Public Nudity Designated Areas

[MikeJB]

Okay I think everyone here kind of agrees that public nudity isnt a big thing on the nudism list of things to accomplish but I still think they would like it eventually and think that nudity is something harmless and something that would be beneficial to people. Now since total public nudity EVERYWHERE might be unrealistic and to some absurd right now, I think that maybe some sort of compromise would be more realistic like say allowing it in public but in more discreet areas such as parks, countryside, rural areas, etc, where its in public but its still not necessarily somehwere where a massive amount of epople are likely to encounter it and be shocked and also are more logical and practical areas to see it and somewhere where youd expect to see such a thing, thus making it less shocking *not that it should be anyways*. I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that that it would be more realistic for nudists and also be more understandable and something that lawmakers would be more likely to legalize than say on a busy street corner. Maybe also it could be the sort of thing where wherever a man or woman can go topless, they can also go nude, because most places that are practical for topfreedom are also practical for nudity and if you expect to see someone without a top, chances are youll accept someone nude as well, so this might be something logical to consider as well. I mean this might be something more of Stu's style, keeping it out of the public's hair for the most part but also giving nudists public nudity rights. What do you yall think and do any of you have any suggestions or additions to this idea? I would really like to know. I mean it seems that most textiles are hard to convince and the easier and more realistic we make our intentions, the more likely we could get them to accept nudity and be able to work our way up to full nude access to public areas once the public is used to seeing it in these designated public areas. I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal.

[MikeJB]

Okay I think everyone here kind of agrees that public nudity isnt a big thing on the nudism list of things to accomplish but I still think they would like it eventually and think that nudity is something harmless and something that would be beneficial to people. Now since total public nudity EVERYWHERE might be unrealistic and to some absurd right now, I think that maybe some sort of compromise would be more realistic like say allowing it in public but in more discreet areas such as parks, countryside, rural areas, etc, where its in public but its still not necessarily somehwere where a massive amount of epople are likely to encounter it and be shocked and also are more logical and practical areas to see it and somewhere where youd expect to see such a thing, thus making it less shocking *not that it should be anyways*. I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that that it would be more realistic for nudists and also be more understandable and something that lawmakers would be more likely to legalize than say on a busy street corner. Maybe also it could be the sort of thing where wherever a man or woman can go topless, they can also go nude, because most places that are practical for topfreedom are also practical for nudity and if you expect to see someone without a top, chances are youll accept someone nude as well, so this might be something logical to consider as well. I mean this might be something more of Stu's style, keeping it out of the public's hair for the most part but also giving nudists public nudity rights. What do you yall think and do any of you have any suggestions or additions to this idea? I would really like to know. I mean it seems that most textiles are hard to convince and the easier and more realistic we make our intentions, the more likely we could get them to accept nudity and be able to work our way up to full nude access to public areas once the public is used to seeing it in these designated public areas. I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal.

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that that it would be more realistic for nudists and also be more understandable and something that lawmakers would be more likely to legalize than say on a busy street corner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is exactly what I have said to Stu, many times. My suggested list of allowed places to be naked consists only of rural areas and wild nature.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu doesn't accept this compromise. He says he needs total "safety". But I think the lawmakers should not count for the few people of his kind. Free nudity at least in those places where virtually no one sees it! (And on private property of course.)

[Dawg]

To me it would just make sense to say that if there is an area where a man is typically "allowed" to be shirtless then it should also be appropriate to be nude.
going into the bank nude would be frowned upon just as a guy walking in without a shirt on would be. They could change all those signes to read "No Clothes, No Shoes, No service". It just seems like common sense.

Mike

"I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that"

No way, Mike! The vast majority of people aren't nudists and don't go to places where nudists are. They avoid nudist places for a reason. Most beaches, parks etc should be accessible and comfortable to most people. Your "compromise" would turn the majority of public space into a haven for nudists at the expense of the rest of us. You should have MORE nudist places allocated - and then, for the most part, stay away from other public spaces unless you are prepared to keep your pants on.

