Offence [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

11-29-2003, 06:18 AM

missouriboy

"Yeah, some of us even to the extreme of coining non-existent ones, such as "the right not to be offended."

Sometimes rights are offset other rights and consequently have to be balanced by duties. I have a right to drive my car but I have a duty to do so in such a way as not to cause danger or inconvenience to others.

I have a right to use public places but I have a corresponding duty to have regard to the safety, convenience and comfort of others.

As a part-owner off all the public places in Britain I have a right to be able to enjoy them in comfort and without inconsiderate minorities spoiling my enjoyment of these places. My duty is to reciprocate by behaving in a civilised, orderly and considerate manner.

WNYjoe

"Challenging our thought process is good, albeit curious though."

The subject matter interests me and I love a good debate! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"And I understand that you are in the UK, so phrasing may have different meanings. However, equal but separate really is not different than Jim Crowe laws. It says that a nudist lifestyle is wrong."

You seem unable to think of the expression "equal but separate" from a non-American perspective - i.e. free from the associations of your own history. I am on a user committee of a leisure centre. We have equal but separate changing areas for males and females, equal but separate toilets and equal but separate saunas. Does that mean that we consider one sex is wrong so they must be put in a separate "ghetto"? Of course not! I'm not suggesting there should NEVER be any integration but, as a rule, nudists should remain with nudists at those times when they wish to be naked in public because it can offend those of us who aren't nudists - and you wouldn't want to offend textiles, now would you? If textiles don't mind being among naked people then they can go to a naturist venue. If naturists are willing to wear swimming costumes then they are welcome at any textile beach. This isn't an unreasonable expectation - it's the way things are and have been since he very inception of naturism as a phenomenon and the way most people want it to be.

"But does that mean that the nudist lifestyle is wrong?"

Who has said that the nudist lifestyle is wrong?

"What is there to be offended by?"

Nudity. Many people find out of context nudity offensive and unacceptable. You may think that's irrational, but that's the way it is. People are feeling, habitual creatures with values, sensitivities and sensibilities that aren't always governed by the strict laws of logic.

"I am sure this can provoke controversy, but if you are offended because you see me nude, who is the one with the problem here?"

If I am offended by seeing you nude in a shower room, or in a men's sauna, or at a naturist beach, then the problem is mine. If I'm offended seeing you nude when streaking at the opera, or walking down the street, or in my local park where I take my children, or at a non-naturist beach then the problem is yours. You have chosen to disregard the 'rules' that our society has to ensure people are able to enjoy public places free from offence and discomfort.

"The thing is, we are at the point where education can go a long way. Nude beaches are considered "par for course" in Europe, but in America, it is a whole different concept."

Have you ever been to Europe? I suspect not otherwise you wouldn't say such a thing. Sure, there are plenty of naturist beaches in many European countries BUT the vast majority of beaches are most definitely NOT naturist nor clothing-optional and if you get naked on them you would be at risk of arrest and prosecution.

"A large part of the education process definitely ties back to the concept that nudity=sex, and that sex is wrong."

Most people don't need educating, thanks. We know perfectly well that nudity and sex are not the same thing.

"But it defintely goes deeper. To the concept that it is wrong to be nude".

Nobody has said that. What is wrong is to be nude in such circumstances as are likely to cause offence. There is a time and place for everything - including being nude.

"Bit by bit, some people are at least getting more able to accept the ideas of others. Nudity included. I just hope that it continues. On every level."

There are limits and I personally think we've just about reached them as far as nudity is concerned. When naturists inevitably push the envelope that bit too FAR there will be, as there always is, a counter-swing and that will be followed by some sort of equilibrium. If they push the envelope too hard the counter-swing will become a backlash and naturism will be in for a hard time with the public and spearheaded by politicians and the media.

I genuinely hope that doesn't happen for the sake of my naturist friends here. Evolution not revoluton - and take 'NO' for an answer.

Stu

11-29-2003, 06:18 AM

Kari P

11-29-2003, 09:59 AM

Stu,

"Sometimes rights are offset other rights and consequently have to be balanced by duties."

You are right.

"I have a right to use public places but I have a corresponding duty to have regard to the safety, convenience and comfort of others."

Again you are right, in principle. The question comes from the interpretation of the principle, when someone's convenience and comfort is in conflict with someone else's freedom. These are two basic values that often conflict. It is commonly accepted that a significant amount of freedom is needed, and that the laws and social norms shouldn't (and cannot) protect individuals against every kind of inconvenience and discomfort caused by others.

An essential question in this thread is: Is there any cause of offence, other than nudity, which is clearly penal in law solely on the basis of offence when no real damage is caused? I remember you once mentioned shouting obscenities, and what I said to it was that it is so common that it cannot be controlled.

"as a rule, nudists should remain with nudists at those times when they wish to be naked in public because it can offend those of us who aren't nudists"

Regarding nudity, what offence and who's offence is to be taken into account? There are quite few people of your kind that are so seriously offended by nudity, so the offence, particularly its seriousness, is not what is reasonably expected by naturists who have found a good place to be naked, where someone unexpectedly arrives. (The place can be e.g. a remote place in nature or a private place somewhat visible to public area where not many unfamiliar, unwarned people are expected to move.)

"Many people find out of context nudity offensive and unacceptable."

This is a question that really should be researched. You only believe there are so many people who find "out of context" nudity offensive and unacceptable with your definition of "out of context" that covers all areas accessible to public (other than designated naturist venues) and also all private areas visible to public. The poll should not ask the single question "Do you accept public nudity?". Instead it should list a wide range of public and private places with adequate descriptions, and ask for acceptance of nudity in each of them.

"If I'm offended seeing you nude when streaking at the opera, or walking down the street, or in my local park where I take my children, or at a non-naturist beach then the problem is yours."

We aren't talking about streaking here! And we aren't necessarily talking about the places you mention above. We are trying to find places where nudity can be tolerated, and many of us feel that it can be tolerated in some public areas other than those that are specially for naturists.

"We know perfectly well that nudity and sex are not the same thing."

"Nudity equals sex" is an oversimplified expression of the meaning that adult nudity is seen to be motivated only by changing clothes, showering etc. (a short period of time when nudity is in practice a must) or a sexual purpose. There is a good motivation in that it is simply fun and comfortable. How many of non-naturists have found this? Isn't it so that when one finds it, then one becomes a naturist?

Kari P

aunaturelone

11-29-2003, 10:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>an oversimplified expression of the meaning that adult nudity is seen to be motivated only by changing clothes, showering etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The framing of the default condition is important here. One side generally feels you need permission to be nude. Generally I believe these people do not get undressed without a compelling reason. Even when with complete privacy and warm temperatures they would be uncomfortable being nude themselves or seeing someone else nude.

The other side lacks this discomfort. For them the question is whether or not there is a compelling reason to dress. When that reason is merely the willingness of the former people to use government to harm those who cause them emotional discomfort, a lot of resentment builds up.

Very similar to oppressing/imprisoning someone for publicly practising a religion or espousing a politcal philosophy.

NuTex

11-29-2003, 10:48 AM

Stu,
I really need to break this up into two postings. Here I would like to deal with just a few points you made. Later I will post a statement about offense itself.

You wrote, ?We have equal but separate changing areas for males and females, equal but separate toilets and equal but separate saunas.?

There is no such thing in life as ?equal but separate?. Any attempts to create such a situation inevitably results in disparate treatment. And like you I?m referring to males and females.

Ask any woman if the public toilet facilities between men and women are ?equal but separate?. We?ve all gone to public events and seen the difference in length of lines leading into the men?s verses the women?s. One of the reasons for that is the men?s facilities have urinals along with toilets while the women?s have just the same number of toilets as the men. Another example is American women?s athletics programs by schools and universities. For years schools and universities failed to fund female athletics equal to males. This resulted in male students having nice changing rooms and fields to play of their own while the female students had second rate at best. Sometimes they had nothing at all and had to use the men?s when the men had no need of them.

In my opinion equal but separate just doesn?t work whether we are talking race, gender or nudity.

You wrote, ?Who has said that the nudist lifestyle is wrong??

I?m glad we got that one behind us. At least we know that isn?t an issue here.

Lastly here you wrote, ?Evolution not revolution.?

