The Law: My Suggestion

In my view - at least as far as the UK is concerned - we should allocate every beach a "designation". All popular beaches that are presently non-naturist should be classified as such and signs should be erected stating that fact along with the penalties for disregarding the clothing requirement rule.

All other beaches (apart from designated naturist beaches) should be governed by a rule that states that, whilst it is not a naturist beach, nudity is allowed provided it is well out of sight of roads, streets or other premises (e.g. houses, schools, work places etc) AND nobody objects.

Then, there should be a huge increase in the number of designated naturist beaches, and other segregated (screened and signposted) naturist venues. Central government should require local authorities both in coastal and non-coastal areas to show that facilities exist for naturist practice within, or close to, their areas.

By adopting the measures I have suggested, no non-naturist would be likely to unintentionally encounter nudity unless momentarily in a remote place and then he or she could require the naked person/people to cover up.

The legal penalties that can be expected for breaching the rules on nudity ought, generally, to consist of a fine on first conviction followed by imprisonment only for repeat offenders or those who wilfully defy the law.

This would retain the present default position that public places require that clothing be worn whilst providing far more places in which outdoor nudity can be practiced.

Stu

In my view - at least as far as the UK is concerned - we should allocate every beach a "designation". All popular beaches that are presently non-naturist should be classified as such and signs should be erected stating that fact along with the penalties for disregarding the clothing requirement rule.

All other beaches (apart from designated naturist beaches) should be governed by a rule that states that, whilst it is not a naturist beach, nudity is allowed provided it is well out of sight of roads, streets or other premises (e.g. houses, schools, work places etc) AND nobody objects.

Then, there should be a huge increase in the number of designated naturist beaches, and other segregated (screened and signposted) naturist venues. Central government should require local authorities both in coastal and non-coastal areas to show that facilities exist for naturist practice within, or close to, their areas.

By adopting the measures I have suggested, no non-naturist would be likely to unintentionally encounter nudity unless momentarily in a remote place and then he or she could require the naked person/people to cover up.

The legal penalties that can be expected for breaching the rules on nudity ought, generally, to consist of a fine on first conviction followed by imprisonment only for repeat offenders or those who wilfully defy the law.

This would retain the present default position that public places require that clothing be worn whilst providing far more places in which outdoor nudity can be practiced.

Stu

[namedun]

This seems like progress. However, I disagree witht the prudist's right to demand the nudist cover up. With respect to that issue alone, I also doubt that a law punishing the refusal to cover up would be able to function. Mainly, there is a lack of evidence with which to accuse anyone of not covering up when asked. Local law enforcement would have to be crawling all over the countryside, making sure that if a prudist wanted clothes on ppl that it would happen. It's just not feasable.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

"Local law enforcement would have to be crawling all over the countryside, making sure that if a prudist wanted clothes on ppl that it would happen. It's just not feasable."

There is nothing to stop anyone now inconsiderately stripping off in a remote spot because they know that law enforcement will probably take too long to contact and arrive - BUT - my suggestion at least makes it clear (a) what the law is and (b) that the inappropriately nude person is taking a risk if he or she refuses to cover up.

Such cases don't just involve the odd ad-hoc nudist having half an hour sunbathe on a really remote spot being seen by some tourist. Bear in mind that the person insisting that they DO cover up could be a police officer themselves (on or off duty), or there may be a whole group of people (e.g. a school party) who are offended by a nudist, or the nude person or people may have been asked before to cover up by users of the beach but stubbornly refuse - perhaps intending to make it an illegal naturist beach against the wishes of the local inhabitants. The police and courts would at least have some powers to act against such irresponsible nuisance nudists.

Stu

[Bob S.]

So stu, you're proposing a law to correct what? What you are proposing is already in existence. Except for the signs, how does this differ from what is going on now?

"All other beaches (apart from designated naturist beaches) should be governed by a rule that states that, whilst it is not a naturist beach, nudity is allowed provided it is well out of sight of roads, streets or other premises (e.g. houses, schools, work places etc) AND nobody objects."

I thought you said that you live on a small island where space was limited. And that poor Joe Smith couldn't even find a hiking trail to go hiking in the nude. Now he is supposed to find a beach that can fit all of your criteria? And again, how does this change things? If nobody objects now, no complaint will be filed and the police will not be called.

How about this, at certain beaches, signs could be put up that alert people that naked can be found beyond that sign. And you could put it about fifty meters from the official boundary line just to allow for a buffer where you would be hard-pressed to see anyone naked.

Bob S.

Bob,

There are some slight differences with the present situation PLUS the law would be clearer and everyone would know where they stand.

"I thought you said that you live on a small island where space was limited. And that poor Joe Smith couldn't even find a hiking trail to go hiking in the nude. Now he is supposed to find a beach that can fit all of your criteria?"

There is a vast difference between sunbathing on a beach, a static activity whereby you can see people coming from a long way off and have time to cover yourself, and hiking, whereby you are moving along a considerable distance, possibly passing people's homes or work places or roads or railway lines or rivers (with boats on) etc. In the latter case innocent walkers, residents or passengers are at serious risk!

"And again, how does this change things? If nobody objects now, no complaint will be filed and the police will not be called."

Firstly people will know that they have a statutory right to object and the nudist willknow they have. Therefore the naturist will probably cover up in the knowledge that if he or she doesn't do so they are infringing the law. If a member of the public has asked the nudist to cover up an dhe does not do so, then an offence will have been committed and the nudist can be arrested and prosecuted without further warning. If, on the other hand, the naturist hasn't been asked to cover up by the member of the public, then the police would have to ask them to do so before any offence is committed. This is currently the law in Denmark.

"How about this, at certain beaches, signs could be put up that alert people that naked can be found beyond that sign. And you could put it about fifty meters from the official boundary line just to allow for a buffer where you would be hard-pressed to see anyone naked."

We already have these - it's just that there are far too few of them. And what do you do about the other beaches? e.g. remote beaches, popular non-naturist beaches etc? Do you agree that, if we increase the number of naturist beaches and naturist venues here in the UK tenfold then we should have a stricter and clearer law against other public nudity?

Stu

[Bob S.]

"There are some slight differences with the present situation PLUS the law would be clearer and everyone would know where they stand."

What, you have many people not able to understand you law now?

"Firstly people will know that they have a statutory right to object and the nudist willknow they have."

So people over there aren't sure what to do when they see a naked person? Are they that startled by the nudity? Do people need to be told what to do in case of seeing a naked person. Do you also propose you put up signs at stores saying that shoplifting is illegal? Maybe you can just provide everyone a layman's guide to British law, explaining their rights and responsibilities as citizens. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif What you seem to want to do in this law is to create an atmosphere that is hostile to nudists, who neither wants to bother anyone nor be bothered anyway.

And what if a group of nudists 20 large all gather at a secluded beach that is surrounded by nearly unmolested forest. Along comes a couple who happen upon this very space. Why would this couple have the right to tell twenty people to get dressed. Doesn't the majority have any say in it?

"Do you agree that, if we increase the number of naturist beaches and naturist venues here in the UK tenfold then we should have a stricter and clearer law against other public nudity?"

Why should you have a stricter law? According to you, if they use the right law, no one can be naked in public. And how strict do you want it? People already can't go naked. Do you want them to really not go naked? Naturists respect the laws of the land in overwhelming numbers. I would even dare say that most of those who have been arrested for public nudity have not been naturists. So why should we agree to strengthen a law that we already abide by in exchange for more places to go naked? We are the ones who have done most of the compromising. Why can't the non-nudists band over occasionally?

Bob S.

Bob,

"What, you have many people not able to understand you law now?"

The law prohibiting nudity isn't very clear over here - in fact - as you argued for a long time - there is no specific law that makes it illegal. Consequently the authorities have to use "outraging public decency" or "insulting behaviour" on (in Scotland) "causing a breach of the peace". My suggestion would make public nudity outside of the circumstances I have proposed explicitly criminal so there should be no further confusion.

"So people over there aren't sure what to do when they see a naked person?"

Many people aren't sure exactly what to do - neither are many police officers!

"Are they that startled by the nudity?"

Most certainly!

"Do you also propose you put up signs at stores saying that shoplifting is illegal?"

No. Because we already have those in many shops, stores and supermarkets in the UK.

"Maybe you can just provide everyone a layman's guide to British law, explaining their rights and responsibilities as citizens."

Libraries contain such guides - and even schoolchildren learn this now in special lessons.

"What you seem to want to do in this law is to create an atmosphere that is hostile to nudists, who neither wants to bother anyone nor be bothered anyway."

No. I want to create an atmosphere in which nudists can do naturism in places set aside for them. They can also do it in some other places provided no-one objects. But I do want the atmosphere to be VERY hostile to inconsiderate nudists - I want to see them fined and, if they persist, sent to prison. If they truly don't want to bother anyone nor be bothered, they'll stay in naturist areas or be extremely discreet if naked elsewhere.

"And what if a group of nudists 20 large all gather at a secluded beach that is surrounded by nearly unmolested forest. Along comes a couple who happen upon this very space. Why would this couple have the right to tell twenty people to get dressed. Doesn't the majority have any say in it?"

The only relevant "majority" is that which refers to the greater part of the national population - not just those who happen to be present. The forest is, if it is a public place, owned by the national population and not, for example, the twenty or so erstwhile members of the Dover Naturist Society. The alternative to that is a sort of mob rule. A clan of aggressive naturists could gather together anywhere and, provided they could show there were more of them present at a given time than textiles, they could get naked just about anywhere. Totally unaceptable!

"Why should you have a stricter law? According to you, if they use the right law, no one can be naked in public. And how strict do you want it?"

I want it far clearer, and I want it robustly enforcing, and I want transgressors suitably punished. At the moment I think the law is too vague, the enforcement is patchy and the punishments uncertain.

"Naturists respect the laws of the land in overwhelming numbers."

I agree. Such people would have nothing to fear from my proposals.

"So why should we agree to strengthen a law that we already abide by in exchange for more places to go naked?"

