stripped to next to nothing, usually keeping underwear on, and ran on the field.

Inevitably, one 16-year-old became a true streaker and, inevitably, the police arrested him and he could be facing an indecent exposure charge for exposing himself to a child under the age of 16. This charge mandates that he list as a sex offender for 10 years. That's good, ruin the boy's life already for a single night of fun and frivolity.

Bob S.


Here is an article from ABC Newspapers.com (http://abcnewspapers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9281&Itemid=26):

St Francis failing to see humor of streaking incidents
Wednesday, 07 October 2009
by Tammy Sakyr
Staff writer

While the Ray Stevens song, “The Streak,” made running in the buff sound like fun, officials in St. Francis are not laughing.

But the 17-year-old male student that streaked across the St. Francis High School football field wearing only a shirt at the Sept. 25 homecoming game led to a near riot.

After the streaker was captured, wrapped in a blanket and was being led to the waiting squad car, between 500 and 1,000 people surrounded the two arresting St. Francis Police officers swearing, throwing pop bottles and shoes and tried to prevent them from arresting the youth, according to the St. Francis Police report of the incident.

“We advised all parties around us that they would be charged with obstruction if they got in the way of our duties. The crowd was becoming very hostile. Many individuals were swearing and yelling ...,” said Officer A.J. Gennaro in his report.

One 17-year-old male, who attended the school, who had allegedly been physically obstructing the officers was also arrested.

The boy resisted arrest and attempted to punch one of the officers, said St. Francis Police Chief Jeff Harapat.

According to the incident report, two officers had to subdue the youth and had to administer a low-level shock with the stun gun to get him to cooperate.

The teen was arrested for obstruction with force, disorderly conduct, possession small amount of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The streaker faces charges of indecent exposure, fleeing on foot from the police and a possible fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct.

The youth could face up to 90 days in jail/$1,000 fine and could be classified as a sex offender, said Harapat.

The mob “created such a chaos, that it stopped the normal operation of homecoming event,” said Gennaro in his report.

Although this was the first time the crowd turned violent, it is not the first streaking incident this year.

Several teenage boys have been arrested for streaking across the football field at both St. Francis home and away games.

The trend started at the school’s first home game Sept. 3 with a naked 16-year-old boy running across the field.

Three classmates in various stages of undress continued the streaking on the Totino-Grace High School football field in the final quarter of St. Francis’ Sept. 18 game at that school.

According to Fridley Police Lt. Mike Monsrud, two of the boys, both 17, were caught and arrested. The third streaker was able to get away.

An Oak Grove teen was arrested for disorderly conduct and was released to his parents because he just bared his backside, but the second teen from East Bethel faces more serious charges.

The second streaker was arrested for gross misdemeanor indecent exposure, Monsrud said. He could face 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

Because he streaked across the field completely naked, the East Bethel teen could be considered a sex offender for 10 years, depending how the case is resolved, Monsrud said.

Both teens claimed they did it as part of a senior prank, he said.

Money was allegedly behind the streaker’s run at the Sept. 25 St. Francis homecoming game.

According to Harapat, the streaker claimed he won a $200 bet.

School consequences

Streakers and those who helped them could be suspended for up to 10 days, banned from after school activities, reassigned to Crossroads School and the Vocational Center or expelled, according to Principal Paul Neubauer.

The consequences depend on the state of undress and level of involvement, Neubauer said.

The penalties are the same whether the streaking is done at away games or on the home field, he said.

Following the Sept. 25 incident, Neubauer met with each grade level in the school’s Performing Arts Center and informed them of seriousness of the situation.

Streaking puts the school and the community in a negative light, Neubauer said.

It’s a lot bigger issue than it was in the 1970s and it won’t be tolerated, he said.

The athletes, coaches and officials are the only ones allowed on the athletic fields and courts and they deserve that time, Neubauer said.

Having the students converge en mass on the police officers was unacceptable, he said.

That carries the same penalties as streaking, Neubauer said.

It was disruptive and diverted attention from the football game, he said.

The St. Francis Police “officers did a fabulous job maintaining order and controlling the situation, Neubauer said.

No streakers interrupted the Oct. 3 football game.

Tammy Sakry is at tammy.sakry@ecm-inc.com

[Kouak]

I always think it is ironic when schools suspend "bad" students. If they think they are bad, shouldn't the schools be able to teach them right from wrong. Isn't that their business???