I think that again we might be seeing a cultural difference between you and I. Here in the US revolution rocks the cradle. And civil disobedience is in our mother?s milk. In 1776 Tories were telling us to be patient. They pointed out that since crazy King George would eventually die maybe the roll of the genetic dice would get us somebody better. Then in the late 19th and early 20th century people told the suffragettes to be patient and not cause trouble because society wasn?t ready for women to vote. Later there were those that warned Martin Luther King Jr. not to march because there could be a white backlash.

We are all better off because the revolutionaries didn?t listen to the naysayers. Sometimes a little revolution is a good thing.

Scud5

11-29-2003, 11:26 AM

KariP,

I suggest if you think there are public places to be nude..then DO IT..don't debate here with a stranger..

I mean..what does it accomplish?

I say DO IT..and if you never get arrested, you've got your answer..and if you do..you've got your answer.

Steve Gough has HIS answer right now. The loser just spent 3 months in prison, re-offended, and now, is back in jail, waiting to see the judge Monday!!!!

So..what do you think the Judge is going to do? Let him go OR give him more prison time? Well, given his previous problems and incareration, and the fact that apparently 3 months wasn't enough time to learn his lesson, I suspect he'll be looking at MORE time.

Gough must really like prison... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kari P

11-29-2003, 11:39 AM

Rocket again!

I have earlier told about places where I've been naked. I haven't been arrested, and in my country I have no fear for it.

Kari P

11-29-2003, 11:51 AM

Kari

"It is commonly accepted that a significant amount of freedom is needed..,"

True

"..and that the laws and social norms shouldn't (and cannot) protect individuals against every kind of inconvenience and discomfort caused by others."

Laws can't achieve the impossible, but if they can be designed to protect people using public places then they should.

"An essential question in this thread is: Is there any cause of offence, other than nudity, which is clearly penal in law solely on the basis of offence when no real damage is caused?"

Yes but you know that MY definition of damage is different to YOURS. To me the term 'damage' has to embrace things that affect quality of life issues. There are lots of examples of this - e.g. harassment, making excessive noise, foul-smells, eyesores such as litter or abandoned cars etc. And, of course, offensive conduct such as public sex, open prostitution and public nudity.

"I remember you once mentioned shouting obscenities, and what I said to it was that it is so common that it cannot be controlled."

We control it here in public places. Just go into a British street and use a few obscenities in a loud voice in the presence of the police and you will find yourself in the cells and possibly facing charges.

"Regarding nudity, what offence and who's offence is to be taken into account?"

Everyone's offence has to be taken into account. BUT I realise you can't please everyone all the time so you have to legislate according to currently accepted norms. One such norm is that nudity in public is unacceptable - consequently it is de facto unlawful.

"There are quite few people of your kind that are so seriously offended by nudity..."

Most people believe that it is inappropriate and unacceptable for an adult to be naked in most public places. Different people wil experience different degrees of offence or alarm at the sight but that doesn't alter the simple fact that most people find it unacceptable.

"This is a question that really should be researched. You only believe there are so many people who find "out of context" nudity offensive and unacceptable..."

I would have no problem with his being researched and I have no doubt whatsoever that my assessment of public opinion in this regard is fairly accurate.

"..The poll should not ask the single question "Do you accept public nudity?". Instead it should list a wide range of public and private places with adequate descriptions, and ask for acceptance of nudity in each of them."

Agreed

"We are trying to find places where nudity can be tolerated, and many of us feel that it can be tolerated in some public areas other than those that are specially for naturists."

No. Textiles should be able to know with certainty that, if they keep away from naturist areas, they won't have to suffer the sight of nudity.

"There is a good motivation in that it is simply fun and comfortable."

I'm perfectly comfortable wearing clothes. And I can't see the 'fun' in casting them off. Nor can most people, hence naturism is very much a minority activity.

aunaturelone

"The framing of the default condition is important here. One side generally feels you need permission to be nude."

Permission isn't the right expression. Places should be allocated for naturist use by agreement.

"Generally I believe these people do not get undressed without a compelling reason. Even when with complete privacy and warm temperatures they would be uncomfortable being nude themselves or seeing someone else nude."

You are SO right! People are uncomfortable with nudity other than in certain, limited circumstances.

"The other side lacks this discomfort. For them the question is whether or not there is a compelling reason to dress. When that reason is merely the willingness of the former people to use government to harm those who cause them emotional discomfort, a lot of resentment builds up."

But when this "one side" (1) comprises a large majority of the population and (2) tolerates nudity not only in private places, but also in public places specially set aside for the "other side", then it shouldn't cause any resentment because you have (1) majority rule (i.e. democracy in action) and at the same time (2) tolerance and even provision for minorities. If that isn't good enough for the minorities the it is they who are being unreasonable.

"Very similar to oppressing/imprisoning someone for publicly practising a religion or espousing a politcal philosophy."

Not really. You can think anything you like. You can say or espouse almost anything you like. You can do in private the vast majority of things you like. But in public you modify your behaviour to ensure that others within your vicinity are not exposed to danger, inconvenience, annoyance or offence.

NuTex

"Ask any woman if the public toilet facilities between men and women are ?equal but separate?... Another example is American women?s athletics programs by schools and universities..."

But the examples you cite aren't examples of equality. Yes, there is an attempt to create it but this has clealy failed. Assuming there were sufficient toilets for all and sufficient funding for the needs of both sexes in sport, so that everyone had the same opportunity to avail themselves of the facilities then there would be segregation but also true equality.

"We are all better off because the revolutionaries didn?t listen to the naysayers. Sometimes a little revolution is a good thing."

The problem with revolution is that, more often than not, it is profoundly undemocratic. It works by virtue of the ones with the biggest weapons or biggest voices forcing through the changes they want regardless of the silent majority. If you live in a liberal democracy that cherishes the rights to free speech for all, freedom of association and assembly and universal suffrage then you have no right to force through changes that you might desire on an unwilling population.

Stu

Bob S.

11-29-2003, 01:37 PM

"If I am offended by seeing you nude in a shower room, or in a men's sauna, or at a naturist beach, then the problem is mine. If I'm offended seeing you nude when streaking at the opera, or walking down the street, or in my local park where I take my children, or at a non-naturist beach then the problem is yours. You have chosen to disregard the 'rules' that our society has to ensure people are able to enjoy public places free from offence and discomfort."

See, it is not necessarily the nudity that is the problem, but the context. I have been saying this for a while now, that it is the surprise of the situation more than the actual nudity. If people just relaxed upon seeing a naked person, they would have much less of a problem with it. The adrenaline rush that they get from the suddenness of the nudity would be lessened.

"We know perfectly well that nudity and sex are not the same thing."

Can a person take a picture of a naked child and get it developed without any problems? Over here, there have been some horror stories of that. Over here, there is the nudity=sex idea. When a child can go outside sans clothes in a warm day anywhere, then I will believe that most of society has disregarded the nudity always= sex rule.

"There are limits and I personally think we've just about reached them as far as nudity is concerned."

Not quite.

"Textiles should be able to know with certainty that, if they keep away from naturist areas, they won't have to suffer the sight of nudity."

We are asking for more places to be naked. It just seems that you do not want some of the areas we are asking for.

"The problem with revolution is that, more often than not, it is profoundly undemocratic. It works by virtue of the ones with the biggest weapons or biggest voices forcing through the changes they want regardless of the silent majority."

That's one problem with over here in the US. A silent majority is controlling a lot of things. It is called the RRR (Radical Religious Right).

"If you live in a liberal democracy that cherishes the rights to free speech for all, freedom of association and assembly and universal suffrage then you have no right to force through changes that you might desire on an unwilling population."

You see it as force for us wanting to educate the public. No one here has stated that they want to be naked amongst non-nudists and be damned anyone who argues with them. We are for subtle influences, making our voices heard, teaching others how nudity can be enjoyable, etc.

Bob S.

11-29-2003, 01:50 PM

As Kari said, it appears that Rocket is back again with a new name--Scud5. Who else calls Steve a loser? If standing up for one's beliefs and against unreasonable laws makes one a loser, then there have been a lot of losers in the past who got laws changed or irradicated.

NuTex

11-29-2003, 01:52 PM

First,
Kari P wrote, ?I suggest if you think there are public places to be nude..then DO IT..don't debate here with a stranger..?

While I don?t want to speak for Kari P, Stu and others I think the issue here isn?t whether one legally be nude in public as Steve Gough is attempting. The topic at issue here is whether the offense of public nudity is severe enough to warrant such legal restriction.