You said you wanted more places to go naked - i.e. more authorised naturist venues. You said to achieve this you would like to see public nudity effectively decriminalised. I suggested to you that, if you were granted your wish and there was a massive increase in the number of naturist venues, would you drop your demand for the decriminalisation of public nudity. After all, if, as you rightly say, you already abide by the present laws anyway, then you can't lose, can you?

"We are the ones who have done most of the compromising. Why can't the non-nudists band over occasionally?"

The compromise I am suggesting is that there is a huge increase in the number of authorised (segregated, screened and signed) naturist venues. That's exactly what you say you want - what better compromise can you possibly ask for?

There's one thing for sure - no matter how hard you "push the envelope" the majority population in most of the advanced countries of the world aren't going to accept nudity in public places away from designated naturist venues and the showers and changing rooms of fitness and leisure centres etc. But, as you have said many times, that's not what you are asking for anyway.

Stu

[Bob S.]

"The law prohibiting nudity isn't very clear over here"

If it isn't so clear and people don't know what to do given they see a naked person, then why isn't there more people going naked on the streets? Your systen isn't broken so why fix it?

Are they that startled by the nudity? "Most certainly!"

What do people do over there when they witness a purse snatcher? Are they so put off by the event that they can't even help out the poor lady? They can't even think straight enough to call the police? If people didn't know to call the police, then wouldn't Steve Gough have been successful? You seem to hold your fellow contrymen in very little regard.

"I want to create an atmosphere in which nudists can do naturism in places set aside for them. They can also do it in some other places provided no-one objects."

Again, all done with your current law.

"But I do want the atmosphere to be VERY hostile to inconsiderate nudists - I want to see them fined and, if they persist, sent to prison."

So why is Steve Gough in jail? If your current laws are not sufficient, where does he fit into the whole situation? Was he just a fluke? As you have agreed and we have said, the vast majority of naturists are considerate. We want our own place. Don't blame us.

"The forest is, if it is a public place, owned by the national population and not, for example, the twenty or so erstwhile members of the Dover Naturist Society."

But this group has travelled far to ge to this secluded area, away from all of your requirements. Now they must forgo their plans because two people don't agree with it? This is one way to make newfound friends and possibly converts. And yes, people who are against it at first can be shown that it is fun and there is nothing to be concerned about.

"I want it far clearer, and I want it robustly enforcing, and I want transgressors suitably punished. At the moment I think the law is too vague, the enforcement is patchy and the punishments uncertain."

And yet, you do not have a major problem with public nudity, do you?

"You said to achieve this you would like to see public nudity effectively decriminalised."

I said that it would be one way to achieve it.

"I suggested to you that, if you were granted your wish and there was a massive increase in the number of naturist venues, would you drop your demand for the decriminalisation of public nudity."

I am not demanding anything. And as you mentioned, my reasoning for relaxing the public nudity laws was to gain more places for nude recreation. So yes, since my goal would be met, my suggestion would not be needed. Of course, I would still be against your more strict version of the law for the reasons that I have already explained.

Bob S.

[missouriboy]

GRRROOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!

"Your systen isn't broken so why fix it?"

It's not broken, just unreliable. Consequenly there are instances of naturists falling foul of the law, and also the police and courts are uncertain of what to do when they encounter antisocial characters such as Messrs Gough and Bethell. My suggestion would make he law crystal clear for everyone's benefit.

"What do people do over there when they witness a purse snatcher? Are they so put off by the event that they can't even help out the poor lady? They can't even think straight enough to call the police?"

It varies Most people would recognise that a serious crime had been committed. But instances of antisocial or disorderly conduct leave people less certain about how to respond.

"If people didn't know to call the police, then wouldn't Steve Gough have been successful? You seem to hold your fellow contrymen in very little regard."

Some people who saw him did respond by calling the police. The trouble over here is that people are becoming apathetic about calling the police - even when they suffer a burglary! The police are often found to be extremely slow in responding to calls.

I said: "I want to create an atmosphere in which nudists can do naturism in places set aside for them. They can also do it in some other places provided no-one objects."

Bob: "Again, all done with your current law."

Current law allows authorised naturist places, yes. But there is no law that specifically deals with nudity elsewhere - the rights of neither nudists nor objectors is spelled out.

I said: "But I do want the atmosphere to be VERY hostile to inconsiderate nudists - I want to see them fined and, if they persist, sent to prison."

Bob: "So why is Steve Gough in jail? If your current laws are not sufficient, where does he fit into the whole situation? Was he just a fluke?"

Steve Gough should have been locked up, prosecuted and possibly sent to sent to prison in the south of England, long before he crossed the border into Scotland. The English police weren't sure what to charge him with and so most of the time he was detained using preventive laws such as breach of the peace - which is highly inappropriate. The Public Order Act provides an offence of "insulting or disorderly behaviour" that would suffice, but it is far from ideal in that it does not specify the criminality of public nudity.

"We want our own place. Don't blame us."

I don't blame considerate naturists. Mr Gough isn't even a naturist, and Mr Bethell's comments suggest that he views naturists with some contempt because they are colluding with the segregationists by using naturist beaches. I do blame a selfish minority of naturists, though, who stray onto textile beaches, just as I blame gawking textiles (usually men) for trespassing onto designated naturist beaches to get their kicks.

"But this group has travelled far to ge to this secluded area, away from all of your requirements. Now they must forgo their plans because two people don't agree with it?"

Instead of travelling far to get to a secluded non-nudist beach, they could have made their journey to a designated naturist beach. So they took a risk - sometimes risks don't pay off.

"This is one way to make newfound friends and possibly converts."

Can't they make newfound friends at naturist beaches? And there is no justification in naturists using textile beaches to win converts. That would be like saying it's OK for a Christian to barge into a synagogue and start preaching "to win converts". Unacceptable.

"And yes, people who are against it at first can be shown that it is fun and there is nothing to be concerned about.

Most people know how to contact a naturist body if they're interested. But most people aren't interested. Consequently their wishes to remain clothed and see only clothed people should be respected. I wouldn't dream of going onto a naturist beach with a megaphone and start shouting about the advantages of wearing swimming costumes. Each to their own. Stop trying to "convert" people who are happy the way they are.

"And yet, you do not have a major problem with public nudity, do you?"

No. It's a tiny problem. But a problem nontheless and one that can easily be fixed. So we should fix it.

"...my reasoning for relaxing the public nudity laws was to gain more places for nude recreation. So yes, since my goal would be met, my suggestion would not be needed."

Great. So let's agree on that, then. I don't think you'll ever get a general acceptance or tolerance of public nudity. It's not achievable. So instead you should focus on what can be achieved. What you can do is to step up your campaign for more designated places for naturists - and I've given you lots of suggestions how you could go about that.

"Of course, I would still be against your more strict version of the law for the reasons that I have already explained."

I thought you would. It's called wanting to have your cake and eat it!

Stu

[Bob S.]

MOboy, you messed it up. This was just between stu and me and you had to just interject a comment.

"The trouble over here is that people are becoming apathetic about calling the police - even when they suffer a burglary! The police are often found to be extremely slow in responding to calls."

OK so here is where you need to start with your own crusade. There seems to be more of a need to get the police department more organized. Maybe hiring more officers, giving them better training, allowing them to gain the public's trust more.

"But there is no law that specifically deals with nudity elsewhere - the rights of neither nudists nor objectors is spelled out."

So why can't the people who are involved figure it out? Does there need to be a law for everything? I think naked people can coexist with clothed people. It is a way to get others used to the idea of nudity.

"Instead of travelling far to get to a secluded non-nudist beach, they could have made their journey to a designated naturist beach. So they took a risk - sometimes risks don't pay off."

But there aren't that many nude beaches in England. They found this half and hour walk to be quicker to find somewhere for a nice day of skinny-dipping. Otherwise, they would have had to drive about an hour, depending on traffic, and then had to travel about a half an hour to get to the beach.

"And there is no justification in naturists using textile beaches to win converts. That would be like saying it's OK for a Christian to barge into a synagogue and start preaching "to win converts"."

I never said that they were going to that beach to "win converts." I said that they went to this rarely used waterspot to go skinny-dipping. They would have preferred to have no one else around, but since said couple came by, why not talk with them and find out more about them, maybe even introducing them to the wonders of swimming naked.

"Each to their own. Stop trying to "convert" people who are happy the way they are."

This whole argument started in the thread, "Desensitizing the Public" I believe. The whole pretext was to get the public to become more accustomed to nudity. Talking to the public is one way, skinny-dipping in out-of-the way beaches is another (and is the way that all nude beaches have been formed).

"I don't think you'll ever get a general acceptance or tolerance of public nudity. It's not achievable."

It's an ultimate goal. Our ideal goal. Why not reach as far as we can? In the process, we can consider other goals as steps toward that goal such as gaining more nude beaches.

"It's called wanting to have your cake and eat it!"

It's called unneccessary laws.

Bob S.

[shãybare]

And here I thought this was a public forum. Has something changed?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shaybare:
And here I thought this was a public forum. Has something changed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think Bob was pulling our legs /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Bob S.]

Yank, Yank. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And I'm sorry. I forgot about namedun. Hey, I know, how about creating a Bob vs. stu board.

Bob S.

Bob

"So why can't the people who are involved figure it out? Does there need to be a law for everything?"

Working in the field of law, yes, uyou have to cover as many bases as you can. By not having a law you are leaving decisions to the discretion of police and courts on the day. Whilst that can at times be good, it also creates inconsistencies and those, in turn, create uncertainty - e.g. "Why are you arresting me? The policeman who came yesterday said I wasn't doing anything illegal!"

"I think naked people can coexist with clothed people."

They can't share facilities, Bob. That's obvious. If they could there would be no need for any naturist or CO areas.

"It is a way to get others used to the idea of nudity."

What evidence do you have that people WANT to get used to the idea of nudity? Don't people have a right for themselves to decide what they want to get used to?

"But there aren't that many nude beaches in England. They found this half and hour walk to be quicker to find somewhere for a nice day of skinny-dipping."

