Is Streaking Positive Nudity? [Archive]

NuTex

11-26-2003, 11:29 AM

Cyndiann made an interesting statement in the "Fashion Industry and Textile Culture" topic. She wrote, "And there are lots of positive forms of nudity that have nothing to do with nudists as well, like nude art and streaking."

So my question is, "Is streaking a positive form of nudity?" If then so is that always true? If not always true then when? If it's never true then why not?

I'll start with my view on this:
I think streaking in general is a positive form of nudity. While not necessarily legal it's harmless fun in my opinion. And in a society that finds nudity shocking (nudity in the media is usually there for shock value) I think there are times when streaking can be used to make a statement.

Is streaking always positive? Not always. For example, one shouldn't streak at a funeral for example (though I think that would be great at mine when I'm gone). Nor I think should one streak when it could bring harm to the naturist movement. There is a time and place for everything.

I look forward to the opinions of others on this.

NuTex

11-26-2003, 11:29 AM

Jochanaan

11-26-2003, 11:39 AM

I agree with you, NuTex, that it's mostly positive. And it's certainly a good way to poke fun at some semi-sacred institutions such as football (American or otherwise).

It would be even more positive if we could get the media to do more portraits of streakers, such as Mark whatever-his-name-is who makes a living streaking big-name athletic events. Such could convey the truth that streakers are real people, not perverts or psychos.

P.S. Can anyone recall an incidence of church-service streaking? Don't be afraid of offending my Christian sensibilities; most likely I'll LOL.

R.M.GREENMAN2

11-26-2003, 04:16 PM

Here is what I think the majority of society thinks of streaking:

1) If a child does it, it's cute.
How many of us have seen a toddler or preschooler, running down the street, naked and thought,"How adorable!"?

2) If a teenager does it, it's just kids being kids!

3) If a college kid or a twentysomething does it, it's just blowing off steam!

4) If you are thirtysomething or higher, you are a borderline sex affender! This depends on the situation, group that was streaked, and so on.

I have a friend who is a Littleton Police Officer. As we were talking, a call came over the radio about a streaker at a local High School. I asked him what happens to the individual when caught. He told me that it was anything from a slap on the wrist, small fine, up to jail time.

This might only be this city but he also said that if there is an individual in the crowd under the age of 14, it could be labeled a sex crime!

NuTex

11-26-2003, 05:29 PM

R.M.Greenman2, I think you listed the legal ramifications pretty well.

Jochanaan, I think you have a good idea about the media. Something tells me though that the media would twist it around to make the streaker look like a nut at best, a perv at worse. You'll find I have a pretty low opinion of corporate media.

11-26-2003, 08:37 PM

Another type of nudity I consider positive is flashing breasts at Bikeweek. Unfortunately the police had really gotten heavyhanded on that in recent years.

I can remember years back seeing totally nude women dancing on the stage with the bands, with maybe a little body paint on. Such innocent days!

Gary Naturist

11-27-2003, 01:22 AM

I think that hardly anyone views streaking as sexual. I guess that it's because the person is always running. Also, I've never heard of a streaking incident where a male streaker had an erection.

Generally, I think that the streaker's motivation is for the adrenalin rush that comes from doing something that is naughty, rather than for a sexual buzz.

Is it positive nudity? I think that any exposure of the public to nudity is good for nudism, because each time, the person becomes a bit more desensitized to nudity. Also, the crowd's reaction -- laughing, cheering -- creates a positive association.

Gary

Macanudist

11-27-2003, 01:39 AM

Cyndiann mentioned the flashing of breasts. "Earning your beads" at Mardis Gras has been going on for years and I'm glad to see the practice spreading. We have a local waterfront bar where this has become common during its opening day. The more people see the fun and innocence of it all and that the earth did not come to a screeching halt I think you will find a growing acceptance at other places like the beach - And then maybe even in one's own front yard?

Nude in the North

11-27-2003, 03:56 AM

Streaking is about as positive to nudism as joining a Cult is to religion.

The public perception of a streaker is far from what I would like their perception of a Nudist to be.
A streaker is a thrill seeker. He wants to attract attention to himself. He wants to shock people with his nudity.
If people relate Streakers with Nudists then they will think that nudists are looking for the same thrills.

There are better ways to get the message out.

Steve

11-27-2003, 04:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nude in the North:
Streaking is about as positive to nudism as joining a Cult is to religion.

The public perception of a streaker is far from what I would like their perception of a Nudist to be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all I think you have the discussion twisted just a bit. We were looking at positive nudity which in many cases has no relation to nudism at all. I think, as does some of the others here, that othere forms of nudity that aren't nudism can be positive and can help the general public become more comfortable with mere nudity which helps nudism in the long run and it's purely incidental.

I would bet that the public perception of a streaker (to the general public which is usually clueless about nudism) is less sexual and more acceptable that that of a nudist. Many people consider streakers harmless but would not see a nudist in that same light. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

A streaker is a thrill seeker. He wants to attract attention to himself. He wants to shock people with his nudity.
If people relate Streakers with Nudists then they will think that nudists are looking for the same thrills.