Second,
Stu,
You are correct when you point out that my examples were indicative of inequality. Yet it was you that used gender segregated toilet facilities as an example of equal but separate. And I was saying that equal but separate isn?t possible.

Third,
One the issue of offense.
I would highly recommend an excellent article by Mark Storey, ?The Offense of Public Nudity?, in Nude and Natural issue 22.2 published by the Naturist Society. His article addresses exactly what we are discussing here. You can read it at http://www.bodyfreedom.org/alliance/essays/offense.html Do worry Stu. At that site you won?t see anyone with his or her knickers down. Just don?t go clicking on any links while there to be safe. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

In the article Storey points out that offending others isn?t necessarily morally wrong by itself. Many great people whose causes were just have offended others. And their acts of offending others often time resulted in being arrested.

Storey goes on to mention a highly respected writer by the name of Joel Feinberg who wrote ?The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law?. In it his book he points out that there is a difference between offense and harm. The State has the right to legislate against harmful acts but generally not against one that is simply offensive.

A harm is a wrongful setback of someone?s interest. The freedom to associate, the right to life and the freedom of movement are just a few interests.

By contrast an offense does not set back our interest but simply irritates us. An offense may cause us embarrassment or annoyance but that isn?t a harm and generally would not warrant being outlawed by the State.

That being said sometimes an offense might rise to the point of harm. So Feinberg lists several factors that should be considered for the State outlaw an action. They are:

The intensity of the offense,
The duration of the offense.
The extent of the offense,
The standard of reasonable avoidability,
The Volenti Maxim: ?Volenti non fit injuria?, or ?To one who has consented, no wrong is done.?,
The discounting of abnormal sensibilities.

This is much more to that article. He goes on to discuss such details as the social value of the offending conduct, free expression, the offender?s motivation and more. I highly recommend it to Stu and everyone here.

Boreas

11-29-2003, 03:02 PM

Hi,

There have been some excellent points raised here. I am glad to see you are back Stu. This board is a lot more interesting when you are around.

The question that has been raised for me here is, "How did we get to where we are today without stretching others' and our own comfort zones?". Women are wearing pants/jeans when at one time they would have been arrested for "impersonating a male". In Ontario and some states, women can go topfree where men can because women pushed the limits. Men can go out without hats and gloves and can still be properly dressed.

I don't think we can just accept the status quo just because it is the thing to do. I think we have to find ways to stretch our comfort zones, and grow. Sometimes comfort zones are stretched gently and sometimes more painfuly. That is how we have come to the point where we are today.

Rik

11-29-2003, 03:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I have a right to use public places but I have a corresponding duty to have regard to the safety, convenience and comfort of others. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you demonstrate this by haranguing women who breast feed their babies without the slightest regard to their safety, convenience or comfort.

It seems to me that you just want it all your own way.

Rik

namedun

11-29-2003, 03:17 PM

Indeed, Stu gets squemish when he is "forced" to see bare natural bodies

Naturist Mark

11-29-2003, 03:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
That's one problem with over here in the US. A silent majority is controlling a lot of things. It is called the RRR (Radical Religious Right).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you meant a silent minority.

The RRR doesn't represent the mainstream nor the majority, but they have managed to become the gatekeepers to one of America's major parties. To be fair the other party has a similar (if lesser) situation with its bleeding heart contingent.

-Mark

Jochanaan

11-29-2003, 05:09 PM

Regarding toilets: They certainly aren't equal! The men's side smells worse! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

(I used to be a janitor, so I speak with some knowledge.)

NuTex

11-29-2003, 06:45 PM

Jochanaan
you wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I used to be a janitor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, man! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I'm glad you said "used to be". I'll take your word for that little bit of "knowledge" buddy.

Bob S.

11-29-2003, 08:22 PM

Hey Tex, thanks for the excellent link and synopsis of what it said! Great job!

Actually Mark, I should have said vocal minority. If they were silent, then we would have no problem. And yes, there are just as many problems on the other side of the coin as well. I still want to know why NOW and other liberal woman's orgs are not demanding topfreedom rights. What is their rationale for keeping the status quo?

Bob S.

NuTex

11-30-2003, 03:40 AM

Bob,
?Hey Tex, thanks for the excellent link and synopsis of what it said! Great job!?

Thanks for the compliment!

?I still want to know why NOW and other liberal woman's orgs are not demanding topfreedom rights. What is their rationale for keeping the status quo??

Good question. It might be that their current leaders aren?t personally comfortable with being topfree yet so they don?t take this issue seriously. Or it may be they?re having to pick and choose their battles since right now many of the causes they champion are under attack. I suspect the later is the case and that they?re having to circle the wagons, which is causing topfreedom to be shoved down the list of priorities.

BTW, I?m a strong supporter of NOW and the other ?liberal? woman?s organizations.

Kari P

11-30-2003, 03:45 AM

Stu,

"I'm perfectly comfortable wearing clothes. And I can't see the 'fun' in casting them off."

No, you can't see, and this was already known by everyone here. You should note that there are many who see.

"But when this "one side" (1) comprises a large majority of the population and (2) tolerates nudity not only in private places, but also in public places specially set aside for the "other side", then it shouldn't cause any resentment because you have (1) majority rule (i.e. democracy in action) and at the same time (2) tolerance and even provision for minorities."

Forced segregation is not real tolerance. You are very strict about nudity in private places visible to public, too.

I wish you read the article pointed by NuTex and make the distinction between harm and offence. Notice the point on "discounting of abnormal sensibilities". You and the probable minority you believe to be a majority have this kind of abnormal sensibility to seeing nudity. Your sensitivity shall be reduced to the normal level when weighting the intensity of the offence.

NuTex, I appreciate much your excellent input. A minor error of yours was that you misused my name in the place of our "friend" Scud5 alias Rocket.

Kari P

missouriboy

11-30-2003, 06:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
missouriboy

"Yeah, some of us even to the extreme of coining non-existent ones, such as "the right not to be offended."

Sometimes rights are offset other rights and consequently have to be balanced by duties. I have a right to drive my car but I have a duty to do so in such a way as not to cause danger or inconvenience to others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is what I said October 29 in that post you ignored at the time. It was in response to Gary Naturist's post, to wit:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>quote:

Originally posted by stu2630:

I am very glad that you recognise that people have a right not to be offended. The last time I looked at the poll here only 17% of people think differently.

Stu (end quote)

You are the master at generalizing from a very small sample.

I do NOT believe that people have a right not to be offended. Anyone can be offended by anything. It is impossible for everyone to modify their actions to eliminate everything that might offend any other person.

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My own addition was: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Stu, I can tell you that I also recognize NO such right, because to me, one person's right implies another person's obligation. Example: when I meet a stranger on the street, that stranger has a right to life, therefore it's my obligation not to kill him. But do I have the obligation to avoid every little unknown thing that he might whine about being offensive to him? Hell, NO!

As others have said, being courteous and considerate is one thing, but being legally obligated is Bullshoot! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My position is that written law should make no attempt to codify any so-called "right not to be offended." Societal norms will take care of that, and laws should be limited to dealing only with real damage and real harm.

In other words if my nudity, or anything else, merely "offends" you, that doesn't give you any right to call a cop and have me arrested. But you DO have the right to sue me if you feel harmed or damaged, in which case you would have the obligation to prove measurable harm or damage.

Of course, I know you will begin your rebuttal with the one-word sentence, "No." But you will not change my position.

NuTex

11-30-2003, 07:25 AM

Oh Kari P, I'm so sorry to use your name in error when I meant that nut.

Please accept my humble apologies. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Rik

11-30-2003, 09:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I'm perfectly comfortable wearing clothes. And I can't see the 'fun' in casting them off. Nor can most people, hence naturism is very much a minority activity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Given that you invest a great deal of time debating with those of us who regularly experience the 'fun' (as you put it) of casting off our clothes I would have thought that it would make sense to at least try to understand where we are coming from. But you don't. You claim that you are pro-naturism provided it's done by other people and out of sight of you but if you are unwilling to experience the 'fun' for yourself even by way of an experiement then your support for naturism is, frankly, shallow for you are supporting something about which you know virtually nothing.

So I put it to you Stu, if you really want to add some value to this discussion board then let's get away from the 'public nudity' posturing (we ALL know your opinion so let's not hear it again) and instead why not try to understand things from a nudist point of view. I'm not suggesting you become a nudist but I am suggesting that you actually try it for yourself which would then add considerable weight to your arguments.