Bob, I would bet that less than 1% of the population in England live within half an hour's walk of a secluded beach. They can enjoy their skinny-dipping if nobody objects. But places suitable for this activity are invariably beauty spots used by locals and tourists alike. If I pay to hire a holiday cottage close to a secluded beach and then find that I can't use it because half a dozen nudists have decided to have a "nice day skinny-dipping" then I will be well annoyed, and I would expect them to cover up or go elsewhere. The same applies if I were a local resident and suddenly my local beach was monopolised by such people effectively making the beach out-of-bounds to my family and myself. There has to be regulation and it must be clear and precise.

"Otherwise, they would have had to drive about an hour, depending on traffic, and then had to travel about a half an hour to get to the beach."

That's the price you pay for enjoying a minority passtime. I used to play korfball but the nearest club was a good hour and a quarter drive away. So I had to travel to play the sport I loved. And naturism IS a pastime just like any other.

"The whole pretext was to get the public to become more accustomed to nudity."

But I ask again where is the evidence they want to become accustomed to nudity? Or are you suggesting that the public should have it forced upon them aka Mr Gough.

"Why not reach as far as we can? In the process, we can consider other goals as steps toward that goal such as gaining more nude beaches."

Why not accept that you are a minority interest and focus all your energy on gaining more naturist venues instead of trying to change the rest of us? Your short-term goaly is a noble one and the public will sympathise with it. Your long-term goal is sinister and should be reconsidered.

Stu

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

Current law allows authorised naturist places, yes. But there is no law that specifically deals with nudity elsewhere - the rights of neither nudists nor objectors is spelled out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If this were a real problem, I could support making such additions to the law. In any case there are lifestyle-minorities the law doesn't handle specially. In western countries we have the freedom of religion. Lifestyles could be handled in the same way in the paragraphs of the constitution and in a special law. But I really don't consider it necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

Steve Gough should have been locked up, prosecuted and possibly sent to sent to prison in the south of England, long before he crossed the border into Scotland. The English police weren't sure what to charge him with and so most of the time he was detained using preventive laws such as breach of the peace - which is highly inappropriate. The Public Order Act provides an offence of "insulting or disorderly behaviour" that would suffice, but it is far from ideal in that it does not specify the criminality of public nudity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Public nudity isn't criminal if it isn't criminalized. It is your opinion that it should be criminalized in a vague sense (not totally).

No, I wouldn't criminalize it at all. What I would do with the law is to define more clearly the crimes currently covered by the law, in a way that simple nudity is NOT a crime. Nudity is not to be handled as an exception. Simply define what is "indecency" and what is "disorderly behaviour" without mentioning nudity to make or unmake a crime.

If the law would be written that way, you would see few more nudes in public places as you see currently. Through education (handling the subject in media) the public will know that it isn't a crime to be nude - and the public has to tolerate everything that is not illegal. Just as we tolerate seeing people practising their different religions.

To criminalize something there should be a good reason. There isn't such against nudity, which is harmless to any viewer including children.

I am not saying that nudists shouldn't think about in which places nudity would not be well tolerated by public opinion, as most nudists do. There are those extremists. To stop them doing what they do, don't define simple nudity a crime, define the other crimes that are crimes for good reason clearly!

Kari P

Kari

"If this were a real problem, I could support making such additions to the law."

It is a problem. Supporters of Mr Gough claim he is not doing anything illegal, but those who think as I do believe that he is. So the law is uncertain and needs clarification for everyone's benefit. I'm pleased to receive your support for that.

"In any case there are lifestyle-minorities the law doesn't handle specially. In western countries we have the freedom of religion. Lifestyles could be handled in the same way in the paragraphs of the constitution and in a special law. But I really don't consider it necessary."

We don't have a written constitution here in the UK, so things have to be explicit in the law.

"Public nudity isn't criminal if it isn't criminalized. It is your opinion that it should be criminalized in a vague sense (not totally)."

No crime is a crime until it is decided by the rulin auhorities that it is such. It is my opinion that our current laws prohibiting are not clear enough and so there is no consistency in the way people like Mr Gough are dealt with.

"No, I wouldn't criminalize it at all. What I would do with the law is to define more clearly the crimes currently covered by the law, in a way that simple nudity is NOT a crime. Nudity is not to be handled as an exception."

That's your opinion, Kari, and that's OK. Here in the UK I think a substantial majority of people would find public nudity to be wholly unacceptable and expect the police to act against it. And we have majority rule here.

"Simply define what is "indecency" and what is "disorderly behaviour" without mentioning nudity to make or unmake a crime."

That's the position we have now. Consequently the police and the courts are left to decide on each case. This means that, even under identical circumstances, the results vary enormously. Mr Gough has been arrested whilst performing the same behaviour under several very different pieces of legislation. Instead there should be one law that stipulates it is a crime to expose your private parts (etc) in public (with certain specific exceptions). What's wrong with that?

"If the law would be written that way, you would see few more nudes in public places as you see currently".

I don't want to see ANY nudes in public, thank you.

"Through education (handling the subject in media) the public will know that it isn't a crime to be nude - and the public has to tolerate everything that is not illegal. Just as we tolerate seeing people practising their different religions."

The public are already educated. They know what they find acceptable and what they don't. Of course the public should tolerate everything that is not illegal but public nudity IS considered to be illegal in most courts. I'm arguing for clarity in the law so that public nudity will be illegal in ALL courts. Nobody is stopping people practising their religions, and people can do what they like in private. Public places, however, belong to all, and we should all, minority interests included, respect the sensibilities of the majority when using them.

"To criminalize something there should be a good reason. There isn't such against nudity, which is harmless to any viewer including children."

Causing offence and disgust is not harmless. That sort of behaviour is similar to drunkenness, shouting obscenities or openly indulging in sex. You can do it - just not in publuic.

"I am not saying that nudists shouldn't think about in which places nudity would not be well tolerated by public opinion, as most nudists do. There are those extremists. To stop them doing what they do, don't define simple nudity a crime, define the other crimes that are crimes for good reason clearly!"

If I knew that adults were to be seen nude somewhere then would not go to that place, just as I don't go to nudist beaches etc. But I HAVE to use public places, and I PAY to have these places maintained, so I'm entitled to go there and use them. The law must protect my rights and those of the majority who find public nudity unacceptable by prosecuting those who choose to engage in it.

Stu

[Rocket]

I agree with Stu again.

If someone is going nude in public, then he/she should be charged. It is simply unsuitable in our culture to be nude in public and that isn't going to change.

That's my opinion for what ever it is worth (which may be not much considering the lower level Ren brought me to in that debate on another thread).

Still think I am right though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We keep reading the same lame excuses for why public nudity is illegal: "It's unacceptable", "It's offensive", "It's unsuitable", "People don't like it". We even read "Let the courts decide." I have no desire to let anyone decide what is right for my life if God doesn't say it's wrong. OK, get offended now because I mentioned His name. I'm a Christian and will NOT deny my God.

Rocket can't do anything except to attack anyone who disagrees with her. Stu, though he writes intelligently and doesn't attack anyone, still repeats himself over and over, and neither of them ever comes up with a good reason for WHY public nudity is illegal. Saying that "people don't like it" isn't a good reason. Many people, myself include, don't like profanity or the putrid stench of tobacco, but I don't see anyone trying to pass laws to make either of them illegal, although I think they should be--but that's just my opinion.

Jon-Marc

"We keep reading the same lame excuses for why public nudity is illegal: "It's unacceptable", "It's offensive", "It's unsuitable", "People don't like it". We even read "Let the courts decide."

It's not an excuse it's fact. If there was an especially grotesque building in your town that belonged to the local council and wasn't being used for anything much and it was discovered that, whilst 2% of the population actually liked it, 18% had no opinion and 80% thought it was an eyesore and should be removed, what would happen to it? Would the council DEMAND that those who thought it was ugly explain, usin only pure logic, precisely why they perceived it as ugly? No. They'd accept that it wasn't wanted and down it would come. People have a right to choose their environment and what happens in it. They have a right to choose what they are likely to se and hear in public places because they OWN and have to use those places. Why isn't that good enough? There are places you can be totally naked and offend practically no-one (e.g. your home, the naturist beach), there are places you can be almost naked and just wear the skimpiest of swimming costumes or even a thong (e.g. other beaches) and everywhere else you can get away with the briefest of shorts and a t-shirt. Jon-Marc - you aren't willing to settle for anything less than the whole hog, in spite of knowing that, to most people, your demands are totally unreasonable and, were they to be accepted, would cause untold offence and distress to the extent that many people wouldn't want to use their own public places or let their kids go to the park etc.

"I have no desire to let anyone decide what is right for my life if God doesn't say it's wrong. OK, get offended now because I mentioned His name. I'm a Christian and will NOT deny my God."

Your God is your God, he isn't mine, and he doesn't rule either your country or my country. The governments do. If they, as elected governments, see fit to legislate on an issue then we should respect that. I'm not a Christia but I seem to recall hearing that Jesus once advised his followers to "yield unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". I say yield unto the people that which belongs to the people and respect the laws of the people concerning that which belongs to the people. Public places belong to the people - that's everybody. And everybody is entitled to use and enjoy these places - that means that the preferences of the minority have to be sacrificed in the interests of the majority. There is your answer as to why nudity in public should be illegal.

"Many people, myself include, don't like profanity or the putrid stench of tobacco, but I don't see anyone trying to pass laws to make either of them illegal, although I think they should be--but that's just my opinion."

So in your country it is lawful to stand in the centre of your town with a megaphone and shout obscene language at the top of your voice, is it? If that is so then I can assure you that such behaviour in my country is regarded as antisocial and even disorderly and would lead to arrest and prosecution. And you have a legal right to smoke in any public place - outdoors OR INDOORS? Here most public buildings are smoke free and to light up on any public transport will lead to a fine.

Public nudity is merel one manifestation of antisocial behaviour and the authorities are right to stamp it out.

Stu

[Jochanaan]

Originally posted by stu2630:

"...If there was an especially grotesque building in your town that belonged to the local council and wasn't being used for anything much and it was discovered that, whilst 2% of the population actually liked it, 18% had no opinion and 80% thought it was an eyesore and should be removed, what would happen to it? Would the council DEMAND that those who thought it was ugly explain, usin only pure logic, precisely why they perceived it as ugly? No. They'd accept that it wasn't wanted and down it would come."