There are better ways to get the message out.

Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why would anyone relate streakers with nudists? I don't think that is a problem. And I don't think most streakers are looking to give a shock in a negative or sexual way. It is just something fun and daring to do.

Could you tell us what you would consider a better way to get the message out? And what do you think that message is?

David77

11-27-2003, 05:42 AM

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

P.S. Can anyone recall an incidence of church-service streaking? Don't be afraid of offending my Christian sensibilities; most likely I'll LOL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, but this is something close to it.
Years ago a young man who knew much cultural anthropology of the American Indian tribes gave a lecture for the young persons group (ages about 20 and up) in our church social room. He was dressed in full Americn Indian clothing. As he lectured about each piece of clothing he was wearing, he removed that piece of clothing. After he lectured about all the clothing he had been wearing, he was down to only a small patch of tan material over his genitals, but otherwise naked in church.
No one laughed and no one complained and no one yelled "Take it off" regarding the tan patch. It was all accepted in good spirits.

Incidentally, last month, when I went to church in Kensington, London England, the Essex Unitarian Church, one very intelligent young man, about age 30, wore no shoes or socks, - naked feet. He was doing various church duties for the morning activities. I did not get up the nerve to ask him why he went to church barefooted. I feel maybe he was a naturist who was compromising by not going to church nude, but going barefooted instead.
He seemed well accepted and a valued person in the church.

Go to your church barefooted! LOL.

Ben_m

11-27-2003, 06:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Streaking is about as positive to nudism as joining a Cult is to religion.

The public perception of a streaker is far from what I would like their perception of a Nudist to be.
A streaker is a thrill seeker. He wants to attract attention to himself. He wants to shock people with his nudity.
If people relate Streakers with Nudists then they will think that nudists are looking for the same thrills.

There are better ways to get the message out.

Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Steve, we definitely agree here. I suppose the only 'allowance' I could make is "what is streaking" is often the subject of some debate. However, as you've defined it - and as I would define it, we absolutely agree.

Ben.

NuTex

11-27-2003, 02:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The public perception of a streaker is far from what I would like their perception of a Nudist to be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I really doubt streakers negatively effect the public perception of us. If someone already equates nudism with sex or exhibitionism then if streaking disappeared tomorrow that person's view wouldn't change.

And yes streaking can be for shock value. But sometimes a shock can be a good thing.

David77

11-27-2003, 05:15 PM

How about this descriptive "definition" of a streaker, in figurative terms;
The naked person runs so fast he leaves a (blue) streak in the air from where he had run.

aunaturelone

11-27-2003, 11:29 PM

Streaker - noun - a nude or nearly nude person who moves quickly and unexpectedly through a public area with the intent of being seen and where nudity is not normally allowed.

A streaker definitely wants to draw attention to him/her self but then, so does any entertainer. I've known quite a few streakers (been there and done that myself) and most streakers consider themselves out to get a positive audience reaction. At a large soccer match in England, a streaker can draw more applause than the game.

Streaking at its best is performance art. It can also be civil disobedience or political protest.

There are some people who get naked as a form of sexual exhibitionism. This is usually the trench coat brigade. They don't do it for the adrenaline or as a way to thumb their noses at society or for a laugh. Rather there is some wierd sexual release from simply being seen naked by whatever kind of person they are attracted to. I suspect this is an obsession and it could not exist outside of textile impaired society.

A pedophile might target children, someone else might flash blue haired ladies. They don't "streak"; they want their target to clearly see their genitals up close and personal and for as long as they can prolong the encounter. So instead they force a stationary closeup full frontal display through various forms of subterfuge. Shock and mortification is often (but not always) the desired reaction.

A streaker usually loves to be laughed at (they like cheering and whistles too) and may well be a comedian at heart. Laugh at a sexual exhibitionist and you've probably ruined his day.

I don't know what to call the legislative staffer who liked to get naked and jump out in front of women with a camera to photograph their reactions. I suppose that if available light weren't enough light for a picture, he'd HAVE to be a...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
flasher. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Gary Naturist

11-28-2003, 02:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
Streaker - noun - a nude or nearly nude person who moves quickly and unexpectedly through a public area with the intent of being seen and where nudity is not normally allowed.

Streaking at its best is performance art. It can also be civil disobedience or political protest.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never thought of streaking as performance art before, but you're absolutely right.

Gary

butnaked

11-28-2003, 03:21 AM

Just streaking by! L /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif s like ya'll have covered the subject very will.

Gotta Go, Happy trails Bob /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

11-28-2003, 06:27 AM

An act of streaking can have several outcomes. If all it causes is hilarity among those who witness it then it is harmless. If it causes shock, offence or annoyance then it taints the experience of spectators who, generally, have paid good money to see some sporting or other event and enjoy themselves.

A streaker cannot know the outcome with any certainty in advance. Consequently, streaking is for the most part an irresponsible, inconsiderate and idiotic thing to do.