I can almost see you throwing up your hands in horror. If you are then we I can only assume that you're too scared to try it. What are you frightened of? Surely the issue of offence (the subject of this topic) would not be relevant for as you have said yourself there are circmstances when nudity is not offensive. Therefore in a controlled nudist environment you would not be offended and neither would anyone else.

I know you are comfortable in your clothes but that's no reason not to take them off. I know also that even in a controlled environment you would find nudity uncomfortable - something which I am sure that many contributors here will recall from their first time. BUT you will not be harmed and you will not be offended. No-one will stare at you (or your genitals) and certainly no-one will do anything which need give you any cause for concern so any discomfort you feel would be generated entirely internally.

So there's the challenge Stu, if you want your opinions to be taken seriously then go just once to a nudist swim in your area (there's bound to be one reasonably close) and experience the 'fun' for yourself. If you care to PM me I will even tell you where and when you can find a swim - heck I might even come with you to make sure you don't cheat. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If you really couldn't bring yourself to do this then help us to understand why you, and others, are so scared. Don't give us all that stuff about 'it's just feelings' but instead try to be completely honest with yourself and us. Here's a few possibilities for you to consider:
- I might meet someone I know
- People might stare at me
- My body's not the right shape
- I might have inappropriate sexual thoughts
- I might get an erection
- There might be something good on television that night.

Rik

11-30-2003, 10:40 AM

Bob

" What is their rationale for keeping the status quo?"

I know that question wasn't aimed at me, Bob, but I hope you don't mind me attempting to provide an answer - and my answer is that I really don't believe that most women actually want to go topless. I think I know how they feel because even I feel uncomfortable exposing my bare chest in public. I confess that this irritates my wife when we are on a beach on a blazing hot day and I'm sitting around in a shirt!

Kari P

"Forced segregation is not real tolerance. You are very strict about nudity in private places visible to public, too."

Kari - I would increase naturist facilities TENFOLD in the UK if I had my way. I would also require all our local authorities to cater for naturists by law! So I'm strict in favour of naturists as well as about inappropriate nudity.

"You and the probable minority you believe to be a majority have this kind of abnormal sensibility to seeing nudity".

I wish you could come to the UK and see our culture and talk to our ordinary people about nudity. You would find that my views that nudity should not generally be allowed in public places is clearly the majority view. I am not quite as confident concerning attitudes about nudity visible from outside private places but I still reckon there would be a majority that agreed with me - if only a slim majority.

Your sensitivity shall be reduced to the normal level when weighting the intensity of the offence.

missouriboy

"I do NOT believe that people have a right not to be offended. Anyone can be offended by anything. It is impossible for everyone to modify their actions to eliminate everything that might offend any other person."

Exactly. And that's why we have to assess what offends either the majority, or even a sizeable minority, and to ask ourselves if it's possible and reasonable to avoid this. From such assessments it is posible to formulate legislation.

Gary

"But do I have the obligation to avoid every little unknown thing that he might whine about being offensive to him? Hell, NO!"

Of course not, Gary, I've never suggested that you do. What you DO have an obligation to do, however, is to refrain from behaviour that you know is likely to offend large numbers of people and that is entirely avoidable. And you know perfectly well that nudity in public causes real offence to very many people.

"As others have said, being courteous and considerate is one thing, but being legally obligated is Bullshoot!"

I don't have a problem with having legislation that protects people's comfort when using public places. I was once involved in the prosecution of a fish processing factory that allowed foul odours to emanate beyond the premises and this caused people to avoid visiting one part of a popular nature reserve nearby. They were asked to prevent the stink and they didn't. One defence they raise was "well people could always breathe through their mouths when passing the area of the smell". That didn't cut it with the judge.

"My position is that written law should make no attempt to codify any so-called "right not to be offended." Societal norms will take care of that, and laws should be limited to dealing only with real damage and real harm."

OK, so how should "societal norms" stop Mr Gough from his offensive conduct? When he was beaten senseless everyone, including me, were appalled by that. How can society protect themselves from him and his disgraceful behaviour without using the law? Or are you saying we should just suffer in silence?

"In other words if my nudity, or anything else, merely "offends" you, that doesn't give you any right to call a cop and have me arrested."

Here in the UK the law recognises the right of people to use public places in comfort and without suffering shock, offence or any other kind of stress. The people own these places, they pay through their taxes for them to be maintained, and they are entitled to ENJOY them. The law rightly supports this principle.

Rik

"If you are then we I can only assume that you're too scared to try it. What are you frightened of? Surely the issue of offence (the subject of this topic) would not be relevant for as you have said yourself there are circmstances when nudity is not offensive."

Scared? Rik, what are you saying? I'd probably have a stroke! Sending me to a naturist club would be akin to parachuting an agrophobic into the middle of the Gobi desert! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif As much as I would love to have a better insight into naturism, I really don't think I'm ready for that yet. Since first coming here I have made some progress. A few months ago I watched several minutes of a TV programme on Sky about the best naturist beaches without vomiting once!!! I can now go into he mens changing rooms at my local gym and, even if other men are TOTALLY STARK NAKED, I manage fine. This may sound like nothing to you but believe me, for me this has been great! And I owe it to encouragement by people here who have made me reflect on my emotions around nudity.

You may find this hard to believe but, just as you can't fathom what it is that I find offensive about nudity, I can't get my head around what it is about naturism that you guys find so appealing. But going to a naturist place is a step too far too fast for me.

"So there's the challenge Stu, if you want your opinions to be taken seriously then go just once to a nudist swim in your area (there's bound to be one reasonably close) and experience the 'fun' for yourself. If you care to PM me I will even tell you where and when you can find a swim - heck I might even come with you to make sure you don't cheat."

Thanks for the offer. Let me think about it.

"Here's a few possibilities for you to consider:
- I might meet someone I know
- People might stare at me
- My body's not the right shape
- I might have inappropriate sexual thoughts
- I might get an erection
- There might be something good on television that night."

The fact that people might stare is one factor, but not a major one. I certainly wouldn't get any inappropriate sexual thoughts - in fact nothing would be further from my mind at that moment than sex!! Here are a few more likely effects:

- I might vomit
- I might not be able to speak
- I might find myself in a frozen state - unable to move
- I might faint or go into a state of shock
- I may suffer a stroke or a heart attack

You really wouldn't want ME with you at a naturist event, now would you, Rik?

Stu

Rik

11-30-2003, 12:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Scared? Rik, what are you saying? I'd probably have a stroke! Sending me to a naturist club would be akin to parachuting an agrophobic into the middle of the Gobi desert! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many phobics are treated in exactly that way - it's called aversion therapy and has a very high degree of success. It involves people confronting their fears but obviously it is only for people who want to, and are prepared to, confront them. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I can now go into he mens changing rooms at my local gym and, even if other men are TOTALLY STARK NAKED, I manage fine. This may sound like nothing to you but believe me, for me this has been great! And I owe it to encouragement by people here who have made me reflect on my emotions around nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fact that you acknowledge that emotions can be 'reflected on' or challenged as I would prefer to say, is a fantastic start. At least it demonstrates that your mind is not completely closed and that perhaps, with a bit more persuasion, you could challenge yourself even more. As I get older I realise that by constantly pushing the boundaries of my own comfort zone (and I'm not necessarily talking nudity here) I have gained more self-confidence than I've ever had in my life. I've come to believe that I can do anything if I choose to - something I would not have believed possible 10 years ago. For example I recently gave a one hour presentation to an audience of about 40 people at very short notice. I sure that's nothing to someone like yourself but to me it was a milestone and a great achievement - so much so that I'm currently planning to do more presentations and I'm workinmg on a training course as well. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>You may find this hard to believe but, just as you can't fathom what it is that I find offensive about nudity, I can't get my head around what it is about naturism that you guys find so appealing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I don't find that hard to believe because people's ambivalent attitude towards naturism is something we naturists come across all the time.

What I do know, however, is that by and large once people try it for themselves many get hooked because, I think, they suddenly see it for what it is and not what their preconceptions tell them it is. I believe that those preconceptions are often to do with the concept that naturists are exhibitionists but when you consider that many naturists report that they are as likely to be nude when home alone as when in a social group you begin to realise that exhibitionism is not a driving force behind naturism. I think there's little doubt that it's addictive. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
- I might vomit
- I might not be able to speak
- I might find myself in a frozen state - unable to move
- I might faint or go into a state of shock
- I may suffer a stroke or a heart attack
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're describing physical symptoms rather than the mental causes but I'm encouraged that you preface each one with "I might" as opposed to "I would" so I sense that you're still allowing the possibility that you could be persuaded.