"I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal."

I think you'll find that for the average prude, seeing a person naked on a public (testile) beach or in a park is every bit as unacceptable as seeing one in a town. I'm all for making a compromise but I wouldn't buy any of this - sorry, Mike, try again.

"But I think the lawmakers should not count for the few people of his kind. Free nudity at least in those places where virtually no one sees it! (And on private property of course.)"

The lawmakers in England will absolutely NOT make a law that permits nudity just because a place is remote - and the people wouldn't accept it if they tried. What they WILL accept is if naturists are as discreet as possible when using remote places. That means if approached - the nudist covers up until he is certain the approaching person/people are OK about his nudity. That's a reasonable compromise. I can then walk along any part of my nation's countryside confident that I will either not encounter nudity at all, or, if I do, it will be momentary and unintentional.

Dawg

"To me it would just make sense to say that if there is an area where a man is typically "allowed" to be shirtless then it should also be appropriate to be nude."

It's not uncommon here to see men shirtless outside pubs on summers' days siting at tables and drinking beer, or a lidos or in public parks. Nudity would be totally unacceptable in such places.

Stu

[greensunshine]

Oh, Guys we Females want this going without shirts to be equal...if it is legal for you to go topless/shirtless...we should also be allowed that same right and freedom...

And ****Note, controlling your erections should be YOUR Responsibility and NOT OURS /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Oh, one other thing Mike, chances of your plan as much as I would like to see it working in the places you suggest, won't work, and it isn't because of those who would do their best, it is because of those who would go beyond the limits, as proof has already shown with many of the clothing optional beaches /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Female, Mormon and Proud of Both /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Kari P]

Dawg,

Men's shirtlessness and everyone's barefootedness is tolerated in Finland, and I also believe in most European countries, quite well. We don't have "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs. Restaurants have their dress codes, of course.

You can walk freely in the streets and visit most shops and other places in that state, if it is sane in respect of the environment conditions. But don't expect you could do it naked. Public nudity in the streets and shops is not and will not be easily accepted. (Never say never.)

[Kari P]

Stu,

"That means if approached - the nudist covers up until he is certain the approaching person/people are OK about his nudity."

Not possible if the nudist doesn't have any clothes with him!

In summer I can walk in the forest my clothes being left far away. I do it in an area where I know very probably no one will move. I use to watch and listen intensively what happens in my environment. What would I do if I observe that unexpectedly a person could see me? This is a hypothetical situation I haven't yet met.

- If that someone is far, I probably would walk, not run, fast to the opposite direction and try to find a shelter that is not near to the person's expected path. The person maybe had already seen a glimpse of me or sees it while I move away, and if he isn't extremely curious ("Was it really a naked man? Who then?"), he wouldn't follow me. But if that happens, follow the next plan.

- If that someone is already so near that I couldn't successfully hide, I would take some footsteps away from the path, or remain sitting where I was if I was sitting (on a stone perhaps), and be as natural as I can. If the person greets me or asks something, I respond. If the question is about my nudity, I would say about: "I'm just wandering here naked. Do you mind it?"

Is this behaviour discreet enough to you, Stu?

I answered your earlier question
"Sorry, Kari, but where is MY protection here? Don't people like me count in this?"
here:
http://www.clothesfree.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000126;p=1#0000 22

Kari P

[MikeJB]

Mike

"I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that"

No way, Mike! The vast majority of people aren't nudists and don't go to places where nudists are.
------------------------------------------------

Yes and they would know that nudists are possibly in such places and if they had such feelings they would avoid such places or be careful not to run into nudist in such places. Just because girls go in bikinis to beaches and alot of people dont like seeing those girls does that mean that they shouldnt be allowed there just so that those people are happy when they could easily just avoid that area or accept the fact that they are there? The same goes for nudity, people would accept it more if they expected to see it there and it was appropriate there. Just like you wouldnt wanna see a girl in a bikini in a restaurant but on the beach she is ok. I think that a nudist on a street corner would be going too far but one in a deserted park or beach wouldnt be so bad.