In a churchyard near to my home there still sits a set of medievel stocks. There is a story of the son of the squire being placed in them by his own father after being seen running naked through his village one evening as a prank - and this was in the 1930s!! No doubt the local people enjoyed the spectacle - and pelting the scallywag with rotten vegetables. What a fitting punishment, don't you think? I bet he never did it again! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Stu

11-28-2003, 07:22 AM

Stu, it would cause such negative emotions in such a small number of people, much smaller than the number of nudists even. It is not the responsibility of streakers to fix all broken minds of those who think nudity is so horrible.

The solution is for those with the affliction to go get help. This includes you and you've been told that countless times.

This is similar in nature to the "stumble" theory used by organized religion. I am sorry but I feel absolutely no obligation to have to deal with the lowest common denominator. If you and a very few have such a horrible problem with nudity go get it fixed.

Don't expect the whole world to change because you have a phobia. It ain't gonna happen.

Please, are you going to jump into another thread and ruin it? How many times can you post the same old tired opinions?

11-28-2003, 08:17 AM

Cyndiann

My basic argument above is:

"IF all it causes is hilarity among those who witness it then it is harmless. IF it causes shock, offence or annoyance then it taints the experience of spectators who, generally, have paid good money to see some sporting or other event and enjoy themselves...A streaker cannot know the outcome with any certainty in advance."

I would suspect there are plenty of naturists who would agree with that statement. I really can't see how any reasonable person could possibly argue that it's wrong.

Whilst I welcome your responses to what I write you don't seem ever to bother addressing my points but prefer to repeat YOUR tired old statement that I and others like me have a 'problem' and need some sort of treatment. I have no intention of hijacking this thread - I have hardly discussed streaking before. But I am entitled to have, and to express, an opinion.

Cyndiann - I'm supposed to be the grumpy old cumudgeon here, not you, so try to BE NICE! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

Rik

11-28-2003, 08:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
A streaker cannot know the outcome with any certainty in advance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But no-one can ever know for certain the outcome of any action they take so are you saying that no-one should ever do anything just in case there's a possibility that someone won't like it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I really can't see how any reasonable person could possibly argue that it's wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I just did. Are you suggesting I'm not a reasonable person?

OK, I'll get me coat. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

11-28-2003, 09:09 AM

"But no-one can ever know for certain the outcome of any action they take so are you saying that no-one should ever do anything just in case there's a possibility that someone won't like it?"

No. But, as an eminent judge once said, we are expected to "reasonably foresee the consequences of our actions and omissions". If I put on a blindfold and throw a brick in a public place there is a significant risk that I'll cause damage to a car, a window, or somebody's head, or cause others to fear for their safety. So I'm culpable. Where the consequences are of a lesser nature, i.e. causing offence, or spoiling somebody's enjoyment of a sporting event etc, then the person wilfully and knowingly taking that risk is also culpable. Put simply - it's VERY NAUGHTY!

Stu

11-28-2003, 10:36 AM

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

My basic argument above is:

"IF all it causes is hilarity among those who witness it then it is harmless. IF it causes shock, offence or annoyance then it taints the experience of spectators who, generally, have paid good money to see some sporting or other event and enjoy themselves...A streaker cannot know the outcome with any certainty in advance."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here we go again! How many times do we have to bring up your same tired arguement? You don't have a right not to be offended. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

I would suspect there are plenty of naturists who would agree with that statement. I really can't see how any reasonable person could possibly argue that it's wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Suspecting isn't solid figures. If you don't know, don't bring it into the discussion. Let's try this same theory on other topics. Some are offended by breast feeding but it is legal just about everywhere in the US I know of. Some are offended by dirty cars but there are no restrictions on having one. Some are offended by homosexuality and now in the US they are protected in many places. Offense is too vague to legislate and will vary quite a bit from one to another. Dream on with your wish for anything offensive to you to be made illegal. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

Whilst I welcome your responses to what I write you don't seem ever to bother addressing my points but prefer to repeat YOUR tired old statement that I and others like me have a 'problem' and need some sort of treatment.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And at various times you've admitted to having phobias and then minutes later say you don't have them. Tell me you are sane and I will laugh. Denial of your problems doesn't mean they aren't there. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

I have no intention of hijacking this thread - I have hardly discussed streaking before. But I am entitled to have, and to express, an opinion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have already hijacked it, too late. You can have opinions all you want. You don't have to post them repeatedly here, especially knowing that almost everyone on here disagrees with you. Why do you keep doing it? Are you under the misconception we will change our minds? Why are you even here? Please, the topic was actually positive forms of nudity. You weren't really disussing streaking, you were repeating your mistaken theory about nudity being offensive. To you there are no positive forms of nudity so how can you participate?

11-28-2003, 11:04 AM

"You don't have a right not to be offended."

I have a right to take my kids to a sporting event or a fairground or park without having my day spoiled by some offensive, thrill-seeking exhibitionist.

"Let's try this same theory on other topics. Some are offended by breast feeding but it is legal just about everywhere in the US I know of."

It's a matter of degree. I'm offended by breastfeeding and would say so to any woman doing it openly. But I recognise that it's not regarded as being on the same scale of offensiveness as streaking. I would never advocate, for example, imprisoning a woman just for breastfeeding.