Now, what nights are you free? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

NuTex

11-30-2003, 01:29 PM

Stu,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I would increase naturist facilities TENFOLD in the UK if I had my way. I would also require all our local authorities to cater for naturists by law! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Even though you and I differ on much your position above is certainly better than some held by textiles I've seen in the news.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Scared? Rik, what are you saying? I'd probably have a stroke! Sending me to a naturist club would be akin to parachuting an agrophobic into the middle of the Gobi desert! As much as I would love to have a better insight into naturism, I really don't think I'm ready for that yet. Since first coming here I have made some progress. A few months ago I watched several minutes of a TV programme on Sky about the best naturist beaches without vomiting once!!! I can now go into he mens changing rooms at my local gym and, even if other men are TOTALLY STARK NAKED, I manage fine. This may sound like nothing to you but believe me, for me this has been great! And I owe it to encouragement by people here who have made me reflect on my emotions around nudity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At least you acknowledge this in yourself. And you seem to be working on it, which is great. "The measure of a man is the way he bears up under misfortune" - Plutarch.

There are some textiles that I'm sure have the same reaction as you but are in denial. So they attack us as being immoral and a danger to society. At least you're willing to allow for some legal rights for us in spite of your gut reaction.

As I read your postings I find that, while I still don't agree with you on many things, I at least respect you. Something different than how I feel about another poster who will go unnamed (but it's rimes with dud). /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bob S.

11-30-2003, 01:47 PM

"and my answer is that I really don't believe that most women actually want to go topless."

stu, that isn't the point. The point is equal rights, something that NOW has been fighting for decades now. They want equal pay, they want control over theri own bodies in abortion cases, so why would they not fight for the right to have the same rights as men in the topless battle? They seemed to stop at the breastfeeding stage. It would be an easy battle for them to win seeing as how it is already being won.

"I would increase naturist facilities TENFOLD in the UK if I had my way."

Define some places there where nudity could be legalized. What if we wanted some hking paths? Local parks? The park near your house? And signage with a bit of foiage would be the barrier. This would lead to the offense question. If a non-nudist was at a local park where nudity was allowed and didn't know it, describe how his "offense" would go. He would be surprised at the suddenness of the nudity. He may even be upset at seeing a naked person there. But then he suddenly realizes where he is. His reaction takes a sudden calming turn as he realizes he is in the wrong for feeling that way.

Or what about a non-nudist tourist who comes upon this park seeing many naked people. He is new to the country and isn't sure of all of the cultural mores. So he assumes this is just natural. His surprise is then replaces with a realization that this is how things go in this country. Both are examples of potential offense being offset by the realization of where they are. However, if the same place was not naturist, the feelings might be "offense."

Why would nudity be offensive in one place when just a block away, in a similar venue, nudity is not offensive?

Bob S.

11-30-2003, 02:37 PM

Bob

"The point is equal rights, something that NOW has been fighting for decades now."

Careful here, Bob. People don't always actually want equal rights. Here in the UK most schoolchildren wear uniform. Just today I was looking at the "uniform requirements" at my youngest daughter's school. Here's what it says:

Boys:

Grey trousers,
White shirt
Plain black shoes
Plain black socks
School ties MUST be worn

Girls:

Grey trousers OR grey skirt, pleated, 'A' line or straight, OR grey uniform pinafore dress OR grey cullottes.
White blouse (may be worn with or without a school tie)
Plain black shoes OR sandals (predominantly black) OR (in winter months or inclement weather) black boots.
Socks, long or short in grey, white or black.
NOTE: During May June, July and September, cotton dresses may be worn in the red, green or blue gingham pattern.

Just look at the range of choices the girls have compared to the boys! It reminded me of when I was an adolescent and it was finally accepted that I was going to grow up to be male. All of a sudden I became acutely aware of just how limited male options are when it comes to clothes (colours, styles, fabrics, specific garments), hairstyles, jewellery, cosmetics and accessories. Believe me, there are pros and cons to being male and pros and cons to being female and you can never equalise these out by legislation.

"Define some places there where nudity could be legalized. What if we wanted some hking paths? Local parks?"

Fine. I have no problem wherever they site naturist places so long as they are properly screened off and signposted. If somebody inadvertantly strayed onto a nudist area then they would no doubt discover their mistake and beat a hasty retreat. It's akin to accidentally intruding upon a couple having sex - highly embarrassing but you turn away and leave rapidly. That isn't offensive and I don't believe that offence is experienced - shock yes, embarrassment, yes, but not offence - because the textile is the interloper - realises his mistake and leaves. That scenario is entirely different to the situation of a family enjoying a day at the park and suddenly and unexpectedly encountering certain individuals walking about naked.

"Why would nudity be offensive in one place when just a block away, in a similar venue, nudity is not offensive?"

Because, if places are designated for use by naturists, you keep well away from them if you are offended by nudity. It's simply the right of people such as myself to get through life without encountering something we can't handle. So long as we don't have to see you, you can be naked where the heck you like.

Stu

Jochanaan

11-30-2003, 04:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
If a non-nudist was at a local park where nudity was allowed and didn't know it, describe how his "offense" would go. He would be surprised at the suddenness of the nudity. He may even be upset at seeing a naked person there. But then he suddenly realizes where he is. His reaction takes a sudden calming turn as he realizes he is in the wrong for feeling that way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, Bob, if only it were that simple! Some people might be that sane in their reactions, but I bet an equal number would "file suit"! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bob S.

11-30-2003, 06:06 PM

"Careful here, Bob. People don't always actually want equal rights."

stu, we are not talking about fashion choices for school children. We are talking about treating two equal groups of people equally. If we are going to bring children into this, as I have mentioned before, why is it legal for a nine year old pubescent girl with growing breasts to be topless when her 11-year-old friend who has yet to start puberty can't go topless? Why is it that we allow an overweight man to go topless, but a woman with smaller breasts than him cannot? Why is the objectification of women's breasts perfectly fine?

"It's akin to accidentally intruding upon a couple having sex - highly embarrassing but you turn away and leave rapidly."

I am so glad that is what you would do if you saw a couple having sex at the local park.

"That isn't offensive and I don't believe that offence is experienced - shock yes, embarrassment, yes, but not offence"

So if a person not believing that he was in a naturist section suddenly saw a couple disrobing, his reaction would not be offense if he believed they were in the wrong. This is what I have been saying all along, stu. What they feel is not offense, but other reactions. Shocked and surprised at seeing the nudity, maybe embarrassment at seeing the nudity. Is there a real offense feeling? No. Not in most people. Outisde of naturist settings, they may be upset that someone is breaking the law.

"if places are designated for use by naturists, you keep well away from them if you are offended by nudity."

But what if you don't know where they are? That was my point. Naked at the park is naked at the park. The only difference is who around you cares.

"It's simply the right of people such as myself to get through life without encountering something we can't handle."

You don't have that right. Life is about the struggle. No one can have a perfect life. Tomorrow, while at work, your house could burn down and you could lose your wife and daughter. Now I'm hoping that does not happen. But there is nothing you can do to stop that. Some people could not handle that. You do not even have the right to live another second. You have the right to live in safety, but no one can outlaw death and hardship.

It is up to all of us to meet obstacles head on or avoid them. For you, you have chosen to avoid your hardship. You refuse to get help for your nudity anxiety. In fact, you don't even see it as a problem. You are content to never see your wife naked. That's your choice.

"Some people might be that sane in their reactions, but I bet an equal number would "file suit"!"

And if it was a legally recognized or unofficial-but-tolerated area, then the complainer would have no leg to stand on. It's kind of the reaction I get when I get upset that a child is not listening to me after calling their name three times only to realize that I was calling someone else's name. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Bob S.

TXK NUDE

11-30-2003, 06:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
... when I was an adolescent and it was finally accepted that I was going to grow up to be male.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you mean you had a choice up to that point? Gee I was male in utero! I was male at birth! I was male all through school into adulthood! I think it was the fact that I had a penis.

Naturist Mark

12-01-2003, 04:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
[QUOTE]Do you mean you had a choice up to that point? Gee I was male in utero! I was male at birth! I was male all through school into adulthood! I think it was the fact that I had a penis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>By some estimates 1 out of 2000 children are born with ambiguous (http://www.chp.edu/greystone/urology/ambiggen_dw.php) gender (some estimates make it much more common). There are a number of causes. In most cases it is not strictly determined by the X and Y chromosomes, but by the presence, absence or insensitivity to particular hormones during fetal development.