----------------------------------------------
They avoid nudist places for a reason.
----------------------------------------------

They avoid them because they are not nudists themselves, not because they dont like or mind seeing nude people. Im sure some people dont like seeing nude people but I think most just avoid nudist places because they are simply not nudists.


------------------------------------------------
Most beaches, parks etc should be accessible and comfortable to most people.
------------------------------------------------

They would be and thats what we desire. We want them accesible to us as well without having to change our lifestyle adversely. I think if people expect nudists to be there that they would accept them more and not react harshly or shocked as they would if they saw the same person on a busy street. You dont expect nudists there and in many ways probably wouldnt be as practical there as say in a park or a pool.

----------------------------------------------
Your "compromise" would turn the majority of public space into a haven for nudists at the expense of the rest of us.
----------------------------------------------

I quite honestly doubt that if you allowed nudity in certain public places *parks, pools* that they would appear in masses, in fact im sure most people would be likely not to run into many of them at all if any. Besides most people would use common sense when they would be nude in such places and wouldnt be nude there if they honestly thought there was a chance of offending a large number of people or any at all. This would happen alot less at a park than it would a busy street, especially if it was the norm there.

-----------------------------------------------
You should have MORE nudist places allocated - and then, for the most part, stay away from other public spaces unless you are prepared to keep your pants on.
-------------------------------------------------

That wouldnt be very reasonable and we wouldnt be much better off than we are now. We just want a simple compromise and this is the best we can offer.

------------------------------------------------
"I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal."

I think you'll find that for the average prude, seeing a person naked on a public (testile) beach or in a park is every bit as unacceptable as seeing one in a town. I'm all for making a compromise but I wouldn't buy any of this - sorry, Mike, try again.
-------------------------------------------------

As it is now, im sure they would, but if people were asked weither it would be acceptable to see allow a nude person access to say a secluded park, pool, beach, forest/rural area compared to a busy street corner or store, im sure they would be much more willing to agree with such a thing. Also like I said if the park was known to allow nudity and this was accepted there and the norm and there were signs that noted such things there then people would accept this and act accordingly and not be offended by it as much.

-----------------------------------------------
"But I think the lawmakers should not count for the few people of his kind. Free nudity at least in those places where virtually no one sees it! (And on private property of course.)"

The lawmakers in England will absolutely NOT make a law that permits nudity just because a place is remote - and the people wouldn't accept it if they tried. What they WILL accept is if naturists are as discreet as possible when using remote places.
------------------------------------------------

Stu if we had such places allowed for us we would be discreet in such places and thus would use common sense as to where and when to take advantage of having this nudity like with anything else.

------------------------------------------------
That means if approached - the nudist covers up until he is certain the approaching person/people are OK about his nudity.
------------------------------------------------

Most people wouldnt be nude in such places unless they were sure most people were ok with it. Just because we allow it there doesnt mean we dont want people to be smart about being nude there. You just gotta use common sense and most of the time nothing will happen and if you do happen to come across someone that is offended you can either be polite and explain yourself and or cover up if you wish/if you can. Its just about common sense and being polite and respectful of others, especially if they happen to find you offensive to them.

------------------------------------------------
That's a reasonable compromise. I can then walk along any part of my nation's countryside confident that I will either not encounter nudity at all, or, if I do, it will be momentary and unintentional.
------------------------------------------------

If you would apply our compromise to this then largely this would be true if not all the time. You would most likely never encounter nudity and if you did, the nudist would deal with it in a polite and respectful manner and would do their best not to offend you, I mean that seems like the most you could ask of anyone. If you asked them to cover up im sure they would comply with your wishes. Most of us would.