For debate's sake, what if there were other options? What if the building was structurally sound, not a hazard, and could be given a new facade? We who love nudity believe there should be other options.

"...I'm not a Christia but I seem to recall hearing that Jesus once advised his followers to "yield unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". I say yield unto the people that which belongs to the people and respect the laws of the people concerning that which belongs to the people."

So what is Caesar's and what is God's? What belongs to the people? I suspect that if you asked ten different authorities (legal, religious, scholarly or otherwise), you'd get at least twelve different answers. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"...Public nudity is merel one manifestation of antisocial behaviour and the authorities are right to stamp it out."

I trust you didn't mean to make that statement as dogmatic as it sounds. As it happens, most of us here see nudity as social, not antisocial. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rocket]

Jon-Marc,

Quote the bible and God all you want if you like. You were absent though on the "Gay Debate" on the other thread (even wrote against me) and my opinion is consistant with your belief system. Being my opponent on this thread, and on THAT one as well, honestly, discredits you.

Stu,

100% correct again!!!! These guys can debate about this ALL they want, but it's not going to change...nudity will stay where it belongs...certain beaches..certain clubs..that's it. The mass public simply doesn't want nudity all around. I don't, and everyone else doesn't as well.

For those people who think nudity is fine in Canada..just try to walk to the store nude..and see how long it is before you have a meeting with a Police Officer. Perhaps no charges will come..but one thing is for sure..YOU WILL COVER UP. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rocket,

I didn't write against you concerning homosexuality. I actually agree with it. It's just that, unlike you, I've learned that most people accept it so why waste my time arguing with them? I see no reason to waste words and time on it when all I get is called "prejudiced". I am against your attacks on the rest of us because we don't agree with you concerning nudity. Stu disagrees with us, but he does it politely.

No, Stu, that does NOT answer the question as to why anyone would find the nude body offensive. I know that laws against public nudity exist because people are offended by nudity, but I've seen no reason why people are offended by simple, natural nudity.

Rocket,

I didn't quote from the Bible in my last post because I've learned it's a waste of time quoting it to people who don't believe it.

[Rocket]

Jon-Marc,

Perhaps I get carried away..and sometimes type before I think..when I state my opinion. I did want you to know one thing..I do regret making that insinuation about nudity and the child. I NEVER thought that was the case..but I still believe you used poor judgement regarding that. Anyway, I am truly sorry for saying what I said the way I said it..

Towards public nudity...it is simply NOT our culture to walk around nude. Other parts of the world it is.....and have different value systems. What you are trying to do is change our culture because you disagree..

We've already made allowances for you: you are free to be nude at home; in your backyard as long as others don't see or complain; certain beaches..certain clubs.

You simply don't have the right to inflict nudity on others...they have a right to enjoy what is their public domain without seeing that.

As I said, if you are SO unhappy about it..you can move and live elsewhere. Because you have chosen not to do that..then you have to accept our culture..and keep your clothes on..

You know...I probably wouldn't like to go to the Middle East, and wear the women's clothes..but if I went there..I would respect THEIR customs and wear them and not complain.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
You know...I probably wouldn't like to go to the Middle East, and wear the women's clothes..but if I went there..I would respect THEIR customs and wear them and not complain.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you were a woman born and raised in the Middle East, wouldn't it be your right to complain about those customs? Or must we all accept the status quo until the end of our days?

Cultures change. Many things that were once unacceptable are now accepted. I remember the first time a man took his shirt off on TV and exposed his bare chest. That was a big deal and caused quite a stir, and now we see total nudity on TV. Actors and actresses do nude scenes on TV and even nude sex scenes.

I've made plans to move into a nudist resort where I could be nude to my heart's content, but my plans have had to be postponed due to my home not selling, but I haven't given up on my dream. It is NOT a matter of me choosing not to do something about moving where I can enjoy being nude more. It's a matter of things not working out the way I planned. You haven't lived long enough, Rocket, to learn that life is often disappointing. You make plans that sometimes don't work out due to circumstances beyond your control. I'm a survivor and take whatever life throws at me while expecting things to eventually work out. I will be buying a membership at Turtle Lake Resort next year. Then I can go there every day even if I can't live there yet.

[Rocket]

Who says I would want to complain? It's a different culture...and if being brought up with it I might willingly go along with it.

I may willingly have my daughter dressed like that..I watched a fair number of interview with women of those countries..and they seem happy. I have some acquantances from there..and they are not complaining about it.


BTW...in the Middle East they don't have clubs where women can walk around with the clothes..beaches..things like that..so accomadation has been made in your case /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here's a question for the men here? Do you wear your hair short? Why? Why not like a women (I have hair to my shoulders)? You could get a perm..things like that..

I'll tell you..for the most part..it is customary and the culture for men to wear their hair shorter than women....

Same with clothes...

If you don't like...then leave...because public opinion isn't going to change to your side. I was taking a walk today around my neighborhood..how many people did I see in their homes nude? NONE. I suspect that is the same everywhere. For the most part..people aren't nudists (or at least like the people on this board). /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Who says I would want to complain? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That isn't what I asked. Don't you think it would be your right as a human being to object to such an oppressive custom if you wanted to?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here's a question for the men here? Do you wear your hair short? Why? Why not like a women (I have hair to my shoulders)? You could get a perm..things like that.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I wear my hair in a ponytail that reaches to my mid back. Not many of us ponytail guys left, but it was common among my native ancestors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'll tell you..for the most part..it is customary and the culture for men to wear their hair shorter than women....

Same with clothes...

If you don't like...then leave...because public opinion isn't going to change to your side. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I should leave the home of my ancestors because a bunch of immigrants with sick oppressive customs moved in?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was taking a walk today around my neighborhood..how many people did I see in their homes nude? NONE. I suspect that is the same everywhere. For the most part..people aren't nudists (or at least like the people on this board). /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope you weren't looking into their windows. That is a crime.

You'd be surprised at how many (http://www.suite101.com/poll/results.cfm/natural_health/1469) people you didn't see are nude at home, or at least have no problem (http://www.armage.demon.co.uk/nuff/research/noppoll.html) with it.

-Mark

[Rocket]

Mark,

Who says those clothes are "oppressive"? You are applying your Western Standard to another culture. What is considered "oppressive" in one..isn't neccessarily in another..

Thanks for the UK poll..but I am certainly not seeing a groundswell of people asking to walk nude on the streets around here..

I don't see you wearing clothes in public as oppressive...just abiding by culture expectations. Since, inspite of your poll, the vast majority of people support being clothed..that's what you do..

If you don't like it..do what Jon-Marc is going to do. He's going to move to a Nudist Resort. I have NO PROBLEM with that..there he can be nude absolutely as much as he likes..and NO COMPLAINTS. While I've never been to one..I am betting it is out of common view..away from the general public so it won't offend. I wonder why....... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Who says those clothes are "oppressive"? You are applying your Western Standard to another culture. What is considered "oppressive" in one..isn't neccessarily in another.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Lots of people in those societies, particularly among the women affected, consider them to be oppressive. But that is not the point.

Why can't you even agree that they have a right to dissagree? Why don't they have a right to TRY and get it changed? Why don't they have a right to try to live in their own country, city, neighborhood, or home in a manner more to their liking? Why MUST they bow forever to custom?

Why must we?

-Mark

[Rocket]

I am not argueing they have a right to not disagree...

You can disagree all you want as well. I support these women, who you say disagree (and I question that because I know a number of women from this culture and they still wear what you say is "oppressive" clothes) the right to then leave.

You have the right to disagree..and..the right to leave. You have the right to form your own subculture (as a Nudist Resort would be)...and the right to go to select beaches..etc...

You seem to miss the point..you live here..in a communal society...and feel you have the right to inflict nudity on the rest of us. Simply, you don't. I kinda parrell (sp?) you're argument to that of smoker who says there is nothing wrong with smoking..and then demanding to smoke ANYWHERE and without regard or care to those around him/her. It don't work that way....

BTW....I wonder if you would call it "oppressive" if I ruled a country..and had almost the whole country nude for arguments sake. The difference is I DECREED that...and it was LAW.

I suspect though..you wouldn't. You'd take this example..and from that argue nudity should be everywhere and do know harm..

It's much like the law here, where it is decreed that you can't go nude in public..but of course..according to you..that isn't ok /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

"By not having a law you are leaving decisions to the discretion of police and courts on the day."

It's called a case-by-case basis. And as has been said here before, your idea would stifle the creation of any future clothing-optional beaches.

"They can't share facilities, Bob. That's obvious. If they could there would be no need for any naturist or CO areas."

No, you can't share facilities with them. There are a lot more people who can tolerate nudity than you believe.

"What evidence do you have that people WANT to get used to the idea of nudity?"

You are on the INA's website. Their Mission is: "To be a leading force in promoting body acceptance and the enjoyment of clothes free recreation." I agree with that statement. I am not talking about going to the local textile beach, stripping off my clothes, and sunning myself. This arguement is about secluded beaches. My guess is that in most secluded beaches, if someone comes upon another person naked, they will more than likely just ignore them, realizing that they are away from where most people are anyway.

"I used to play korfball but the nearest club was a good hour and a quarter drive away. So I had to travel to play the sport I loved."

But you could have also tried to get a club going for others in your area.

"Your long-term goal is sinister and should be reconsidered."

It is sinister to want more people to become accustomed to nudity? It is sinister to want to educate others on the benefits of nudist nudity? It is sinister to invite someone to a nude beach? You say that people are educated about nudism. I don't live over there, but I know here, there is still a major connection between nudity and sex. I would assume that most people still have their own beliefs and that colors their idea about what nudism is. How about asking your friends if they are for or against naturism. And then ask them to explain their answer.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:


I suspect though..you wouldn't. You'd take this example..and from that argue nudity should be everywhere and do know harm.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course not. Clothed when necessary, nude when appropriate. We just have very different views about when it should be appropriate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's much like the law here, where it is decreed that you can't go nude in public..but of course..according to you..that isn't ok /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd settle for the law where you live. I could be nude except for shoes or a hat and fulfill the requirements of Canadian law.