And aren't the "bad" students in need of an education more so than the "good" students?

Or do the schools just take the easy way out and get "rid" of the problems?

[FireProf]

Okay...

gotta chime in here on one issue only....

A teacher and the school's responsibility is to teach the students academics. PARENTS are suppose to teach their children right from wrong. Did you learn right from wrong from your teachers???

Come on!

[bill2me]

There are several issues here. I think the fact that the crowd got involved may be the major issue. I'm glad the majority of the folks seemed to think it was nothing more then a joke, yet acts of violence never solve things. The next issue I see is the punishment. If you really want to prove a point (one I do think is a bit on the silly side but that's me) then why not have the students do community service. This whole thing of paying a fine means nothing.

Also I agree that the parents/family should be teaching the kids the moral values. That said my wife is a teacher. We also have several friends who are teachers all in different towns around the state. The parents are not always doing their part. Oh believe me, some do but a great many do not.

[Smiley]

Having known several teachers over the years all I can say is that parents seem to think schools are more babysiters than hall of learning, part of the "cradle to the grave" govenment taking care of us whether we want or need it or not.

That being said, let's let the schools and teachers actually [I]teach[I] for a change instead of just trying to keep the kids from causing problems. If the little nuggets would learn to read and write to start with, it would help. How many kids working in burger joints/stop and rob convenience stores have you seen trying to make change without using their fingers to count on? Or having to dole out pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters for change without having to count out loud?? And unless the cash register tells 'em what the change is, most of 'em would be lost.

Sorry for the rant. .when I graduated grade school we HAD to pass tests, no such thing as "outcome based" education to "help" below standard students. Any score on a test below 70% was a failing grade. .period!

[Stu2630]

It's clearly not acceptable behaviour for a student to streak at school, and i don't think even most nudists would say that it was. The debate should, therefore, focus on what level of punishment is appropriate. In my view, it should be treated in a similar way to a student getting drunk and vomiting in the dining hall, or using profanities towards the principal. It warrants a significant disciplinary sanction, but not a conviction for a sexual offence.

Stu

[maliakei]

I read the article and I feel bad for kids these days. They cannot have any fun at all, and anything they do that is a little out-of-the-ordinary gets pasted all over the internet. These are minors, underage teens who weren't out to hurt anybody.

This 'party' would have been legendary. Let's be real -- we were all teenagers once too. They were just having fun. These kids should graduate and go off to college with the only regret that it shouldn't have escalated further. Now these kids will have black marks on them for the rest of their lives, and will forever have it tough explaining this to future employers.

We seem to be living more in a dictatorship. It's so sad that those who may have done things like this before as teens are now making this to be some big ordeal that's never never happened before. Lawmakers are making it tougher where you get penalized for everything under the sun, thus good jobs will not hire you.

[nimrod]

Want to stop people from streaking? Promote nudity. When simple nudity is seen as normal and an everyday activity the shock of someone streaking is not there and it will stop.

[Bob S.]

Stu: "In my view, it should be treated in a similar way to a student getting drunk and vomiting in the dining hall, or using profanities towards the principal. It warrants a significant disciplinary sanction, but not a conviction for a sexual offence."

How about just treat it as it really is: trespassing. These are high school students so comparing it to getting drunk in this case is very wrong. Spouting profanities at the principal is somewhat better, but simple trespassing is sufficient.

Yes, discipline should be meted out, but only by the school. There is no need for the authorities to get involved.

nimrod: "Want to stop people from streaking? Promote nudity."

With nudity as much more accepted, this kind of trespass streaking (in the middle of games) would not die off, the costumes would just change.

Bob S.

[NudeAl]

Here's a lesson for you kids, if you attempt to be a free spirit and do not conform to the restrictions we have put into place we will crush your spirit into submission. Good lesson for our youth,...if by youth you mean the Hitler youth.

[Stu2630]

BobS


How about just treat it as it really is: trespassing.

It's all a matter of degree. Personally, I regard it as beyond trespassing, which can occur inadvertantly or by someone simply taking an unauthorised short cut. Streaking is calculated to cause outrage - that's why they do it - those involved know it can upset some people. It would upset me and people like me, especially if our own children witnessed it.

I am not advocating sending them to prison, or having them registered as sex offenders, but there should be a firm response to make it clear that this will not be tolerated and the consequences will be more severe than a simple ticking off by the principal.