"Some are offended by dirty cars but there are no restrictions on having one. Some are offended by homosexuality and now in the US they are protected in many places."

That's just silly. I've never met anybody who is "offended" by dirty cars. Homosexuality is a psycho-sexual syndrome or condition and, as such, isn't something that can be helped. Streaking, on the other hand, is INTENDED to shock! If it didn't shock the people wouldn't do it.

"Offense is too vague to legislate and will vary quite a bit from one to another".

I have never been to any event at which it was considered acceptable by the organisers to streak. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that this is entirely acceptable behaviour? It is at the very least disruptive and certainly marrs people's enjoyment at events that exist to be enjoyed.

"Dream on with your wish for anything offensive to you to be made illegal."

Here in he UK most things that are considered offensive by the majority of the population are already illegal - if not expressly so then by virtue of the flexibility of the law. If you doubt that you should know that today Mr Steve Gough received a sentence of imprisonment of three months for walking naked in publc. Justice was served!

"And at various times you've admitted to having phobias and then minutes later say you don't have them."

I have a phobia for dolls. I have no phobia for nudity. I encounter nudity three or four times a week when I visit my local gym - no problem! If I see a streaker, on the other hand, that WOULD BE a problem.

"Tell me you are sane and I will laugh."

That's silly - of course I'm sane. Your attitude reminds me of the old Soviet theory that all those who dared to speak out against communist doctrine must be mentally ill. It's a sort of philosophical fascism and doesn't convince any thinking person.

Stu

Nude in the North

11-28-2003, 11:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nude in the North:
Streaking is about as positive to nudism as joining a Cult is to religion.

The public perception of a streaker is far from what I would like their perception of a Nudist to be.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"First of all I think you have the discussion twisted just a bit."

I thought we were just supposed to give our opinions on the question.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> So my question is, "Is streaking a positive form of nudity?" If then so is that always true? If not always true then when? If it's never true then why not?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I answered that question with my opinion. To Clairify... NO it is not a positive form of nudity.
"We were looking at positive nudity which in many cases has no relation to nudism at all. "

Maybe you were. I was just answering the question. We were asked if we thought streaking was a positive form of nudity. We were not asked to look at positive nudity which in many cases has no relation to nudism.

"I think, as does some of the others here, that othere forms of nudity that aren't nudism can be positive and can help the general public become more comfortable with mere nudity which helps nudism in the long run and it's purely incidental."

Well I know plenty of people that laugh and ridicule Both Streakers and Women that bare their breasts at MardiGras. I wouldn't want to take a video of drunk women showing their boobs to drunk men to the city counsel , in hopes that it would convince them to allow nudity in some portion of a park or beach.

"I would bet that the public perception of a streaker (to the general public which is usually clueless about nudism) is less sexual and more acceptable that that of a nudist. Many people consider streakers harmless but would not see a nudist in that same light." <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

Well I would bet that the public perception of a streaker is , that he is some Fruit Cake that is 6 fries short of a happymeal. I don't think I have ever heard anyone make a comment that a streaker was doing something "Positive" for any Cause.

Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"Why would anyone relate streakers with nudists? "

Some people just might make a connection between streakers and nudists. Since they both do their thing nude , I could understand how that connection could be made.
"I don't think most streakers are looking to give a shock in a negative or sexual way. It is just something fun and daring to do."

It's also disruptive and immature. Have you ever seen what happens to a Clothed person that runs out onto a football field? He is considered an Idiot/Moron for disrupting the game. And he is caught and arrested for his actions. Clothed or nude they cause the same problems.

"Could you tell us what you would consider a better way to get the message out? And what do you think that message is? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"

More websites like this one would be a good start.
Nudists need to organize and lobby local governments to set aside areas for them. They need to show that they are well behaved, mature people that just want to have a place to congregate.
We need to show others that we do the same things that clothed people do at beaches , clubs , and parks. We just like to do them nude.

I admidt I don't have all the answers. I probably don't have any at all. But when asked my Opinion, I usually know what the answer is. And in My Opinion, Streaking is not a positive form of nudity.
Nude Art is. So are nude children playing innocently. Fishing, Watersking, Hiking, Swimming, Camping, and any other activity that people enjoy clothed are all good examples of Positive Nudity.

It's just my opinion. I'm not trying to convince anyone to change theirs.

Steve

11-28-2003, 11:41 AM

Steve

I wish to apologise sincerely in advance for what I am about to say, which is...

....I totally, unequivocally and absolutely agree 100% with what you say...

Sorry! Now you've got Stu agreeing with you - how embarrassing!!!

Stu /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nude in the North

11-28-2003, 12:03 PM

Stu;

How am I ever going to live this one down.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Maybe this will help.

Even if a person was completly Dressed. It would still be disruptive at a sporting event. Disrupting the progress of a game or event is immature at best.
It's just not positive behavior no matter how you look at it.

If they had a Nudist section at the stadium, I'd be a season ticket holder. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Steve

NuTex

11-28-2003, 12:41 PM

Stu,
I understand from some of your other postings that I've read you have a strong anti-nudity position. Please correct me if I?m wrong in my understanding since I'm fairly new here. If I?m right then there was a statement you made in the last posting that I have a question about.