But I live in Ohio. Here I can be nude so long as I don't do so "recklessly ... under circumstances ... likely to be viewed by and affront others."

Unfortunately that is pretty vague. How can I know whether others are 'likely' to feel affronted? Note that the law says 'likely', it doesn't require an affronted witness. Indeed there can BE an affronted witness, but I'd still be in the clear if it wasn't 'likely'.

I'd rather advocate change in 'custom' and law.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Rocket,

No one can drag you to a low level. You have to go there voluntarily. We don't have a positive opinion of you not for your views necessarily, but because of how you present them. You appear as argumentative, insulting, hateful, and childish.

I laughed both out of frustration and out of amazement when you ended the "Gay debate" with the statement that because the other side resorted to insults, you won. Guess what Rocket, we here do not ever declare a winner of a debate. We simply put our opinions forward and anyone else can respond to them. They are open-ended debates.

"These guys can debate about this ALL they want, but it's not going to change...nudity will stay where it belongs...certain beaches..certain clubs..that's it. The mass public simply doesn't want nudity all around. I don't, and everyone else doesn't as well."

Read my above statement about the INA's statement. It will change. It has changed. It is changing. It may be moving slowly, but things are moving forward. Women are winning their rights to be topfree wherever men can. Bathing suits have gone from full body costumes to bikinis and speedos. "Mary Tyler Moore" to "Friends." Society is always undergoing change. The anti-nudist backlash is proof that we are making steps forward.

And now I am curious about something concerning you. You state that you have participared in nude swims. So why are you so adamant about nudity elsewhere, even if you can see it from your backyard? Are you only against nudity when you yourself are not naked?

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"If you don't like...then leave...because public opinion isn't going to change to your side."

This seems to be a favorite argument for you, Rocket. Because it isn't practiced now, there's no point in trying to get it practiced. The status-quo is fine. Why hold elections anymore? Why care about the platforms of the candidates? Why should they want to instill change?

And why should someone leave just because they do not like the politics of their hometown? That is their house! That is where they live! That is where they work! They have the right, nay responsibility, to try to effect change in their hometown to their liking. To do so otherwise would be to quit and give up.

What if the University where you attend decided to place internet filters on the computers that would block out all sites where a naked person was shown? Would you just allow them to do that? Would you want them to change their policy? Or would you just leave the university for a different one?

There is a saying, "Be the change you want in this world!"

"BTW....I wonder if you would call it "oppressive" if I ruled a country..and had almost the whole country nude for arguments sake. The difference is I DECREED that...and it was LAW."

If the law stated that everyone had to be naked, then yes, it would be oppressive. In that type of society, I would be arguing for the right to wear clothes whenever I wished.

"and from that argue nudity should be everywhere and do know harm.."

The harm would come from the lack of choice. And if nudity were allowed everywhere, it would still do no harm. Those who didn't like it would have to get used to it. Of course, the nude would allow for those who didn't want to see nudity all the time a few sparce beaches and their "prudist camps" where they could congregete with others who prefer being clothed. The thing is that non-nudists do not want to seem to walk in our shoes. We walk in their shoes everyday.

Bob S.

[Rocket]

BobS,

It's too late to address your thread point by point so it will have to wait.

I admit, perhaps I've been too outspoken, but I would like to make a new beginning...

I will say, I find it distressing when homosexuality is considered "normal"....and when one logically points out it's not...is considered a bad person. I am not a bad person..or prejudice..or anything..but I do think it should be seen for what it is..wrong..and to go from there..

Towards nude swims...as I've said, I have no problem with nude swims because I am not imposing anything on anyone else. These swims are known as "nude"....everyone going to them has a choice..and knows beforehand of them..they are an OPTION.

Same applied to beaches..resorts..these are ALL options..and no one is imposing anything on anyone else..

Having someone naked in the backyard, as you've suggested, isn't an option..you want to make it an imposition and for others to be forced to accept it. That is what Jon-Marc wants as well..

Have you made inroads? Well..inspite of that case (I think it was Ontario) for topless..I have yet to see any woman going to any beach like that..EVER. I go to our swimming pool all the time..lots of people..and NEVER...

Nudity is still in the law books..when someone ran nude down the street, immediately the Police were called, and...instead of doing nothing..were dispatched. I suspect it would be the same case across the USA and all of Canada....so if the tide is turning..it is turning so slow I doubt we will see it within our lifetimes..

"I will say, I find it distressing when homosexuality is considered "normal"....and when one logically points out it's not...is considered a bad person. I am not a bad person..or prejudice..or anything..but I do think it should be seen for what it is..wrong..and to go from there.."

I find it distressing that you consider yourself not prejudice when you can't come up with a single source for your ugly beliefs.

[Naturist Mark]

What many homophobes can't seem to grasp is that toleration doesn't mean you have to participate. Several of us were asked why we don't try gay sex since we see nothing wrong with homosexuality. As if the only choice is disapproval or participation.

You may be straight, gay or bi, and as far as any of us knows there is no way to force a change in that. Hating homosexuality doesn't change that. Accepting it doesn't change that.

I'd prefer to judge people on the content of their character. Now where have I heard that before?

-Mark

[Kari P]

Rocket and others replying to her: Please don't make this discussion a debate about homosexuality. That's off-topic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
No crime is a crime until it is decided by the rulin auhorities that it is such. It is my opinion that our current laws prohibiting are not clear enough and so there is no consistency in the way people like Mr Gough are dealt with.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK with that. There is no consistency...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Here in the UK I think a substantial majority of people would find public nudity to be wholly unacceptable and expect the police to act against it. And we have majority rule here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To get figures backed up by at least some research (maybe not fulfilling the academic standard) look at the poll results pointed at by naturist-Mark. They were about UK residents. At this point I cannot remember if there the majority found public nudity "totally unacceptable".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
That's the position we have now. Consequently the police and the courts are left to decide on each case. This means that, even under identical circumstances, the results vary enormously. Mr Gough has been arrested whilst performing the same behaviour under several very different pieces of legislation. Instead there should be one law that stipulates it is a crime to expose your private parts (etc) in public (with certain specific exceptions). What's wrong with that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not much wrong. Simply, I would not replace a quite good law by worse. If there is something to do, it is defining the crimes more explicitly.

Regarding exposing private parts, you don't make a difference between ordinary nudity and exhibitionist behaviour - getting pleasure of someone seeing you. I do want to make that difference. Being only nude is much less a crime (if a crime at all) than being clothed and "flashing" your private parts to people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I don't want to see ANY nudes in public, thank you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know, you don't want. Many others may not want, but still could tolerate it. You cannot even tolerate it.

I would like to see the attitudes to nudity change in the direction that finally nudity is only a dressing style and a way to express oneself. And we disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Causing offence and disgust is not harmless. That sort of behaviour is similar to drunkenness, shouting obscenities or openly indulging in sex. You can do it - just not in publuic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In your examples, public drunkenness and shouting obscenities are not defined as crimes as such in the Finnish law. They are so general phenomena that there is no use of defining them as crimes. How about the UK?

There are many other ways of behaviour that can be seen inappropriate in public, but that cannot be efficiently prohibited by law.

To you it is probably impossible to see the difference between harmless nudity and those other things.

Kari P

[Rocket]

KariP,

I am not going to turn this into a discussion on homosexuality. I merely tried to respond to BobS's comments..

Towards UK..I don't know..but I think the fact that Mr Gough is sitting behind bars as we speak, and has spent already a month behind bars, and has been to court more than once certainly says something..

Here in Canada, someone suggested if you wore shoes, while the rest of you nude, you wouldn't be considered nude in the eyes of the law. All I can say is try it...and see how fast the police come..

That wouldn't happen if you weren't breaking the law.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nude Men Escape Jail Thanks To Shoes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/20/world/main522729.shtml)

TORONTO, Sept. 19, 2002

Seven men who bared all in Toronto's Gay Pride Parade have been cleared of public nudity charges because they were wearing shoes, their lawyer said on Thursday.

The men, from a social group calling itself Totally Naked Toronto Men Enjoying Nudity (TNT!MEN), were arrested and charged under Canada's Criminal Code after they marched in the annual festival wearing only footwear ? and sunscreen.

But prosecutors dropped the charges this week after conceding there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction, said lawyer Peter Simm, a TNT!MEN member himself.

Simm said his clients were technically not naked even though one had a "sort of a codpiece on."

"The law is very straightforward if someone is absolutely and completely bereft of clothing...however things become a little more complicated if there is a scrap of apparel anywhere on the body and the Crown (government) has to show that the person is indecently clad which gets into what the current Canadian legal test is for indecency," he said.

"Because everyone wore at least footwear the Crown had to prove indecency and it couldn't."
***
more at the link!

Rocket how does your foot taste? I am sure you will say you don't believe this either, nevermind it was in all the papers.

And yet you want us to believe you without you providing one bit of substantiation of your views. This makes you a troll. Please leave troll.

Kari

"To get figures backed up by at least some research (maybe not fulfilling the academic standard) look at the poll results pointed at by naturist-Mark. They were about UK residents. At this point I cannot remember if there the majority found public nudity "totally unacceptable".

That's the whole point, Kari. Take a close look at the questions that were actually asked. The public weren't asked directly if they found public nudity acceptable. If they had been they would undoubtedly have answered "No", and that is precisely why that question was never asked.

"Not much wrong. Simply, I would not replace a quite good law by worse. If there is something to do, it is defining the crimes more explicitly."

That's all my proposed law would do - it would create a new criminal offence so that anyone convicted of it would have a conviction for an appropriate offence of "unlawful public nudity" rather than having to declare to potential employers that you have been convicted of "insulting or abusive or disorderly conduct".

"Regarding exposing private parts, you don't make a difference between ordinary nudity and exhibitionist behaviour - getting pleasure of someone seeing you. I do want to make that difference. Being only nude is much less a crime than being clothed and "flashing" your private parts to people.