In most cases doctors are able to make an appropriate determination of true gender and can then make a gender assignment, perhaps followed by surgery and hormone supplementation. But they don't always get it right, in particular there was often a bias in the past to assign female gender as the 'easier' choice.

Gender assignment has come under fire (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1511/1_21/58398807/p1/article.jhtml) in recent years by the intersex community who argue that the child should be allowed to discover their own sexual identity before (or if) any medical intervention is made. Note: sexual identity is what gender you consider yourself to be, it is not the same thing as sexual orientation.

-Mark

Bob S.

12-01-2003, 05:15 PM

Mark is correct. That is exactly what happened with stu. He was born with ambiguous genitalia but his parents and doctor decided to just let him develop naturally; and for that, he is eternally grateful. In most cases, the gender assignment is that of female since that is the easier surgery.

My question: in such cases, why can't the doctors just do a simple genetic test to determine what that 46th chromosome is? I don't know, maybe it just makes too much sense. And you know that too often, common sense is the last thing on people's minds.

Bob S.

NuTex

12-02-2003, 08:15 AM

OK, I want to be very careful here. I'm posting this out of respect Stu, not to be funny.

Bob wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Mark is correct. That is exactly what happened with stu. He was born with ambiguous genitalia but his parents and doctor decided to just let him develop naturally; and for that, he is eternally grateful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, is Bob trying to be funny here or is there something I missed that you've written about yourself in an old post from another thread?

Stu wrote,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> It reminded me of when I was an adolescent and it was finally accepted that I was going to grow up to be male. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I admit your statement, now that I read it again, strikes me as interesting. Though I didn't read it that way the first time. But then again sometimes I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Did you mean simply the awareness and identity of one's self that happens to us all during our youth or along the lines of what Bob wrote?

One more thing. It doesn't matter to me if Bob is right. Our diversity is a blessing by God and is to be celebrated.

The only reason I post this is because I want to make sure the record is straight.
NuTex

12-02-2003, 12:35 PM

Bob

"I am so glad that is what you would do if you saw a couple having sex at the local park".

I didn't say that, Bob, and I certainly didn't have that in mind. I was imagining a couple having sex at, say, a party. If a couple were 'doing it' in a quiet corner of a local park I would certainly let them know I was there! Parks are for children and even adults to enjoy normal inoffensive outdoor recreation.

"So if a person not believing that he was in a naturist section suddenly saw a couple disrobing, his reaction would not be offense if he believed they were in the wrong. This is what I have been saying all along, stu. What they feel is not offense, but other reactions".

Yes, he may feel offence, Bob, but that would be his own mistake. If we make such mistakes then we have to suffer the consequences.

"Shocked and surprised at seeing the nudity, maybe embarrassment at seeing the nudity. Is there a real offense feeling? No. Not in most people. Outisde of naturist settings, they may be upset that someone is breaking the law."

I'm not sure I can draw very clear distinctions between feelings of shock and embarrassment and offence. Notwithstanding that, all three emotions are most definitely negative ones.

"But what if you don't know where they are? That was my point. Naked at the park is naked at the park. The only difference is who around you cares."

That's why proper screening and large WARNING signs would be needed, Bob, around all the areas where people are in danger of encountering nudity. That's not difficult to achieve. In wildlife parks you can wander about among antelope and giraffes but you don't manage to enter the lion enclosure by mistake.

"You don't have that right. Life is about the struggle. No one can have a perfect life...."

We don't have the right to inflict unnecessary struggle on people, Bob. Of course people have the right to expect the authorities to do what they can to ensure that public places are as comfortable and inoffensive as possible for as many people as possible.

TXK NUDE

"Do you mean you had a choice up to that point? Gee I was male in utero! I was male at birth! I was male all through school into adulthood! I think it was the fact that I had a penis."

TXK - you were lucky. As far as I was concerned, I was male at birth too. But others weren't convinced that I was until I reached puberty. Count your blessings!

Bob S.

"My question: in such cases, why can't the doctors just do a simple genetic test to determine what that 46th chromosome is?"

I don't think this test was available when I was a child. I have since had such a test and was found to have an extremely large and 'abnormal' Y chromosome- I suspect it's really more like an 'X' but they didn't want to tell me that!

NuTex

Bob's not being funny - both he and Mark know about my "ambiguous" genitalia at birth. Not only am I now a perfectly normal male (normal proportions in every department, too!) but I am a natural father - and with my particular type of intersexed condition I made medical history - I get a mention in several specialist medical books!!

"One more thing. It doesn't matter to me if Bob is right. Our diversity is a blessing by God and is to be celebrated."

Thanks for that! As you know you can't help the way you're born and there are people who have to go through life with far worse conditions than mine. You know what? I have pictures of myself aged ten years as a bridesmaid at my cousin's wedding. Now I'm a perfectly normal functioning man with a lovely wife and three great kids - so I've had the best of both worlds.

Stu

12-02-2003, 02:20 PM

The United Kingdom Intersex Association (http://www.ukia.co.uk/)

The Intersex Society of North America (http://www.isna.org/)

NuTex

12-02-2003, 03:07 PM

Stu,
I respect you for being open about your ""ambiguous" genitalia at birth." I consider a very brave act. Not everyone would be open as you about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> You know what? I have pictures of myself aged ten years as a bridesmaid at my cousin's wedding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fascinating! Truly fascinating, Stu!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Now I'm a perfectly normal functioning man with a lovely wife and three great kids - so I've had the best of both worlds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm glad everything has worked out for you Stu.

I have some knowledge about this subject. I was a Psych major in college so of course I've had some education in human sexual development. Very interesting.

God bless,
NuTex

NuTex

12-02-2003, 05:06 PM

A cartoon that fits the subject here.
Non Sequitur (http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2003/12/02/)

NuTex /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bob S.

12-02-2003, 06:30 PM

"If somebody inadvertantly strayed onto a nudist area then they would no doubt discover their mistake and beat a hasty retreat. It's akin to accidentally intruding upon a couple having sex - highly embarrassing but you turn away and leave rapidly. That isn't offensive and I don't believe that offence is experienced - shock yes, embarrassment, yes, but not offence - because the textile is the interloper - realises his mistake and leaves."

How did I get this wrong, stu? You are comparing walking at a naturist venue to intruding on a couple's intimacy and suggesting that the intruder is wrong in both cases.

"I was imagining a couple having sex at, say, a party."

Be more specific. We are not talking public vs private, we are talking about the use of public spaces.

"Notwithstanding that, all three emotions are most definitely negative ones."

No they are not. You decide if they are negative emotions. They can just as easily be positive emotions.

"That's why proper screening and large WARNING signs would be needed, Bob"

But there's always going to be people who do not see such signage. Many people miss their turn on the highway because they are not paying attention.

"We don't have the right to inflict unnecessary struggle on people"

I was generalizing about a generalized statement. You simply stated that we have the right to not encounter things we can't handle. I wasn't commenting about other people's actions against us.

"Of course people have the right to expect the authorities to do what they can to ensure that public places are as comfortable and inoffensive as possible for as many people as possible."

And therein lies the problem. That legal question of when to step in to prevent such "offense" and when to allow "offensive" behaviour to continue. Should a behaviour be allowed even if the majority of people don't agree with it? For me, if no phycical or long term mental harm occurs to those who practice it or witness it, then there is no reason to disallow it.

Bob S.

Bob S.

12-02-2003, 06:37 PM

As an aside regarding the intersexed discussioin, I took a child development course a couple of years ago and in the book, there are a couple of paragraphs about a number of boys in the Dominican Republic who had a genetic disorder that prevented the testosterone from creating the normal male genitals.

So when these children were born, they looked to be healthy girls and were raised as such. It wasn't until puberty hit that these "girls" suddenly became boys as the testosterone caused what was thought to be their clitoris to lengthen and grow into a normal, healthy penis. They developed just as boys do and actually, fit into their new gender roles easily.

Bob S.

Kari P

12-03-2003, 06:31 AM

Stu,

Now that I know about your abnormal childhood I can better understand your extreme view to nudity, which I (like Bob) would call gymnophobia. I'm glad for your maturing to a normal male and your progress regarding seeing nudity. Your participation in the discussions here can have a therapeutic motivation, at least it has had such positive effect. Some day you can admit that nudity is not vile and the whole non-naturist world is not so hostile to nudity as you think it to be. We help you as much as we can.