You wrote,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I totally, unequivocally and absolutely agree 100% with what you say <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You agree 100% with what Steve wrote? Even with the rest of his posting? Especially with, <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Fishing, Watersking, Hiking, Swimming, Camping, and any other activity that people enjoy clothed are all good examples of Positive Nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or I'm I reading too much in your posting and the only agreement you had was with his statement about streaking?

And, may I ask why do find viewing breastfeeding offensive? I would think that even most textiles would find little offense in that.

11-28-2003, 01:34 PM

Steve,

It's no good, pal, I still agree with you. You had better hide your face in shame.

NuTex

"I understand from some of your other postings that I've read you have a strong anti-nudity position."

I'm strongly pro-nudists having lots of accessible places with good facilities set aside for them to practice their referred state of dress (or should I say undress?).

"Fishing, Watersking, Hiking, Swimming, Camping, and any other activity that people enjoy clothed are all good examples of Positive Nudity."

We textiles have places where we can enjoy these activities so I see no reason why naturists shouldn't have such places allocated for them to use as well!

"Or I'm I reading too much in your posting and the only agreement you had was with his statement about streaking?"

You may be, Tex. I strongly believe in strict segregation of naturism from those of us who find nudity unacceptable. In other words, I believe in facilities that are equal but separate. I don't want to dwell on this point on this thread because we're talking here about streaking.

"And, may I ask why do find viewing breastfeeding offensive? I would think that even most textiles would find little offense in that."

I regard female breasts as an intimate part of the body that should remai covered in public. I accept that views of some textiles about this have changed over the years and this is less of an issue than before. But I still find it offensive and would confront (and have confronted) women who do it inappropriately.

Stu

NuTex

11-28-2003, 02:07 PM

Thanks for clarifying your position for me Stu. That's a little different than I thought your position was.

BTW, did you purposely use the term "equal but separate" in your last post? Because that sounds hauntingly like the old racist policy of "separate but equal" that the Jim Crow southern states in the US once used to discriminate against blacks. May I recommend that you not use the term "equal but separate" even if that's your position? I don't think it helps your cause with many Americans. I'm sure it brings back too many bad memories for many of us and I hope you wouldn't want your position to be linked to that part of our past.

But I don't want to go too much further with this either because you were correct that this tread I started was only about streaking.

aunaturelone

11-28-2003, 07:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Consequently, streaking is for the most part an irresponsible, inconsiderate and idiotic thing to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah but it's harmless. People have a right to be irresponsible, inconsiderate and idiotic to the extent they don't put others at risk. And even then it's the risk that's the problem and not the nudity, per se.

In a privately owned stadium, the owner has a right to set rules. If rules are violated the owner has a right to have the violator escorted off the grounds and could recover economic damages if he could prove them in court. (Good luck trying to prove a streaker caused economic damage!) That much is reasonable but no more.

Certainly if you are of a democratic mind, more people are amused than are offended. If someone streaks a soccer match, compare the number of people who are following the streaker instead of the game. Compare the number who are swiveling their heads and stretching their necks to see him/her better with those who are hiding their faces or turning away.

If, by streaking you have enhanced the experience for more than you have degraded it, the prudes have been outvoted.

11-29-2003, 12:52 AM

Tex

"May I recommend that you not use the term "equal but separate" even if that's your position? I don't think it helps your cause with many Americans..."

Thanks for the advice. Here in the UK it doesn't have such connotations but I see what you mean.

aunaturelone

"Yeah but it's harmless."

It's not harmless if it spoils people's day out. Especially if they have paid good money to enjoy something. I enjoy going to the opera with my wife. It's expensive to get a seat but it's an event we look forward to. A streaker at the opera wold totally ruin the evening for us! I call that REAL harm even if you don't.

"In a privately owned stadium, the owner has a right to set rules. If rules are violated the owner has a right to have the violator escorted off the grounds and could recover economic damages if he could prove them in court. (Good luck trying to prove a streaker caused economic damage!) That much is reasonable but no more."

If it happens at a sporting offence here it's a quite serious criminal offence and can carry a term of imprisonment. This law was brought in to curtail fotball hooliganism but can be, and often is, applied against streakers. That is reasonable in my book.

"Compare the number who are swiveling their heads and stretching their necks to see him/her better with those who are hiding their faces or turning away."

People's heads swivel if they drive past a road accident but that doesn't mean to say that they are a positive thing.

"If, by streaking you have enhanced the experience for more than you have degraded it, the prudes have been outvoted."

I think that here it's the element of disruption to the event that is the main reason people despise streakers. If you pay money to see a game or a performance, then that's what you want to see. You haven't chosen to pay to see some attention-seeking fool come along and spoil it.

Stu

David77

11-29-2003, 01:09 AM

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

.... seen running naked through his village one evening as a prank - and this was in the 1930s!! No doubt the local people enjoyed the spectacle - and pelting the scallywag with rotten vegetables. What a fitting punishment, don't you think?
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No! No! No! This is a form of mob violence to be abhorred, and I am repulsed by this irresponsible mob behaviour and do not condone it!