Stu

[Agde]

...Streaking is calculated to cause outrage...

Streaking is usually more about being dared to do something personally embarrassing. It is also about doing something considered taboo but that everybody knows is totally harmless. There aren't many things like that. If you had some sort of audience "Outrage-o-meter" I bet it wouldn't budge. The reaction of most people probably is closer to empathetic if-that-were-me embarrassment for the streaker. Or to wonder how cold the person was. Or simply to watch with amusement to see how well-organized and in-shape the "authorities" were to catch the taboo breaker. I bet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in any given stadium or community even mildly enough outraged by teenage streaking for it even to cross their minds that it might deserve sex offender registration. Trying to indict streakers as trespassors is just as sillly an idea! A little good humored common sense and perspective please.

[northlondoner]

Anything that could be remotely considered to have sexual overtones in a school will be stopped as a school will wish to guard its reputation, certainly in the conservative US or UK.

[NudeAl]

BobS
Streaking is calculated to cause outrage - that's why they do it - those involved know it can upset some people. Stu

No I don't believe it is. I believe it is meant to thumb ones nose at society. A way of letting us know we are taking ourselves and perhaps life to seriously. I think of it as a light hearted way of having fun. OBTW if we all subscribed to the outrage theory I can think of one or two other things a lot more outrageous than a couple of kids streaking a sporting event.

[Ken Palmer]

Hello Kouak. I think you hit it right on the nose here. Most of the schools just want to take the easy way out and get rid of the problem students. And to a certain degree, I can understand that. But other than the mere act of streaking, I am not sure if they should be labeled as "bad students." Yes I admit they obviously exposed themselves. But for all we know, they could be straight A kids who just did a typical male school prank. Another common prank among males is mooning. Heck, I did that as a teenager myself a few times. But fortunately, we never got caught.

Ken Palmer




I always think it is ironic when schools suspend "bad" students. If they think they are bad, shouldn't the schools be able to teach them right from wrong. Isn't that their business???

And aren't the "bad" students in need of an education more so than the "good" students?

Or do the schools just take the easy way out and get "rid" of the problems?

[Stu2630]

It's clearly behaviour which is unacceptable, so what is needed is a very clear sanction that the students know in advance. For example, if you streak, you get a $500 fine plus 50-hours community work. Do it a second time and these will be doubled.

Yes, it's a prank, but it's an antisocial prank and one which should be discouraged with a penalty that will deter almost all who might consider it.

Stu

[Safebare]

Why stop there? Clearly we can apply this to other antisocial behaviors.

I think the kids that wear their pants around their knees are a public menace. And, how about all those people who continue to smoke cigarettes? And those guys in Ireland that insist on wearing skirts, they should be punished as well. What are they thinking???

Too much was made of Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' and this is the same kind of paranoia that fueled that response.

Oh, I can't believe I'm responding to one of Stu's rants. Forgive me.

Safebare.

[Stu2630]

Safebare


Why stop there? Clearly we can apply this to other antisocial behaviors.We already do. It's quite normal for penalties for certain kinds of antisocial behaviour to be standardized. In the UK, if you are found to be drunk and disorderly, you will get an £80 fine. If you are driving without insurance, you will get 6-penalty points on your licence and a £200 fine.


I think the kids that wear their pants around their knees are a public menace. And, how about all those people who continue to smoke cigarettes? And those guys in Ireland that insist on wearing skirts, they should be punished as well. What are they thinking???These behaviours are neither criminal, nor are they considered to be antisocial in most western nations. Public nudity, on the other hand, most certainly is. As for guys wearing skirts - that mostly happens in Scotland rather than Ireland.

This isn't a "rant", by the way. It's a reasonable and reasoned suggestion. It also offers a far fairer, and more proportionate, punishment than exists at present, where offenders can get labeled as "sex offenders".

Sanslines

Thanks for asking - I followed your suggestion and asked for a post-graduate assistant - and got one - just until the end of next month. She has kindly helped me finish marking some of my backlog of essays and this has freed up some time for me. So I am able to come here a bit more often. :)

Stu

[LA Naturist]

Oh My!! what is this world coming to?
when I first saw this posting I thought it was the St. Francis high school I went to back in the 60s (class of '71). If that had happened there the person would have been expelled for sure. Then I bet more than one person would have streaked just to be expelled. :laugh:
unfortunately the fad did not take off until I was in San Diego Mesa College and a radio station was promoting streaking so people could win concert tickets. :D

[Bob S.]