To avoid repetition of what has been said by others, I pick a point from your first reply.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
you know that MY definition of damage is different to YOURS. To me the term 'damage' has to embrace things that affect quality of life issues. There are lots of examples of this - e.g. harassment, making excessive noise, foul-smells, eyesores such as litter or abandoned cars etc. And, of course, offensive conduct such as public sex, open prostitution and public nudity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I count the same things as damage as you. My question you answered here was if there is any cause of offence, other than nudity, which is clearly penal in law solely on the basis of offence when no real damage is caused. The first three things you listed are generally minor offences and not handled by law, only causing noise in inappropriate context can be. More serious harassment is damaging and as such handled by law. Littering is prohibited in law, but it should be taken as causing real damage to our environment. The law can prohibit public sex and open prostitution, but I think not because of the offence raised by them, instead because they are against general moral, and witnessing them is seen as morally damaging to people, especially minors.

You haven't said that public nudity is immoral. And it is so only in the minds of some, generally religious, people. So, if we don't take nudity as a moral issue, it can be damaging only to those people whose reaction to it is like yours, which is uncommon.

You have found very few non-damaging things that are prohibited in law only because of offence - except nudity, which the laws in many countries handle very vaguely. It should be admitted that the offence by nudity can be a reason to ban nudity sometimes and somewhere but not always and everywhere in public areas.

I hope you have read Mark Storey's article "The Offence of Public Nudity" (link posted by NuTex). The conclusion there is: "No one has a blanket right to do whatever he or she wants. On the other hand, no one has a blanket right never to be offended."

Now please read the thread Why We Love Nude Recreation, especially aunaturelone's lengthy post. I haven't much to add in it. Guess what I was wearing when writing this post!

Kari P

Hooked

12-03-2003, 07:10 AM

isn't it "offense" with no c?

Just nit picking (or is it knit picking) ?

shãybare

12-03-2003, 09:46 AM

They are both correct. According to my dictionary, offence is the British variant.

12-03-2003, 11:22 AM

Bob S.

"How did I get this wrong, stu? You are comparing walking at a naturist venue to intruding on a couple's intimacy and suggesting that the intruder is wrong in both cases."

I was likening the feeling of the intruder upon inadvertantly entering a private place in which a couple were having sex with that of a textile inadvertantly entering a naturist part of a park. When a place is sectioned off for naturist use and a clothed person enters by mistake the experience must be similar to entering a private place. It's a bit like a woman accidentally walking into men's toilets. Nobody blames the men because they happen to be using the urinals - it's a mistake on the part of the woman and she has no grounds for being offended.

"But there's always going to be people who do not see such signage. Many people miss their turn on the highway because they are not paying attention."

Then they have no-one to blame but themselves, Bob.

"For me, if no phycical or long term mental harm occurs to those who practice it or witness it, then there is no reason to disallow it".

And for me the authorities have a duty to make and enforce rules about how people must behave in public places - what activities are and are not allowed. If someone causes ANY harm to other people in a public place, even transient harm such as causing ofence, they are spoiling others' enjoyment of their own places that they pay for and pay to have maintained. Did you notice that the administrator deleted some of my postings because the people who are paying members objected to what I had said? Same principle, Bob.

"So when these children were born, they looked to be healthy girls and were raised as such. It wasn't until puberty hit that these "girls" suddenly became boys as the testosterone caused what was thought to be their clitoris to lengthen and grow into a normal, healthy penis. They developed just as boys do and actually, fit into their new gender roles easily."

Sounds similar to my case, Bob, because my problem was genetic. A couple of differences in my case though. Firstly my intersexed condition was spotted at birth. Secondly, I have had to have testosterone injections (or skin-patches) since puberty to maintain my 'maleness'. Mind you, I still couldn't grow a decent beard even if I tried.

Kari P

"Your participation in the discussions here can have a therapeutic motivation, at least it has had such positive effect..."

Without a doubt.

"..The first three things you listed are generally minor offences and not handled by law, only causing noise in inappropriate context can be."

In the UK they ARE dealt with by law, Kari. You can be arrested, charged and possibly imprisoned for these types of behaviour. Even where they are not considered criminal, if they are classed by the courts as 'antisocial', then you could be given an order not to do them again and if you break that order then you would go to prison.

Street prostitutionhere is punished not because of the immorality, or the effect upon minors, but because it lowers 'quality of life' of the residents who live in those areas. In other words - people don't like to see it so it's against the law.

"It should be admitted that the offence by nudity can be a reason to ban nudity sometimes and somewhere but not always and everywhere in public areas."

I have never said that there should be a law against all public nudity in all circumstances, Kari, merely a law that states that clothing is the default situation in all but designated naturist areas.

"The conclusion there is: "No one has a blanket right to do whatever he or she wants. On the other hand, no one has a blanket right never to be offended."

I think there IS a blanket responsibility on users of public places to behave in such a way that the majority of other users are unlikely to be caused discomfort or offence by your conduct. The law is the only means I know to protect people from the irresponsibility ofothers in this respect.

"Now please read the thread Why We Love Nude Recreation..."

I will do so immediately after posting his, Kari.

Stu

Bob S.

12-03-2003, 05:42 PM

"Some day you can admit that nudity is not vile and the whole non-naturist world is not so hostile to nudity as you think it to be."

Now Kari, that is too much optimistic thought.

"I was likening the feeling of the intruder upon inadvertantly entering a private place in which a couple were having sex with that of a textile inadvertantly entering a naturist part of a park."

What if the couple's provate place for having sex was in a hide-away section of forest; a place that people rarely go to?

"Then they have no-one to blame but themselves, Bob."

But does that nullify the way that they feel?

"If someone causes ANY harm to other people in a public place, even transient harm such as causing ofence, they are spoiling others' enjoyment of their own places that they pay for and pay to have maintained."

And that is not always wrong for the "offenders." You can't guarentee that you will go through a day without offending someone. I like to say that if you haven't offended someone, then you haven't said or done anything worthwhile. I have offended others simply for being me, a male preschool teacher.

"Did you notice that the administrator deleted some of my postings because the people who are paying members objected to what I had said?"

And I am still ticked off because of that!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Don't I have any pull around here? Or is it just the special interests that supply the moneys make the rules (Actually, this is meant as a slap at the government, not this site). There is also the same principle in that, isn't there?

"You can be arrested, charged and possibly imprisoned for these types of behaviour."

So you can be arrested for making excessive loud noise, having really bad BO, tossing a candy wrapper on the ground, or having an abandined car in a public spot?

I think there IS a blanket responsibility on users of public places to behave in such a way that the majority of other users are unlikely to be caused discomfort or offence by your conduct."

Yes, that is the responsibility of everyone, to live life respecting the life, privacy, and safery of everyone else around you.

"The law is the only means I know to protect people from the irresponsibility ofothers in this respect."

Nudity can be controlled by social rules instead of laws.

As assidenote, I wish I had your problem of not being able to grow a beard. I hate the growth on my chin. And I hate shaving almost as much!

Bob S.

johny

12-03-2003, 10:13 PM

RE:Kari P, Member # 5696, posted 03-12-2003 07:31
""I hope you have read Mark Storey's article "The Offence of Public Nudity" (link posted by NuTex)""

Wow! Where it is posted?? In current discussion I cant find such.

Kari P

12-04-2003, 12:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by johny:
""I hope you have read Mark Storey's article "The Offence of Public Nudity" (link posted by NuTex)""

Wow! Where it is posted?? In current discussion I cant find such. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is on the first page of the current thread, posted November 29, 2003 02:52 PM. And
here. (http://www.bodyfreedom.org/alliance/essays/offense.html)

TAP

12-04-2003, 01:19 AM

What is the point in even discussing any topic with, Stu? He obviously is going to find something to argue every point.

This is a free country, you can wear clothes if you want, but remember this, I was born without clothes, and I would like to remain as I was born.

And speaking of this, was I breaking the law when I was born? For I know for a fact I was nude in public!

On your streaking theory, Stu, I do it every time I am dared by my friends. They know I am a nudist and love it, so they think I won't streak in front of any one in public view, but I have proved them wrong several times.

They have lost a few bets to myself in the last few months, suddenly they have learned how to ride ten speed bicycles in first gear in very public places.