11-29-2003, 03:15 AM

David,

"No! No! No! This is a form of mob violence to be abhorred, and I am repulsed by this irresponsible mob behaviour and do not condone it!"

This was in the 1930s when things were done quite differently to how they're done nowadays - especially in rural areas of England - and there was a certain feeling of natural justice and equilibrium that we've since lost. These days we all talk about our "rights" and seem to forget about our duty to be considerate towards others.

Nevertheless I recognise times have moved on and certainly wouldn't advocate a mob taking the law into their own hands in this way in 2003!

Stu

missouriboy

11-29-2003, 03:50 AM

stu2630

"These days we all talk about our "rights"... "

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

WNYjoe

11-29-2003, 04:48 AM

I just really need to make a few points here:
Previous items brought up include Stu's perspective, Jim Crowe laws, and offending others.
With all due respect, Stu I wonder why you belong to a forum that is apparently contradictory to a lifestyle for you? Challenging our thought process is good, albeit curious though.
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. I am fortunate to live in an area where there are a fair number of places where I can be nude without problem. Nudist parks and the like. I am uncomfortable nude in places where I know it is not accepted. High on the list of reasons is getting arrested. But does that mean that the nudist lifestyle is wrong? What is there to be offended by? To quote someone I previously saw here: "why is it that humans are the only species offended by their own nudity?"
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? 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. A large part of the education process definitely ties back to the concept that nudity=sex, and that sex is wrong. The reality is, they are two very different things and each is beautiful and should be enjoyed as much as we so desire.
Of course that does not mean sex in the streets, but if we as a society are more open about natural functions, they no longer become "taboo." Or to put it another way, we all have to eat. We all have to use the bathroom. No one thinks twice about walking into a restaurant, or excusing themselves to find a bathroom. A certain politeness obviously indicates there is no need to discuss and/or view what happens in there. But it is a natural function. (Without getting into unrelated discussions about the modern invention of the flush toilet...)You would never build a house without one, right? The difference is all in how we treat it. And nudity is the same way. I would like to think some of it has to do with the idealized view society gives, that anyone "unattractive-is just that." But it defintely goes deeper. To the concept that it is wrong to be 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.

11-29-2003, 05:46 AM

I REALLY don't want to let this thread, which is about streaking, get bogged down onto the topic of public nudity generally (includin the right not to be offended). To that end I'll start a new thread, entitled "Offence", to address some points that have been made above.

Stu

NuTex

11-29-2003, 06:08 AM

WNYJoe,
I agree with you about there being some similarities between the old Jim Crowe laws and the existing laws concerning anti-nudity. And I do think the current situation is a form of discrimination. But we have to be cautious here because we could take this a little too far. There is a real difference between our issue when compared to what the southern blacks experienced during the days of segregation.

In addition, I think you made some good points further on in your posting.

Stu,
I would rather not discuss at this point your motivation for being so active on a forum that you seem to have such opposing opinions with many of its participants. If you would like to start a new topic on your motivations, maybe in the Misc or Offtopic I would think the moderators would allow it.

?To that end I'll start a new thread, entitled "Offence", to address some points that have been made above.?

Good idea, Stu. I think that would be a interesting topic and that keeps this one about streaking on just that. This new topic may belong possibly in the Legal Issues section.

But I do see how what WNYjoe wrote does have some bearing (or should I say baring?) on the subject at hand.

WNYjoe

11-29-2003, 12:02 PM

Obviously, when comparing to the Jim Crowe laws, the concept can only be taken so far.

As far as streaking, the original question to this thread; Some people seem to equate streaking and nudism. Where is the line? If I walk down my street right now nude, I am being a nudist. (And cold) Especially if it is just to get something down the street at the deli. But since I live in "standard, suburban America" that would not go over well. (Back to my previous post about educating). But if my intent is to shock, then things have a whole different meaning.

Bob S.

11-29-2003, 01:50 PM

"It's not harmless if it spoils people's day out."

stu, Nude in the North made a good point, "Even if a person was completly Dressed. It would still be disruptive at a sporting event." So ask yourself this regarding streaking, if a clothed person did the same thing as a streaker, would the disruption of the event be teh same or worse than if the person was streaking? Using your own personal outing example, would you be less upset if a person in a tuxedo went up onstage and ran around the actors and actresses or does the fact that he would be wearing nothing mean more?

"But I still find it offensive and would confront (and have confronted) women who do it inappropriately."

How does a lady feed her baby inappropriately? When nursing, the baby is usually completely covering the nipple. And there is only a couple of seconds when the bare nipple is exposed. Women should have the absolute right to feed their baby whenever and wherever they are (provided that the wherever is safe).

Bob S.

MikeyBear1964

11-29-2003, 02:09 PM

What was the question? Is streaking positive? I don't think so. It doesn't educate. Streaking is associated with disruption. How is that positive to the textile majority? Some will say any publicity is good publicity. I don't agree. Publicity that shows an interest / cause in a positive light is is good. Anything else - no way...