------------------------------------------------
Dawg

"To me it would just make sense to say that if there is an area where a man is typically "allowed" to be shirtless then it should also be appropriate to be nude."

It's not uncommon here to see men shirtless outside pubs on summers' days siting at tables and drinking beer, or a lidos or in public parks. Nudity would be totally unacceptable in such places.
------------------------------------------------

As the law is now of course its unacceptable in such places but given our circumstances it would be acceptable and in places like parks and pools its only logical to say that if people can be without a shirt then nudity would work as well and most people given that this was accepted would be just fine with it.


==Mike==

[MikeJB]

Stu,

"That means if approached - the nudist covers up until he is certain the approaching person/people are OK about his nudity."

Not possible if the nudist doesn't have any clothes with him!
------------------------------------------------

Not to be a real supporter of Stu or anti nudity or anything but as far as your statement goes here id have to support Stu and say that this wouldnt be a good defense for being able to go nude in a public place because Stu would just say that thats why you have to wear clothes there so youll have them on and wont be in a situation where you need them and dont have them. Really though besides this little sidenote I totally agree with what you said and I just think that because you cannot please anyone that instead of requiring clothes in these places, people should just be allowed to go nude when they so wish in the hopes that most would use common sense and be discreet in their nudity so that if and when they run into people who dont want to see or find their nudity questionable that this would occur very less often if at all and so thus when it does happen all that would be needed is a bit of politeness and respectful attitudes towards these people and most of the time this would work and the people would just accept you and your nudity more or just move on and not be offended or shocked as much as Stu would think they are. I think it has more to do with individuality than clothing that decides how people would respond to others, a polite nude man is better than a rude clothed one and a polite clothed man is better than a rude nude man. i think you can see the logic in this and I hope Stu does and I think that any open minded and logical court would understand the logic and positive aspects of this and would be more inclined to allow such things more than say nudity on a street corner. Also private facilities could still have their dress codes and such places where nudity would be accepted could and should put up signs to indicate that nudity might be encountered here and I think if this took place then people would find nudists going about their business naked here to be much more welcomed and accepted.

[MikeJB]

Oh, one other thing Mike, chances of your plan as much as I would like to see it working in the places you suggest, won't work, and it isn't because of those who would do their best, it is because of those who would go beyond the limits, as proof has already shown with many of the clothing optional beaches
------------------------------------------------

On the contrary---This could and almost assuredly would be dealt with if such places were legalized in the same manner that incidents that are beyond the limits are dealt with with those who have clothing on. The nudity would not make such incidents harder or unable to be dealt with anymore than they would invite or encourage them to occur more often than they would otherwise. Unsavory people will cause trouble nude or clothed and when this happens, management and authorities will deal with it properly and efficiently. You really have nothing to worry about. I think that because things happen at co beaches more often is because they are largely unsupervised and their situation is much worse off than textile beaches and at some beaches this goes quite beyond the nude aspect of it. Most parks and pools have decent security and measures to prevent such things and would be more likely to do so than a co beach would. I understand your concern and its quite legitimate but im fairly confident that such things would be very unlikely to occur and if they did, theyd be very likely to be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Im not saying it would be perfect but then again it isnt sometimes even where we must have clothing on, so obviously clothing IS NOT the answer.

[greensunshine]

Mike,

Once again living not to far from several legalized clothing optional beaches, behavior has shown that unless "Big Brother" is there at every corner, your solution, simply can not work...and with budget cuts, having the man-power to make this work is simply less of an option...and utilizing the resources of those the regulars especially also is not an option with the many miles of beaches we have at our fingertips. Many of us who enjoy the beach have simply had to learn to turn a blind-eye to the sometimes inappriate behavior that takes place in the beaches and in the bushes /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I would like to add, sometimes these acts take place not just on the beach, or in the bushes, but also on the boats that opt to stop along the river banks...