Stu: "Streaking is calculated to cause outrage - that's why they do it - those involved know it can upset some people"

Streaking is not intended to cause outrage. It is done to give the fans a laugh and for the vast majority of fans, they do laugh. It is also treated as a game in itself to see how long the streaker can last until they are caught. There is no offense intended.

Stu: "but there should be a firm response to make it clear that this will not be tolerated and the consequences will be more severe than a simple ticking off by the principal."

Hence my suggestion to treat it as trespassing. That will make it clear that it will not be tolerated. Banning the students from after-school activities, giving them detentions or some other school punishment.

As for the legal punishment, first time should just be a warning. Then a subsequent streak can be punished as any trespassing conviction would.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines


so if you ask for a second graduate assistant and get one, you could then double the amount of time that you spend here?

I fear not. My graduate assistant recently completed her PhD and is waiting to take up a job, so she has some time on her hands and also I haven't used up my teaching budget, so they can pay her some hours to help me. This is a once-and-only situation. :disappointed:

BobS

Yes, streakers know some people will think it funny - but why is it funny? It's deemed funny by the less intelligent in society precisely because it is outrageous. Youth loves thumbing their noses at the sensibilities of the older generations.

As for trespassing, I was thinking of the law of trespassing as it applies in the UK, whereby it is not mostly a criminal offence and those who do it are simply asked to leave. So long as there is a clear punishment in place which everyone knows to expect if they break this rule, and that punishment is sufficient to deter all but the most foolhardy, then that is all I am suggesting.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu: "It's deemed funny by the less intelligent in society precisely because it is outrageous."

Now you are just being insulting. There are intelligent people who find streaking to be a laugh riot. There may be some less educated who would frown upon it. I would find it funny, so are you calling me less intelligent? Are you saying that you abide in the upper echelon of society because you scoff at the idea of streakers?

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

BobS

I'm not wanting to insult anyone, but I fail to see how the sight of a naked person running is comical in its own right. If you saw a naked jogger at a nudist camp, would you be rolling around on the ground helpless with laughter? People are only amused by streaking because they know some people find it outrageous.

Stu

[Aaron]

BobS

I'm not wanting to insult anyone, but I fail to see how the sight of a naked person running is comical in its own right. If you saw a naked jogger at a nudist camp, would you be rolling around on the ground helpless with laughter? People are only amused by streaking because they know some people find it outrageous.

Stu

Stu, get a &#%!ing life. I have one question, what are you doing n this forum? Seems to me that you are an anti naturist. Surely you can't be advocating punishment for teens that run around naked. In my country we should be encouraging freedom of expression and that means teens should not feel ashamed of their bodies and fearful of the law if they get naked. Even if that is at the amusement of others in attendance. We were all of the teenage years at one point and we all had our naked fun. Should we really be so reprimanded for a simple act of comical nudity to the point that our criminal, and more than likely or professional career, be affected by a teenage display of fun! C'mon now people! Let's still have a little fun in our lives!

[Naturist Mark]

It is vitally important that any spark of spontaneity or expression of joy of life in teens be utterly crushed - otherwise they will be unable to cope with adult life.

[Stu2630]

Aaron


Seems to me that you are an anti naturist.

This isn't a naturist issue, it's a textile issue. I'm not advocating punishing naturist teenagers for running around naked on naturist beaches.

Aaron and Mark


Surely you can't be advocating punishment for teens that run around naked.


any spark of spontaneity or expression of joy of life in teens be utterly crushed

I most certainly am advocating that if they are doing so in circumstances where such behaviour is not tolerated or could cause offence. When I was a teenager, we had plenty of fun but we didn't have any urge to run around exposing our genitalia to others. Nor did we feel that our "spontaneity or expression of joy was being crushed" by being expected to behave like decent, civilized human beings.

There are appropriate ways to give vent to high spirits and, if we step outside of the limits of acceptability, we can expect to be punished.

Stu

[NudeAl]

I think of it in the terms of free will. We all supposedly have it however in practice it is only the young or the young at heart who seem to still be capable of expressing it. Life has a way of grinding you into submission until your veiws and those of the state become one, either that or you are put away in a prison or a mental institution. That is why I feel we are never so free as when we are in our youth and I find the act of streaking to be an expression of that sense of freedom.