11-29-2003, 02:54 PM

Bob,

"So ask yourself this regarding streaking, if a clothed person did the same thing as a streaker, would the disruption of the event be teh same or worse than if the person was streaking?"

I would be upset that some total idiot had seen fit to disrupt some event that I and many others had come to enjoy. That would apply whether or not they were naked, semi-naked or dressed as a polar bear wearing a tutu. The fact that they were naked would add offence to the crime of disruption to me and also to many others. As to the degree of offence caused - that would depend upon the actual event and the nature of the spectators.

"How does a lady feed her baby inappropriately?"

She does so openly, facing and in front of everyone else.

"When nursing, the baby is usually completely covering the nipple. And there is only a couple of seconds when the bare nipple is exposed."

It's still exposure of an intimate part of the female anatomy and it's unnecessary because it can be done discreetly.

"Women should have the absolute right to feed their baby whenever and wherever they are (provided that the wherever is safe)."

I disagree.

Stu

Bob S.

11-29-2003, 08:04 PM

One of the most infamous streaks on live TV occurred in the 70s during the live Oscar (Academy Awards) ceremony. And I believe it was Peter O'Toole onstage at the time. He didn't skip a beat ad-libbing about the guy's "shortcomings." I wonder how different it would have been if the guy was wearing a jogging suit?

For most, I think they see the naked streaker as harmless, if not disruptive. I dont think too many people think of a streaker as positive. His nudity makes him harmless. If he were wearing something, there would probably be more of a concern for the safety of others.

Well, don't come here. In the US, in virtually every state (including nudist hostile Arkansas) a woman has the right to breastfeed in public places. And if you don't want to see a woman feeding her baby, turn your head away from her.

Bob S.

11-29-2003, 10:01 PM

Bob...It was David Niven...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kari P

11-30-2003, 02:59 AM

Breast-feeding is not streaking, but I must comment on this point.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"How does a lady feed her baby inappropriately?"

She does so openly, facing and in front of everyone else.

"When nursing, the baby is usually completely covering the nipple. And there is only a couple of seconds when the bare nipple is exposed."

It's still exposure of an intimate part of the female anatomy and it's unnecessary because it can be done discreetly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you tell the lady a positive alternative, show her a place where she can breast-feed? I think there are seldom reasonable places to do it completely out of sights. Think about a train, for instance. A toilet, often narrow and dirty, is not a place to eat. The question is not only about the mother's right, it is also about the baby's right.

11-30-2003, 03:11 AM

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

"So ask yourself this regarding streaking, if a clothed person did the same thing as a streaker, would the disruption of the event be teh same or worse than if the person was streaking?"

I would be upset that some total idiot had seen fit to disrupt some event that I and many others had come to enjoy. That would apply whether or not they were naked, semi-naked or dressed as a polar bear wearing a tutu. The fact that they were naked would add offence to the crime of disruption to me and also to many others. As to the degree of offence caused - that would depend upon the actual event and the nature of the spectators.

"How does a lady feed her baby inappropriately?"

She does so openly, facing and in front of everyone else.

"When nursing, the baby is usually completely covering the nipple. And there is only a couple of seconds when the bare nipple is exposed."

It's still exposure of an intimate part of the female anatomy and it's unnecessary because it can be done discreetly.

"Women should have the absolute right to feed their baby whenever and wherever they are (provided that the wherever is safe)."

I disagree.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, everything you've posted here is just a repeat of other posts. No new information, just you repeating yourself again. Please go back to your own thread if you can't add anything new.

WNYjoe

11-30-2003, 07:48 AM

Lets re-phrase the question:
Baby feeding. What if the mother chooses NOT to breastfeed, and uses formula. For any number of reasons that are irreleveant. Good or bad. In any case, the mother is in the open: mall, sporting event, picnic, etc. What is acceptable?
Now, breastfeeding: Is there really anything that SHOULD be different?

Why can't it be that simple?

Naturist Mark

11-30-2003, 08:50 AM

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

"Women should have the absolute right to feed their baby whenever and wherever they are (provided that the wherever is safe)."

I disagree.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In that you are a definite minority. In the US, even with its inconsistant and vague laws about body exposure, public breastfeeding is legal everywhere. 19 states have laws specifically protecting the right of mothers to nurse in public, and some even provide criminal penalties for interference with that right. Public opinion varies about what people 'like', but seems overwhelmingly in favor of the right.

-Mark

TAP

12-04-2003, 12:31 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB] Bob,

I would be upset that some total idiot had seen fit to disrupt some event that I and many others had come to enjoy. That would apply whether or not they were naked, semi-naked or dressed as a polar bear wearing a tutu. The fact that they were naked would add offence to the crime of disruption to me and also to many others. As to the degree of offence caused - that would depend upon the actual event and the nature of the spectators.

STU,
"Maybe that is the way some people feel about you envading our enjoyment in this forum!!!

12-04-2003, 12:41 AM

TAP

"Maybe that is the way some people feel about you envading our enjoyment in this forum!!!"