I agree. There is already an offence of "flashing" as you put it. That is a sexual offence and one you can be sent to prison for and registered as a sex offender. My proposed new offence would be a far less serious crime and normally punishable by a fine.

"I know, you don't want. Many others may not want, but still could tolerate it. You cannot even tolerate it."

IMO most peple would find it totally unacceptable and so would not wish to have to tolerate it.

"I would like to see the attitudes to nudity change in the direction that finally nudity is only a dressing style and a way to express oneself. And we disagree."

Yes, we do disagree.

"In your examples, public drunkenness and shouting obscenities are not defined as crimes as such in the Finnish law. They are so general phenomena that there is no use of defining them as crimes. How about the UK?"

Here in the UK these are offences under the criminal law so yes, they are crimes.

"There are many other ways of behaviour that can be seen inappropriate in public, but that cannot be efficiently prohibited by law."

It's all a matter of degree. I consider that it is inappropriate for a man to wear a thong on a popular beach, but would not prohibit it. To me that is just verging on being offensive but tolerable. Nudity, however, is not. I think most people would not be too far from my thinking in this regard.

"To you it is probably impossible to see the difference between harmless nudity and those other things."

Yo keep saying that nudity is harmless, Kari. Yes, it is physically harmless. Yes, it is harmless to you because you are a nudist and not offended by nudity. But I find the sight of nudity in public highly shocking and offensive. If I knew that people might be sunbathing nude at my local park, I wouldn't go there with my children nor allow them to go. If my wife knew that she might encounter nudity in our town the she would avoid going there. Our reaction is the same whether we are going to encounter nudity, sex, obscene language etc etc. For someone to deny me the right to use public places by behaving in a way I find intolerable is real and substantial harm, Kari!

Stu

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Here's a question for the men here? Do you wear your hair short? Why? Why not like a women (I have hair to my shoulders)? You could get a perm..things like that..

I'll tell you..for the most part..it is customary and the culture for men to wear their hair shorter than women....

Same with clothes... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not quite. I have worn my hair long on the streets and not gotten arrested. I wish it were the same! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The difference is that the public doesn't consider me morally deficient if I wear my hair long. What we are fighting is the false perception that people who go naked in public are perverted or lacking in morals.

[Rocket]

Stu,

100% correct again..

Kari,

You and the others here have no right to inflict nudity on others. That's the way it is..and the way it is going to stay /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[NUDKIWI]

Stu,
Someone sunbathing AU NATURAL in a park or on a beach is not what would deny your use of the place.The thing that denies your use is the thoughts in your mind.You ,like a lot of people wrongly associate nudity with sex.It is not your fault it is drummed into most people from an early age.A nudist however does not associate recreational nudity with sex and IMO this makes for a much healthier mind.A case in example is the toddler who was swimming topless in a pool.Her mother was told to cover her up as it could fuel desirous and lustful thoughts in the men.Now who are the ones with the problem here,the mother and daughter who are trying to enjoy an innocent swim,or the security guards who must be associating a topless THREE year old with sexual thoughts.By the way the mother refused the cops were called and they AGREED with the mother.
Then there's the complaint of the two year old playing naked in his front yard,or the photo's of a toddler,nude,taken by their parents,or how about the complaint about the anatomically correct snow-woman...etc.etc.All this does is play into the hands of the paedofile,it supports their belief that the sight of a naked infant is sexual,and it creates a paranoid and perverted society.Most nudists dont want to walk naked around the shops or streets,but we do want a change in thought and attitude towards the human body.We want to be able to enjoy our past-times,natural,free from additives,with our families without the risk of prosecution or persecution.I do not believe that MOST people are shocked or disgusted by nudity as you so often state,some people are i agree,but in MY EXPERIENCE,which is about 20years as a textile and 20years as a nudist i find most people couldnt care less.Most look on nudism with,humour,curiousity,wonder but very few,Again in MY EXPERIENCE have run away in terror or called the cops.As i have stated before just because a law is a law doesn't make it the view of the majority.

Yours Naturally KIWI /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kiwi

"Someone sunbathing AU NATURAL in a park or on a beach is not what would deny your use of the place.The thing that denies your use is the thoughts in your mind."

A female neighbour told me she had a number of telephone calls from someone who didn't speak but just breathed heavily down the line. Now she won't answer her phone. It's not the heavy-breather that's denying her the use of her telephone, he's never done her any physical harm nor threatened to do so. No, it's the thoughts in her mind. In the final analysis it's her telephone - she pays for it and should be able to use it without fear. We have to have some respect what goes on in people's minds even if they are, strictly speaking, illogical.

"You ,like a lot of people wrongly associate nudity with sex."

No I don't. I associate nudity with people staring at me and pointing at me as though I was a freak. Most people are OK with nudity in private, at home, in sex-segregated changing rooms and showers at gyms and swimming pools. They know the difference between nudity and sex.

"By the way the mother refused the cops were called and they AGREED with the mother."

I too would agree with the mother in the circumstances you outlined.

"or how about the complaint about the anatomically correct snow-woman...etc.etc"

Now that could be offensive. Kids don't need to know about adult genitalia.

"..it supports their belief that the sight of a naked infant is sexual,and it creates a paranoid and perverted society."

I agree.

"Most nudists dont want to walk naked around the shops or streets,but we do want a change in thought and attitude towards the human body."

But you aren't entitled to expect any such change. People are allowed to hold whatever attitudes they lke about the human body. Naturists are a small minority interest group and should not try to impose their own vision on an unwilling society.

"We want to be able to enjoy our past-times,natural,free from additives,with our families without the risk of prosecution or persecution."

You can - at naturist or CO beaches etc. Just don't do it on textile beaches, that's all. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask.

"I do not believe that MOST people are shocked or disgusted by nudity as you so often state,some people are i agree,but in MY EXPERIENCE,which is about 20years as a textile and 20years as a nudist i find most people couldnt care less. Most look on nudism with,humour,curiousity,wonder but very few"

If there were a poll of everybody in your country and it asked:

"Do you think that the law should permit people to be completely naked in ANY public park and on ANY public beach? YES / NO"

what do you think the result would be? Here in the UK I have not one shred of doubt there would be a resounding "No!" Is your country so different?

"As i have stated before just because a law is a law doesn't make it the view of the majority."

Well there is the question to ask. I'd abide by the majority decision. Would you?

Stu

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
[QB] KariP,

Here in Canada, someone suggested if you wore shoes, while the rest of you nude, you wouldn't be considered nude in the eyes of the law. All I can say is try it...and see how fast the police come..
/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That was me, and it's true. I have had visits from the police twice -- once after riding nude in a ravine park in the early morning, and once after pumping gas nude at a gas bar in the middle of the city.

In the first case, I got a warning. In the seond, not even that. The police are getting much better at distinguishing between what is nude and what is lewd.

Gary

[Rocket]

Gary,

I wouldn't take it that way. This is a summary conviction offense, and the investigating Police Officer has the option of laying charges or not..they wouldn't have given ANY warning if it's ok the first time..and while they did nothing on the second..if there was no problem..you wouldn't have had a police visit..

BTW...I do believe you should have been charged and you might not be so lucky the third time /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Yo keep saying that nudity is harmless, Kari. Yes, it is physically harmless. Yes, it is harmless to you because you are a nudist and not offended by nudity. But I find the sight of nudity in public highly shocking and offensive. If I knew that people might be sunbathing nude at my local park, I wouldn't go there with my children nor allow them to go. If my wife knew that she might encounter nudity in our town the she would avoid going there. Our reaction is the same whether we are going to encounter nudity, sex, obscene language etc etc. For someone to deny me the right to use public places by behaving in a way I find intolerable is real and substantial harm, Kari!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry. I am not making a personal attack against you. I am not a person who wants to walk naked on the streets. To me the whole thing is about increasing tolerance to nudity and other uncommon habits.

Regarding any law on public order, there will always be persons that don't totally accept it: to ones the law is too restrictive and to others too permitting.

It is OK to me that when the law is in a process to be changed, an independent research institute would clear up the public opinion with well-thought questions, and the results would be used as a guide in the changes. Better this way than our representatives only hearing to loud pressure groups and lobbyists.

Kari P

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"or how about the complaint about the anatomically correct snow-woman...etc.etc"

Now that could be offensive. Kids don't need to know about adult genitalia.
[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But most of them do know what they look like - yes, depending on the culture and the parents. We can also argue about what they should know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
But you aren't entitled to expect any such change. People are allowed to hold whatever attitudes they lke about the human body. Naturists are a small minority interest group and should not try to impose their own vision on an unwilling society.
[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As an example of how a person's attitude to nudity can change, I take myself. I have been a naturist only about 1 1/2 years. I have always had some sort of attraction to nudity, but had been brainwashed to believe that it is "dirty" and that adult nudity in mixed-sex context nearly always has something to do with sex. Thus I was nude only at home (letting my wife and children see my nudity quite little) and in secluded places in the nature where I was afraid of beeing seen by someone who could brand me as a pervert.

Thanks to the internet I found that there are many people in the world and in my country that basically feel the same about nudity as me: that it is only natural and comfortable. That amount of people cannot be only perverts. I started to think... and to change. About 1 1/2 years ago I declared to my wife that I am a naturist. That was a shock to her that she is still handling, but we kept together. In many aspects my wife seems to think like you, Stu, but there is a great difference: I cannot talk about naturism with my wife, with you I can.

So a change in attitudes is possible. Most of us are not born as naturists.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
You can - at naturist or CO beaches etc. Just don't do it on textile beaches, that's all. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask.
[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are only two or three naturist beaches in the whole Finland, far from where I live. That is too little, but increasing them one here and one there at a slow rate is not the real solution to naturism in Finland. Thanks to the sparse population, our lakes and forests, and the so called every one's right, we have plenty of room to be naked. That should be our right - to be naked in the nature without anyone saying "you can't".

Kari P

Kari

"Thus I was nude only at home (letting my wife and children see my nudity quite little) and in secluded places in the nature where I was afraid of beeing seen by someone who could brand me as a pervert."