I fail to see how the act of streaking causes anyone harm. I feel in the past we have sensed this somehow and not persecuted these youths for these very slight transgressions. In the early 1970's streaking was all the rage across the US and most had a good laugh over it. What good does it do to put a permanent black mark in their record? It gives the state the power to crush thier spirit. It is a way to say we will have none of that and if you continue we will have the documentation to remove you from society and take away all your freedom. In other words you are only free up to a certain point. I can see the sense in that if your freedom harms another person but in the case of streaking I see no harm being caused. Since no harm is being caused why should we react so harshly?

"True freedom is the capacity for acting according to one's true character, to be altogether one's self, to be self-determined and not subject to outside coercion."
Corliss Lamont

[Stu2630]

Please read what I said. I am not saying that the punishment should be draconian, or even that those who indulge in this behaviour should have their future blighted by a permanent criminal record. I just think there should be a penalty that is 1. very clear and 2. sufficient to deter all but the most foolhardy. That way, those who behave in this inappropriate way do so in full knowledge of the consequences and they can make an informed choice - to behave like an offensive lout and face the punishment, or like a decent and civilized human being.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

I wonder what the appropriate penalty should be for a professor who complains about work overload to the point that a university provided and paid for graduate assistant is assigned to that person to ease his work load so that he could subsequently spend more time in a nudist forum.


To be fair - if the work overload is causing the professor to work so many hours he cannot spend his leisure time playing with the nudists, the appropriate response would be to offer considerable overtime pay.

An even better response would be to assign a nudist TA. A two birds sort of solution.

[Stu2630]

a professor who complains about work overload to the point that a university provided and paid for graduate assistant is assigned to that person to ease his work load so that he could subsequently spend more time in a nudist forum.

Even professors are entitled to time off. How they choose to spend that time off is up to them. They could choose to spend it getting naked on a naturist beach - or posting on a naturist website.


the appropriate response would be to offer considerable overtime pay.

It would have to be at least $200 US per hour. Good professors don't come cheap. :D

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu: "I'm not wanting to insult anyone, but I fail to see how the sight of a naked person running is comical in its own right."

Not all comedy has to be high-brow. Sometimes, a little stupidity mixed with a lot of daring is funny. I'm sorry to see how you fail to understand the humor of streakers. The humor exists the same no matter what the streaker is wearing whether it be a clown costume, Zorro, Margaret Thacher mask, or whatever. The humor is in their running around, trying to avoid the authorities. They become the joke.

Aaron: "Surely you can't be advocating punishment for teens that run around naked."

Aaron, I do advocate they should be punished. All streakers no matter their state of dress should be taken care of in the same manner: as trespassers. That is ultimately what they are. Simple nudity, I think we can all agree with, Stu included, should never be a sex crime. Streaking is about as asexual as you can get.

Sans: "A seriously dedicated professor would not waste his valuable time in a nudist forum to the detriment of his students."

Are you dedicated to you job Sans?

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines is being disingenuous.

I told him that I was being overworked - 97 students in one class alone handing in 3,000-word essays each. I am contracted, and paid, to work 40-hours a week, but was working more 60-70 hours. I mentioned this here and it was suggested that I ask for a graduate assistant. As it happened, there was a suitably qualified PhD available, and some money in the budget, so I put in a bid and got her for a few hours a week, mainly to help me with marking. No I have a bit of help, I can cut down my hours a bit and, if I choose to spend some of my free time on here, that is no business of the university. They couldn't care less ho I spend my free time, so long as it doesn't involve sexual liaisons with students or behaviour likely to result in criminal prosecution.

BobS


Sometimes, a little stupidity mixed with a lot of daring is funny. I'm sorry to see how you fail to understand the humor of streakers. The humor exists the same no matter what the streaker is wearing whether it be a clown costume, Zorro, Margaret Thacher mask, or whatever. The humor is in their running around, trying to avoid the authorities. They become the joke.

Running around pretending to be an aardvark or Shirley Bassey is irritating and can be disruptive, but it doesn't have the potential to cause actual offence. Running around naked certainly can cause offence. All pranks such as this should be punishable, but the naked pranks should be punished a bit more severely IMO.