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Female, Mormon, and Proud of Both /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kari

If you are truly doing your best to keep out of sight of others, and you choose places where you know this can be achieved with near certainty, then no harm is done. This may well be possible in Finland where you have vast areas of forest and a relatively small population. Here in England it would generally be irresponsible and consequently our nude walkers really must carry their clothes with them.

Mike

"As the law is now of course its unacceptable in such places but given our circumstances it would be acceptable and in places like parks and pools its only logical to say that if people can be without a shirt then nudity would work as well and most people given that this was accepted would be just fine with it."

I can't comment on California because I've never been there and have no plans to do so. I know that shirtlessness among men i the UK is a common sight in summer. Nudity in the same circumstances would be prohibited and lkely to lead to arrest. Had Mr Gough done his walk wearing nothing but a thong he would never have attracted even the slightest attention from the police.

Stu

[MikeJB]

Yeah but how does making us wear clothing become a logical solution and how does this really help to lower or stop the acts of such people? These people being forced to wear clothing will not stop them from doing questionable things and they'll just find a way to do it clothed. I think the best thing to do would just to be to leave the beach open and CO and to catch people whenever possible *maybe hiring more cops or getting people to be more watchful and dealing with questionable things/people when they find them* and the rest of the time to just leave it alone and try to just have a good time and not let these things ruin your fun. I think at even the most heavily staffed beach, unsavory acts cant be prevented 100% so sometimes you just gotta deal with them and not worry about it. I dont think such things like this should encourage people to deny us nudists the right to be nude just to supposedly protect a few people that really wouldnt be very protected in the end anyways and people would lose more rights and less comfort than gain it.

==Mike==

[MikeJB]

Had Mr Gough done his walk wearing nothing but a thong he would never have attracted even the slightest attention from the police.
-------------------------------------------------

This is a big question though. If people can handle the sight of seeing a practically naked man in a thong *which some thongs cover almost NOTHING to begin with* and have it not bother them then why if that same man takes his thong off and uncovers just a lil bit of skin then why does it turn into such an issue? I think if the public goes as far as allowing such exposure then it gets to the point where you ask "whats the point in even requiring coverings?" I mean at this point it just gets ridiculous. The same goes for women's bikini tops when they are so small they are barely legal and people keep trying to see how much they can stretch the law. Anyways if Mr Gough had a thong on, people would think this is contradictory to what he is trying to support ironically because they would ask "if youre a nudist and are tryint to gain support for it then why are you wearing a thong instead of being naked?" I mean this is obviously for legal reasons but some people would think that even then that if he wore a thong he would be kind of having a double standard where he would want people to be nude in public but yet he wouldnt have the guts to do it himself. That does bode well for his fight to get public nudity legalized and it doesnt make any more sense than employees wearing uniforms at a nudist resort!

==Mike==

[MikeJB]

The clothing optional beach in Portland might get shut down because of the press about predators. Too bad because I like to swim naked but not with a bunch of goofballs circling.
------------------------------------------------

Is this everybody's solution to such problems just close the beaches and deny people places to go nude? I honestly dont think this is the answer and I dont think these people try hard enough to find other ways to deal with such situations before just giving up, many are too lazy to even do anything and just take the easy way out at the expense of the nudist.

[MikeJB]

Kari

If you are truly doing your best to keep out of sight of others, and you choose places where you know this can be achieved with near certainty, then no harm is done.
-------------------------------------------------

This is the most likely scenerio with what I was suggesting and most people wouldnt be nude there unless it fell under these circumstances and if those people werent sure then they could always carry clothes with them like you suggested. If thats possible then that seems like the logical thing to do, you dont need much clothing just usually a pair of shorts to cover your genitals or a bikini bottom and maybe a top for a woman. That would seem reasonable enough because most of these places as long as you have pants on then nobody would care otherwise and its easy to slip into them if youve got enough time or if someone asks you to.