So in Finland people are not comfortable seeing adults that they don't know naked?

"Thanks to the internet I found that there are many people in the world and in my country that basically feel the same about nudity as me: that it is only natural and comfortable. That amount of people cannot be only perverts."

Of course they are not perverts. I do not believe that anyone who regularly posts here is a pervert.

"In many aspects my wife seems to think like you, Stu, but there is a great difference: I cannot talk about naturism with my wife, with you I can."

Kari - I think that in general women are less comfortable about being seen naked than men are. They are also more likely to be offended at the sight of inappropriate public nudity.

"So a change in attitudes is possible. Most of us are not born as naturists."

Have you ever thought that people may not want their attitudes changing? And how can you change people's attitudes in an ethical way - a way that doesn't involve forcing them to see what they don't want to see?

"There are only two or three naturist beaches in the whole Finland, far from where I live. That is too little, but increasing them one here and one there at a slow rate is not the real solution to naturism in Finland."

But it's the right way, Kari, otherwise you are forcing people to accept something they don't want. You would be behaving like a bad doctor forcing people to take a medicine to cure them of something they don't want to be cured of - except that you are doing it for selfish reasons.

"Thanks to the sparse population, our lakes and forests, and the so called every one's right, we have plenty of room to be naked."

OK, so long as you ensure that you will be well out of sight of others who might be offended at seeing you.

"That should be our right - to be naked in the nature without anyone saying "you can't"."

With your sparse population and all your lakes and forests you should be able to find remote places to be naked without upsetting anyone. But people will say "you can't" be naked if doing that offends or alarms people. We have to share this world and that means having consideration for others' feelings and sensibilities.

Stu

[NUDKIWI]

Stu
Yes it is her phone and she should not be intimidated by the caller.By showing her fear she encourages the caller,making it more fun for him/her.A good blast with an air horn would probably stop this idiot and she might even find out who the offender is next time she talks to a neighbour who has an earache.I don't know what this has got to do with recreational nudity.I assure you i am not the caller.Though it does highlight my point i.e. by putting so much shame on a nude body we make it more fun for sexual deviants,perverts and paedofiles.
As for the snow-woman,all it showed was the shape of breasts.Now i may be wrong here but i thought the original and primary function of breasts was to feed children.The sexual connotation is planted in the childs mind latter in life when they are taught body shame and all of a sudden the breast takes on a sexual meaning.Now remember the snow womans breasts had no nipples it was just the shape,no different than what we see on any woman walking down the street or at the mall,how disgusting /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
And im sorry Stu but unfortunately i have to disagree on another point.Most people,unlike yourself,find it hard seperating nudity and sex,an idea enforced mainly by sex in advertising with nudity and nudity only shown in movies when sex scenes are shown,after all everyone knows sex and nudity sells.This is evident when a nudist tells someone of their hobbie.Immediately thoughts of orgies and swinging goes through their mind,i know it did when i first told my wife to be 10 yrs ago.After a few visits to my club she realised her thoughts were unfounded and although she rarely accompanies me now she is quite happy for myself and son to attend.Education is a wonderful and powerful thing.
And why arent we entitled to expect change,its still a free world isnt it.All we ask is to put our side of the story out there for consideration.I am willing to bet that if society as a whole was more educated about body acceptance then there would be more nudists.As you stated you dont try it because of the humiliation of being thought of as a freak.What if that feeling wasnt there.Would you try it then.After all you dont equate nudity with sex.
I challenge you to try it Stu.Pick a day when you are alone in the house and strip,or have a shower and just forget to get dressed,initially thoughts of shame,embarrassment,fear of being caught go through your brain,ride through these thoughts they are just the results of years of body shame going through your head.Now make a cuppa,read the paper,sit down in the sun,relax.Feel your body breathe the way its meant to,no clinging clothes,no pants riding up.Try it for an hour,if your still not satisfied,return to a clothed state,no questions asked and your money back,minus post and packaging,but at least youve given it a go.
Your fear of being humiliated or thought of as being a freak is a fear that many nudists have as well but they are still willing to practice nudity(after all practice makes perfect)because nudism is just sooo good.However some have to keep it a secret for fear of losing their friends or jobs,esp.if it is a job involving children,its that old sex and nudity thing again,if only everyone were as understanding as you Stu /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Therefore they get persecuted for a past time that hurts no-one nor has the potential to hurt anyone if everyone had body acceptance(education).Personally i dont advertise it but if it comes up in conversation i will not hide the fact that i am a nudist,and i havent lost friends,but im a lucky one,some people just dont understand.
And yes Stu this poll would end up with a negative result but only because only one point of view has been pushed for about a hundred years.If it ever came to a serious poll or remit i would hope that we could at least have a little while to promote our side of the story.But alas i have to admit the change in attitude will take a while,after all it is easy to change laws,governments do it all the time,with or without consensus or a mandate i might add,but a lot harder to change a mind set no matter how wrong it is.Just look at South Africa and apartheid,before and after the law change.But we have to start sometime and now seems as good a time as any.
Yours naturally KIWI.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kari P:
To get figures backed up by at least some research (maybe not fulfilling the academic standard) look at the poll results pointed at by naturist-Mark. They were about UK residents. At this point I cannot remember if there the majority found public nudity "totally unacceptable". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As Stu correctly pointed out, there was no question that directly asks if public nudity is unacceptable, for the most part the poll was concerned with beach nudity. But we can infer how the British public feels by two of their responses:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 7% of the adult public consider sunbathing or swimming without clothes to be disgusting
2% of the adult public consider sunbathing or swimming without clothes to be criminal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>'Disgusting' doesn't necessarily mean it should be banned, else half of parliament and nearly the whole of Fleet Street would have to be banished. We can reasonably infer that the 2% who believe beach nudity should be criminal are in the "no" column. Many if not all of the disgusted 7% may also agree. So I'd say the number is between 2 and 7%, weighted heavily towards the 7.

The remaining 90 odd percent (including Stu) do not automatically oppose public nudity in every case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>88% of the adult public consider sunbathing or swimming without clothes to be harmless
82% of the adult public consider that adult nudity should be legal on some beaches
69% of the adult public consider that adult nudity should be legal anywhere that is a specifically declared a clothes optional zone
66% of the adult public consider that adult nudity should be legal in back gardens <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That adds up to pretty strong acceptance of public nudity in limited spaces.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 40% of the adult public consider sunbathing or swimming without clothes to be sensible <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Suggests that a sizable minority think that opportunities (venues) for public nudity are too limited - as even our friend Stu has stated.

These poll numbers suggest rather stronger support for naturist activities than previously suspected, but there is no direct support for the type of unlimited public nudity promoted by the likes of Steve Gough. That will require a new poll.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Rocket: ENOUGH OF YOUR PERSONAL INSULTS!!!

"A female neighbour told me she had a number of telephone calls from someone who didn't speak but just breathed heavily down the line. Now she won't answer her phone."

A crime was committed against her. Here, it would be considered harrassment and possibly even stalking.

"or how about the complaint about the anatomically correct snow-woman...etc.etc"

Now that could be offensive. Kids don't need to know about adult genitalia."

That actually happened, stu. A woman applied two snow lumps to the front of her snowman to make it a snowwoman. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone would complain about that! It's kind of like a woman wearing a shirt.

And there is absolutely no reason why children should not know about adult genitalia. They know about their own genitalia, they see adult hands, heads, feet, etc. Most have already been fed by their mother's breast.

"But you aren't entitled to expect any such change."

No, but we can try to change. And I would think that even you would want change where the police aren't called when a mother has the police called when she drops off her photos at a local developer just because she has a picture of her three-year-old girl topless in her own backyard. I would love enough change that the person who made that call would be publicly chastized and fired from his job.

"Well there is the question to ask. I'd abide by the majority decision. Would you?"

How about this, stu:

Announce to everyone that for International Nude Day will be celebrated by the country relaxing her nudity laws.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"And how can you change people's attitudes in an ethical way - a way that doesn't involve forcing them to see what they don't want to see?"

This has already been answered, stu. You gave us many suggestions. Most of the arguments here are saying that there is no reason for people to have negative attitudes when seeing nudity in public places, not about actually doing it, which so far, very few Britons have done.

But I am wondering how skinny-dipping in out-of-the-way places is "forcing" others, even if they happen upon them?

"For someone to deny me the right to use public places by behaving in a way I find intolerable is real and substantial harm"

But no one would be denying you the right to use such places. You would be choosing not to go there. Unless someone was harassing you with their behaviour, there is no way to suggest that that they are denying you that right to use any places.

"If I knew that people might be sunbathing nude at my local park, I wouldn't go there with my children nor allow them to go."

Using this logic, nudist beaches are bad because they are denying the non-nudists the right to use those beaches as well.

Bob S.

Thanks Corky for taking care of Rocket's nastiness.

[Rocket]

BobS,

I don't think I am the one who started personal insults...

I speak of something clearly wrong...and I am called "ignorant" and a "bigot"?

That's an insult..

I debate something logically and called a "crackpot"? Is that not an insult?

These people are just as guilty of throwing insults as anyone. I do agree though, it does distract from the board.

Kiwi

"A good blast with an air horn would probably stop this idiot and she might even find out who the offender is next time she talks to a neighbour who has an earache".

Thanks. I'll suggest that to her.

"I don't know what this has got to do with recreational nudity".

I was illustrating the point that one person's behaviour can have a devastating effect on others even when no physical harm is caused. It also shows how we owe each other a responsibility not to cause such harm, especially when using the common domain - e.g. public areas, public telephone lines etc.

"As for the snow-woman,all it showed was the shape of breasts."

I thought when you said "anatomically correct" it had more than just two lumps to create a bust. I have no problem with that.

"Now i may be wrong here but i thought the original and primary function of breasts was to feed children. The sexual connotation is planted in the childs mind latter in life when they are taught body shame and all of a sudden the breast takes on a sexual meaning."

Breasts have become more than that in our culture and that's why women don't generally allow their to be seen. And you call it body shame - I call it wanting to keep certain parts private. Many women I know are far from ashamed of their breasts.

"And im sorry Stu but unfortunately i have to disagree on another point."