Stu

[CharlesLogan]

Where is our society headed? No one is harmed by some high school students having a little fun. We have way too many laws that say you can't do this or can't do that, when many of those things harm no one.
I guess people don't have enough constructive things to do to help others, society, our country, or our world, so they have to make ridiculous laws.
CharlesLogan

[scrptman]

(I am not addressing any poster in particular, but instead I am using the generic form of "you")

Whether or not something is harmful to others is not for one individual to decide. In other words, you can't presume to tell someone else whether or not they are harmed but something, that is for them to decide. We live in a very diverse society, with vastly different ideals of what is acceptable and what is not, and because of that, some laws often have to be made which would seem to be on the cautious side.

Just because you personally are not offended at the site of streaking persons (not a big surprise for a reader of a nudist message board), does not mean that someone else cannot be offended - so who is right? For those people, having unwanted nudity forced on them is not acceptable either.

What if your neighbor decided to raise sheep next to your backyard, or play his music so loud you can't hear your TV, or had late night parties every single evening...does he not have the right to play his music? Yes, but up to a point where his right infringes on your right to live. It can be a precarious line to walk. Welcome to modern society.

Bottom line, if there are laws in place against streaking, then that's the way it is - abide by them, or suffer the consequences. Or lobby to change them. You decide. Granted, the punishment does not fit the crime by a mile, but if you don't do the crime at all then you have nothing to fear, do you? Most people manage to make it through life without streaking in public - it isn't that difficult.

Besides, streaking has nothing to do with reasonable nudity - it is and always will be a form of civil disobedience meant to shock and cause reactions.

[Stu2630]

scrptman

I completely agree.

Stu

[nimrod]

We live in a very diverse society, with vastly different ideals of what is acceptable and what is not, and because of that, some laws often have to be made which would seem to be on the cautious side.

This ideal can and has gone to far though. I cannot live my life fearing every second that I might do something that is not "acceptable", if I did I would never leave my house, or and what if someone thinks that my house is unacceptable because someone does not like the color, should I change it for them and if I do will someone else find the acceptable color for that one person unacceptable, and on and on.... Then a law is passed that houses can only be one color, which is unacceptable with me so I have to have the law changed to paint my house the color I want it.


Just because you personally are not offended at the site of streaking persons (not a big surprise for a reader of a nudist message board), does not mean that someone else cannot be offended - so who is right? For those people, having unwanted nudity forced on them is not acceptable either.

Offence is in the eye of the beholder that is a personal choice, and it can be a preprogrammed responce that can be unlearned.


What if your neighbor decided to raise sheep next to your backyard, or play his music so loud you can't hear your TV, or had late night parties every single evening...does he not have the right to play his music? Yes, but up to a point where his right infringes on your right to live. It can be a precarious line to walk. Welcome to modern society.

Loud music and late night parties can be phisically harmful to others not just yourself, it is not about being offended or what is or not acceptable. If a neighbor wanted to raise sheep there is a potential for harm, sanitation issues, property damage, noise polution.

[northlondoner]

Where is our society headed? No one is harmed by some high school students having a little fun. We have way too many laws that say you can't do this or can't do that, when many of those things harm no one.
I guess people don't have enough constructive things to do to help others, society, our country, or our world, so they have to make ridiculous laws.
CharlesLogan

I agree that the law is invoked far too often, and such an activity should just be a prank and nothing further happen. Reality is sometimes now a lot different.

[riptidenj]

I distinguish between innocent fun and what I consider obnoxious-in your face-improper and provocative behavior. I suppose I am very Old School, I think there is a time and a place for everything
and if you want to do something, find that time and place. Drag racing down Main Street at Midnight is obnxoxious and inconsiderate of others, drag racing at a drag strip is a sport and entertainment. Or the old image of kids playing baseball in a built up area and breaking windows. That's what they build ball fields for. My nude time is behind my walls with the curtains drawn or in the woods in the Dark of the Night or at a nude beach or resort where it's perfectly acceptable and respectable. Not at say a game or in school where it's distracting and disruptive.

[nimrod]

My nude time is behind my walls with the curtains drawn or in the woods in the Dark of the Night or at a nude beach or resort where it's perfectly acceptable and respectable. Not at say a game or in school where it's distracting and disruptive.

It is acceptable to you but not all. There are those who think that any nudity outside of having sex or showering is not acceptable. Name any "behaviour" and you will find someone that will not find it acceptable. I do not find it acceptable that we have to hide behind walls and curtains or in the dark of night, to me that is just feeding into the notion that nudity should be hiden.