You don't have to be a nudist to enjoy nudity out doors, or in public as you put it! My non-nudist friends will agree with that, they have loved it and can't wait to do it again.

12-04-2003, 09:55 AM

Bob

"What if the couple's provate place for having sex was in a hide-away section of forest..."

That's OK in my book, Bob. They have chosen a place where they feel certain they won't be disturbed. But when people having sex outdoors ARE disturbed, what do they generally do? They stop and make themselves decent. I would expect naturists to do the same if not at a recognised naturist venue.

"But does that nullify the way that they feel?"

No, of course not. But they themselves are the cause of their offence, not others.

"And that is not always wrong for the "offenders.""

If the offenders are behaving in such a way that they know will be likely to cause offence, then they are always wrong to behave in that way in public.

"So you can be arrested for making excessive loud noise, having really bad BO, tossing a candy wrapper on the ground, or having an abandined car in a public spot?"

Here in the UK you can be prosecuted for all of the things you mention with the exception of BO, Bob. The police will normally require you to give your name and address and to stop what you are doing. If you fail to supply details or you continue to 'offend' then you could very well be arrested.

"Nudity can be controlled by social rules instead of laws".

Social rules haven't prevented Steve Gough, have they, Bob? Only the law has managed to do that. Social rules only work on people who respect such rules and many don't.

TAP

"This is a free country, you can wear clothes if you want, but remember this, I was born without clothes, and I would like to remain as I was born".

So do so - but do it in places where nudity won't upset other people. Respect other people's sensibilities and feelings.

"And speaking of this, was I breaking the law when I was born? For I know for a fact I was nude in public!"

You were born in public? You mean your mother chose to give birth to you in the local park? Or shopping mall? Now that's pretty weird! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"On your streaking theory, Stu, I do it every time I am dared by my friends. They know I am a nudist and love it, so they think I won't streak in front of any one in public view, but I have proved them wrong several times."

Your friends may love it, but does everyone else who has to put up with that sort of behaviour? I think it's both inconsiderate and immature and, over here, generally illegal too.

"You don't have to be a nudist to enjoy nudity out doors, or in public as you put it!"

Outdoors and public places are not the same thing. You can be as nude as you like on a private beach if the owner doesn't mind - no problem. You can be nude at an indoor naturist event too. My objection is to nudity in the public places in which there are likely to be people who would find that offensive - like myself.

Stu

Kari P

12-04-2003, 12:24 PM

Stu,

"Here in the UK you can be prosecuted for all of the things you mention with the exception of BO, Bob. The police will normally require you to give your name and address and to stop what you are doing. If you fail to supply details or you continue to 'offend' then you could very well be arrested."

I don't know what BO is, so I handle the other crimes only. In Finnish law they can be punished for by a fine, not by imprisonment. (There are handling rules for abandoned cars, which are an environment harm. But we should concentrate more on offences that raise immediately from someone's conduct.) If in the UK a person who has committed an "offence" type crime gets arrested, isn't the proper reason for arrestment that the person didn't obey the policeman, instead of the crime itself that still can be punished for (and only?) by a fine?

The same with nudity? At least in Finland, where nudity is not defined as a crime. But we can ask where is the policeman's right to ask someone put clothes on as it's not in the lawbook. I said earlier that personally I would not like to test the law. But I know that in a recent case of nudity in the street at night the policemen witnessing it didn't take action because of nudity, instead they did it because of suspicion of drunken driving. (The case was such that three naked men were pushing a car, and the driver was naked and drunk.)

"Social rules haven't prevented Steve Gough, have they, Bob? Only the law has managed to do that. Social rules only work on people who respect such rules and many don't."

The world isn't perfect. There are always cases the law cannot cover. What if Steve had been allowed to make his naked walk in peace? No one would have been hurt.

Kari P

12-04-2003, 01:06 PM

Kari

From the way you describe Finish law, it's very similar here. But anything that is punishable by a fine is called an "offence" or a "crime" (the two words are technically the same thing. You can not be sentenced to imprisonment for any of these by themselves but if you refused to pay your fine, or your behaviour was persistent then there are ways to send you to prison.

Here in England there is no such specific offence as public nudity. The law is purposely vague so that it is either the intention of the offender or the likely consequences (e.g. harassment, alarm or distress) that makes it a criminal offence.

Nudity, litter, swearing, making excessive noise etc are all such offences here in

"I said earlier that personally I would not like to test the law".

So what would happen if Steve Gouh did a naked walk through the centre of Helsinki?

"The world isn't perfect. There are always cases the law cannot cover. What if Steve had been allowed to make his naked walk in peace? No one would have been hurt."

One of Steve Gough's main purposes was to test the law. Had he succeeded without interference from the law, or acquitted in all his trials, his supporters would have held that up not only as a victory, but as proof that they are ENTITLED to be naked whenever and wherever they liked in public. That would have been a very bad day for most people in my country who, like me, find public nudity to be offensive.

Stu

Kari P

12-05-2003, 10:00 AM

Stu,

"You can not be sentenced to imprisonment for any of these by themselves but if you refused to pay your fine, or your behaviour was persistent then there are ways to send you to prison."

I think the latter will not happen in Finland. A fine can be converted to imprisonment, but very rarely.

"So what would happen if Steve Gouh did a naked walk through the centre of Helsinki?"

I have already written a scenario about a naked walk in the streets. It's here:
http://www.clothesfree.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001022;p=5#0001 24

What I remember about a case of streaking in Helsinki I told here:
http://www.clothesfree.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000109;p=1#0000 11

One more real case of public nudity in Helsinki: Last summer there was a temporary sauna built of peat on the shore of T??l?nlahti Bay. It was in regular use, and (as Finnish naturists have told in their own forum) many brave people came naked out of the sauna and went swimming, crossing a pathway used by pedestrians and bikers, many people seeing them. The police visited the place zero times. This obviously means that either no one has complained or the police has decided that there is no reason to intervene the happening.

"One of Steve Gough's main purposes was to test the law. Had he succeeded without interference from the law, or acquitted in all his trials, his supporters would have held that up not only as a victory, but as proof that they are ENTITLED to be naked whenever and wherever they liked in public."

I also would like it proven that nudity is in fact legal. Then it would be controlled only socially. There are very few people who would risk their social relations by being nude in public in a context where it is not accepted.

The legal position of nudity that many naturists, including myself, want is that nudity is not a crime. If there is a motivation to be nude in public, be it whatever (a protest, a photography, an artistic performance, a frolic etc.), there wouldn't be any obscurity about its legality. And yet nudity would be rare, you couldn't see it every day.

Kari P

12-05-2003, 10:22 AM

Kari

"I also would like it proven that nudity is in fact legal."

Whereas I would like to see nudity made specifically illegal in any public place unless it was a designated naturist place (although the police wouldn't prosecute in very remore places provided nobody complained).

In England we have a saying: "One man's meat is another man's poison". Perhaps you should have your law in Finland and I'll have mine in England. Then we would both be happy, right?

Stu

Bob S.

12-05-2003, 09:07 PM

"What is the point in even discussing any topic with, Stu? He obviously is going to find something to argue every point."

TAP, the point of debating is to force you to rationalize your position. And he doesn't argue every point, just most of them. We have actually agreed on some things.

"They stop and make themselves decent. I would expect naturists to do the same if not at a recognised naturist venue."

You mentioned that you would walk away from a couple having sex if you caught them in a private location. If someone intrudes on a couple having sex in such a place outside, but still fairly and appropriately private, I would expect the intruders to simply back away and let the couple finish. Most naturists would probably also cover up slightly, but what to do if they cannot reach their clothes such as skinny-dipping?

"If you fail to supply details or you continue to 'offend' then you could very well be arrested."

Failing to supply details (or supplying false details) is an arrestable offense no matter what you are doing. However, I cannot see the other offenses as being arrestable offenses. Being under arrest for throwing a candy wrapper on the ground five different times?

"Social rules only work on people who respect such rules and many don't."

Same with laws, stu. How many people are arrested for breaking and entering in your country? There are laws against that as well, but it doesn't stop some people. Not every person can or wants to be controlled by every rule or law. I go 5mph over the speed limit most of the time. I think most people do as well. But most social rules are followed by most people. You can't expect to encounter perfection.

"So what would happen if Steve Gouh did a naked walk through the centre of Helsinki?"

Steve Gough did not walk through the centre of London. He walked in mainly rural areas.

By the way Kari, BO is body odor.

Bob S.