I'll tell you what I'll do, TAP. If a majority of people here say that I spoil, rather than add to, their enjoyment of this forum then I'll stop posting here for good.

So you see I respect majority feelings and sensibilities. All I'm asking for is that others do the same.

Stu

12-04-2003, 07:22 AM

Stu...I've often wondered why you hang around this forum with your anti naturism views...I basicly ignore your posts most of the time...but you have become an enjoyable fixture here for others as evidenced by the lengthy discussions...sooo..If you enjoy being here...thats all that counts...Have fun!...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

shãybare

12-04-2003, 07:37 AM

Stu,

I, for one, will not cast a vote to remove you from this forum. Even though we do not agree on when and where some nudity should be allowed, I do understand where you are coming from.
Using this forum as a type of therapy is OK if that is what you are really trying to do. You are a lawyer and love to debate. I have no problem with that either.
"I respect majority feelings and sensibilities." is what you said. The majority on this site are nudists/naturists wanting to promote the enjoyment of social nudity. They enjoy the freedom of being able to talk to others that enjoy the same lifestyle as themselves. Many are in situations where this forum is their only link to the nude lifestyle most of the time. They do not want to see posts that speak negatively. (That is not to say having negatives on the forum is not helpful to affirm ones belief.)
There have been alot of people already that have spoken out against you. I do believe in majority rule on a lot of things but not to the extent that minorities are not to have their rights expressed. The majority of the world are not as you are when it comes to nudity. Does that mean you have no right to your freedoms?
You ARE the minority on this forum. Do you really feel that by being the minority you have no voice and should be expelled? Are you a paying customer? Should that be the bottom line as whether your voice is to be heard or not?
What exactly do you mean by "spoil"? Your posts do upset many on the site. Most do not agree with you. Most are uncomfortable even "talking" with you because you debate every sentence they say. As I have stated, this is a nudist site, not a mass debaters site. So, what do you mean by spoil?
No, I will not cast a vote against having you removed. At times I do enjoy your quips but I do not think you add to the enjoyment of the forum. What do you think?

12-04-2003, 09:35 AM

odb and shay - thanks for your comments - and your tolerance. I would have expected no less.

There are many here who choose not to debate wih me - and that's fine. They can either ignore my posts or simply respond once and leave it at that. Then there are those who enjoy the cut and thrust of debating the issues. Finally there are just a small number here who seem to resent my presence. If that small number becomes a majority then I'll leave everyone in peace.

Anyway, enough about me. Let's get back to the subject of this thread - Is streaking positive nudity? I say generally 'no' because, unlike organised naturism, it is actually intended to outrage, shock and disrupt. Even the claim that it causes hilarity among onlookers is hardly an endorsement of nudity. Where is the 'positive' aspect for naturists of people ridiculing nakedness?

Stu

Kari P

12-04-2003, 11:29 AM

To say it briefly and clearly: I am against streaking. But I would not consider it as crime because of nudity. Be a person nude or not, the same behaviour is a punishable disorder in a sports event. Jogging nude in the street or in a park looks only funny (but isn't an advertisement of naturism), no "offence" taken from it by the most people.

12-04-2003, 01:09 PM

Kari,

"Jogging nude in the street or in a park looks only funny ...no "offence" taken from it by the most people."

That may be the case in Finland, but I can tell you with 100% cast iron certainty that most British people would find that TOTALLY unacceptable.

Stu

R.M.GREENMAN2

12-04-2003, 03:51 PM

Stu,
I never seem to agree with alot of your posts, but there are alot of others that post their opinion on things that I don't agree with. You do not need to go anywhere. Who knows, we might find a subject we agree on.

As far as streakers, if caught, it should only be a fine and not jail time. As far as I am concerned, speeders and other road ragers should be jailed, because their actions kill and no
one has ever died because they saw someone naked!

soofreeemateomanian

12-04-2003, 04:04 PM

Stu, I really don't understand your motives. Why the heck did you come on to this site. You either came looking for porn, or you came to this site to prove yourself right.

12-04-2003, 10:45 PM

RMG

We've just found a subject we agree on! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree with you that streakers should just be given a reprimand or fined and not sent to prison. It is and should be an offence against the law - but it doesn't deserve a term in gaol.

As far as streakers, if caught, it should only be a fine and not jail time. As far as I am concerned, speeders and other road ragers should be jailed, because their actions kill and no
one has ever died because they saw someone naked!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 57 | From: Denver | Registered: Nov 2003 | IP: Logged |

soofreeemateomanian

"Stu, I really don't understand your motives. Why the heck did you come on to this site. You either came looking for porn, or you came to this site to prove yourself right."

Yes - you've caught me - I admit I came here looking for porn. As a university lecturer I'm such a total dummy that I thought I'd find hardcore porn action at a naturist discussion board! Duh! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sorry but when I read that I fell about laughing.

I came here initially looking for information about foxes - I typed in "naturist" instead of "naturalist" in a search engine. Then I saw that the discussion looked really interesting and I've been coming here ever since. I know I'll never persuade others here of my own point of view, but it's fun trying!!!

Stu