[MikeJB]

Mike,

Once again living not to far from several legalized clothing optional beaches, behavior has shown that unless "Big Brother" is there at every corner, your solution, simply can not work..
-------------------------------------------------

Depending on the place and the situation it can. If people are responsible and looking for such acts and can deal with them or report them and if the police in that area are well staffed then they could do something about it, but if there isnt enough police or the people are just too lazy or irresponsible to deal with such unsavory acts then they only have themselves to blame when such things happen. I dont see how making people wear clothing makes these areas any more safe or free of such acts by people.


------------------------------------------------
.and with budget cuts, having the man-power to make this work is simply less of an option.
------------------------------------------------

Sometimes thats just an excuse and if there really is a big problem there then maybe the city should devote more of its funds from less deserving things to manning the beaches better and keeping an eye out for such things. It would also be better to get people involved and looking out for such things and in most situations dealing with it without the police needing to be involved. Maybe they could just have more lifeguards to be on duty, many of those could be volunteers and unless the situation turns violent, this may be a cheaper and more effective way to deal with most issues without resorting to the clothing required option which in my opinion doesnt gurantee that these things will stop and just denies people the right to and places to go nude when they wish. I dont think alot of these CO beaches even have lifeguards or adequate facilities or manpower to deal with these things like most regular beaches do anyways.


----------------------------------------------
..and utilizing the resources of those the regulars especially also is not an option with the many miles of beaches we have at our fingertips.
----------------------------------------------

If those people are out of view then theres nothing you can do about that and if they are not bothering anyone then its best to just ignore them and leave them alone and let them do whatever it is they are doing *within reason*.


------------------------------------------------
Many of us who enjoy the beach have simply had to learn to turn a blind-eye to the sometimes inappriate behavior that takes place in the beaches and in the bushes
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah...so why not just do that sometimes as far as the activity in private and the bushes goes? Those people are out of view and not harming anyone, thus means there isnt any reason to interfere in that reguard. I dont see how this would make CO beaches or public places any less sucessful.

------------------------------------------------
I would like to add, sometimes these acts take place not just on the beach, or in the bushes, but also on the boats that opt to stop along the river banks...
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but if its in private on the boat *unless its drugs or alcohol or something* then it doesnt really matter what they do because its their boat and theyre well out of view of others, so its no big deal. Besides parks and pools are easier to deal with this sort of thing than beaches anyways because most of them are smaller and more enclosed with more people packed together and better security overall and thus its easier to prevent and catch such unsavory people.

[Bob S.]

"controlling your erections should be YOUR Responsibility and NOT OURS"

When we can "control" them. And how would a woman control a male's erection? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

And why should we have to give up our areas just "because of those who would go beyond the limits"? That would be like saying that men cannot be teachers because some will molest. Or a Muslim cannot work in the government because he may be a member of Al Qaeda. We cannot create our regulations based on those who are most likely to cause problems. That is the problem with many of the nude beaches here. One instance of sexual impropriety can close down a nude use beach even if it has been used by hundreds of thousands of people every year for decades.

If someone goes beyond the bounds of the law, you allow the law to take care of him. You do not punish everyone for his behaviour.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

Why should you have to control them at all? As long as youre not purposely trying to get one or if you do as long as youre not flaunting it then what is really wrong with an erection in the first place? Theyre natural and a part of being a guy and besides some people can get excited for the least little thing, it doesnt have to be anything sexual but its not like something most guys can control so people should really not bother those who do get an erection or use it as an excuse for guys to keep their pants up. I think if someone cant handle seeing a simple erection then they have serious issues. I really dont think that people just because they see someone has an erection automatically should think these people are horny and want sex because that is the biggest load of bs ive ever heard of and simply not true and if people feel this way then they really have no business being at a CO beach or any other nude venue and should take their sexual crazed societial beleifs somewhere else because they areint welcome if all they are gonna do is come and make rule comments or gawk at nude people and get horny, you wanna do that look at a porn magazine in private, people dont need to see you at a nude beach drooling over some naked person.