Never apologise for stating your opinion. If everyone here started agreeing with everything I said I would stop coming here.

"Most people,unlike yourself, find it hard seperating nudity and sex, an idea enforced mainly by sex in advertising with nudity and nudity only shown in movies when sex scenes are shown, after all everyone knows sex and nudity sells."

There could be a lot of truth in that - but don't forget that even non-nudists are often accustomed to seeing people naked. I see men naked in the showers at my gym and the swimming pool. I admit that I never ever see women naked.

"After a few visits to my club she realised her thoughts were unfounded and although she rarely accompanies me now she is quite happy for myself and son to attend.Education is a wonderful and powerful thing."

That's great! But remember that naturism isn't for everyone.

"And why arent we entitled to expect change,its still a free world isnt it."

Exactly. And people are free to remain as non-naturists and, if they prefer, not to have to encounter nudity in public.

?I am willing to bet that if society as a whole was more educated about body acceptance then there would be more nudists.?

Do you really think it?s about ?education?? I?m not sure it is. People react to feelings and the sources of these are formed in childhood in response to certain cultural norms and values. Does society actually ant to be educated in the way they suggest? I?m not sure we do.

?As you stated you dont try it because of the humiliation of being thought of as a freak.?

There are some very specific reasons for that, Kiwi, but I don?t want to go into those right now.

?What if that feeling wasnt there. Would you try it then. After all you dont equate nudity with sex.?

No, Kiwi. It really doesn?t appeal to me.

??Try it for an hour,if your still not satisfied, return to a clothed state, no questions asked and your money back, minus post and packaging, but at least youve given it a go.?

Thanks but I?d rather eat my cat! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

?However some have to keep it a secret for fear of losing their friends or jobs, esp.if it is a job involving children, its that old sex and nudity thing again ,?

No-one should fear others knowing they are naturists. It?s just a harmless pastime after all.

?And yes Stu this poll would end up with a negative result but only because only one point of view has been pushed for about a hundred years.?

I?m not sure that the ?textile? point of view is actually pushed ? it?s just accepted.

?But alas i have to admit the change in attitude will take a while, after all it is easy to change laws, governments do it all the time, with or without consensus or a mandate i might add, but a lot harder to change a mind set no matter how wrong it is?.

?The mindset of textiles isn?t wrong ? it?s just different to your mindset, that?s all. My neighbour, who is also a friend, likes listening to rock music whereas I like opera. I don?t like what he likes and vice-versa ? but we don?t try to change each other or force each other to listen to what the other likes. We accept our differences in respect of music and just accept the common ground we share in other pleasures ? like drinking beer!

?Just look at South Africa and apartheid, before and after the law change?.

With apartheid you had a minority oppressing a majority ? and the grounds of that oppression were the unchangeable characteristics of race. With nudism, even though things are far from perfect, you have a majority cheerfully tolerating and even accommodating the desires of, a minority. And the reasons they are a minority is that they choose to behave in a certain way. Naturists are free to use any public place they like ? and they can do so almost, but not completely, naked ? but if they want to get totally naked then they have to go somewhere where no-one will be offended. Is that so terrible?

Stu

[Rocket]

To chime in...

Who says it is "natural" to be naked? Our skin doesn't provide adequate protection from the elements of nature. Bare feet aren't all that great to walk around in..

On a beach..the sand is too hot..terrain too rugged..

It appears to me it is natural to be clothed and this is really what is intended..

Speaking personally, I can't imagine being naked all the time..I just wouldn't be comfortable and I did try it alone in my apartment just to see. I lasted maybe 30 minutes before putting on some clothes. It felt better..

It makes sense to be naked while taking a shower..bath..having sex..and arguably swimming if no one minds..but beyond that? NO!

Rocket

I agree. There was a time when our ancestors could survive without clothing, but most humans these days couldn't. In fact, human life without any kind of clothing and footwear could not be sustained in 90% of the climates around the globe.

There is nothing at all "natural" about the way we live these days and we are kidding ourselves if we pretend otherwise.

When it gets hot we can cast off the vast majority of our attire. I'm afraid I just can't see what the problem is in keeping on a pair of lightweight shorts. What makes wearing something like that feel so different to being naked anyway? I don't think I'll never quite see the point of naturism.

Stu

[Rocket]

Stu,

To further add..EVEN in hot weather being nude is no advantage...

The blazing sun burns the skin..

What do people do when it is hot out? Go for the shade!!!

To argue it is natural be be nude is simply untrue..it is NATURAL to be clothed. The claim of "naturalism" is really a facade... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[NUDKIWI]

Rocket
There aint no reason why you cant stand in the shade nude,just because a person is a nudist doesnt automatically mean they lie around in the sun all day,some do,some dont,just like ordinary folk really.Most of us also realise that clothes have their place for protection against the weather and certain tasks,this is why clothes were originally invented,for protection not for hiding the body.
Stu,
You will never understand nudism if you dont try it.It is a feeling impossible to explain,like i read in a biker mag way back in the days of my mispent youth,of when a biker was asked why he rode a harley,his retort was,"Man if you gotta ask you just wouldnt understand."
And by the way i feel sorry for your cat but hey if you gotta do it just mind the fur balls /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yours naturally KIWI

[Rocket]

Kiwi,

Even in the shade..it's not practical to be nude. We have mosquitoes here!!!

The point myself and Stu were trying to make is this claim of it being natural to be nude isn't supported by the enviroment we live in..

It is natural to wear clothes though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Duneman]

This certainly seems to be one of the "hot topics" on this forum!

I haven't read all of the replies.... (still catching up on that) But I have to agree with "Nudkiwi" when he said that.... the enjoyment most people get from Nudism is difficult to explain?

That is true.....It is something they have to experience, and they will soon know if it works for them.

If the idea of being nude and free doesn't appeal to you....... that's ok. (it is just not your thing!)

But I bet, for most of us who have a desire and have experienced the total freedom of nudity, there is no turning back. Also.... and probably more important, is the total relaxation, trust and joy of being nude with fellow nudists, in a group or social setting.

Being nude by yourself in the privacy of your home is fine. But it is another step, and a different experience, to be nude in a nudists environment, ie. a beach or resort.

It is difficult to explain, and I have discussed this topic with other naturists (that's what I like to call myself!) They pretty well, all say the same thing. The feeling of peace of mind, and total freedom has to be experienced to be believed.

For me it is almost a religion.... I have had my share of "trials" in my life, (just like most of us here I bet.) But at those times.... I get more spirtual strength by walking naked on my favourite beach, saying my prayers and sorting out my thoughts, than any church could help me with, and I was raised as a Catholic.

I'm digressing I know from the original topic of this post, but I am just trying to explain some of the reasons why I am a naturist?

Hope this helps.............

[NudeAl]

Nude when possible, clothed when practical.

I think the environment can be adjusted to. I seem to recall somewhere about a tribe that lived in the Andes of South America and went around in loin cloths in below freezing weather. That being said you wont find me nude in snow unless there is a hot tub or sauna with in sprinting distance.

Actually while hiking out in the back country, on rarly used trails, I have found nudity to be the most comfortable condition.

[Rocket]

NudeAl,

I would love to see you master that enviroment idea in an area like Winnipeg Manitoba in January..or outside of Bakersfield CA in August..

Two extremes...and I don't think you would be nude very long.

As was said, it isn't natural to be nude....but clothed..

If we looked like apes..perhaps there would be a strong argument.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

Rocket and stu,

We are born without clothes. Can nudity be any more natural than that? Humans are the only vertebrate animal that wears clothes (some could argue about clams, snails, hermit crabs, etc.).

"Our skin doesn't provide adequate protection from the elements of nature."

Should reptiles not be found in deserts because they are cold-blooded and they could overheat if they do not find shade? A couple of months ago there was a study that was published that talked about when early humans generally lost their body hair and when clothing first made an appearance. There was a long time between the two milestones.

Our skin is made to keep bacteria out, to create Vitamin D, help regulate body temperature, etc. It is adequate to protect us from rain, heat, sun, wind. Birds fly south for the winter (northern hemisphere). If we didn't have clothes, there would be a mass exodus from the northern regions to warmer climates during the autumn.

The skin at the bottom of the foot is very thick and can withstand a lot. If barefooted in rocky terrain for too long, your feet will get callouses, which protect it from harm. Don't count your body out. It can withstand much more than you think it can.

It is only in the last century that the human lifespan has climbed so high. Before recent medical technology and advancements, old age was considered to be 45. So that means that living into your 60s isn't natural. Old age problems such as Alzheimers', senility, cancers, etc. were not known when people didn't live that long.

"In fact, human life without any kind of clothing and footwear could not be sustained in 90% of the climates around the globe."

Over 50% of the Earrth's population lives within 50 miles of a major coastline. 74% of the Earth is water. But I am assuming that you mean land climates, stu. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

"There is nothing at all "natural" about the way we live these days and we are kidding ourselves if we pretend otherwise."

That's correct. Those clothes are not natural!

"Even in the shade..it's not practical to be nude. We have mosquitoes here!!!"

No other animal is concerned about their nakedness when those skeeters come around. And how do clothes help with the bites? Last I saw, the bug repellant business was very profitable. And that is in a non-nudist environment. In the hot summer sun, you will be wearing shorts and short-sleeved shirts. More than enough skin is still bared for those mosquitos to vamp your blood.

Bob S.

[Rocket]

BobS,

To combat mosquitoes..there are bug suits /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Reptiles live in areas condusive (sp?) to their enviroment...like the desert..to maintain their homostatic enviroment..

Mankind lives in almost every place on this world..

If I followed your logic...we would just live in places that were warm enough so we didn't have to have clothes..and with lots of shade around..

As well, bare feet aren't great for walking around..we need shoes..

Because of this inconsistancy of how we are born, and the enviroment we live in, it's pretty clear that we are to wear clothes..and NOT be nude..

I think it is unnatural to be nude..I am really surprised coming to a nudist site to learn this..but that is what I have done..

Someone on anther thread mentioned hiking in the nude..I BET THEY WORE SHOES /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif