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

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
So in Finland people are not comfortable seeing adults that they don't know naked?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As said earlier, Finland is not a naturist country. I cannot say, in lack of relevant studies I am aware of, how the majority of Finnish people would react to sudden nakedness. Of course it would depend on the place and situation. Private beaches are places where one could expect nudity, no one seeing it probably would object. Nudity encountered in the nature could be considered extraordinary, but - I think - in general not offending nor illegal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are partly right, but you drew my text out of context where I gave another solution to be applied in parallel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
OK, so long as you ensure that you will be well out of sight of others who might be offended at seeing you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How much care you require for not to be seen? Do you allow being seen from a long distance so that the viewer can, without using binoculars, tell only that there's a very-probably-naked person? If the naked person at once takes another direction to keep out of sight when he/she becomes aware of a viewer, is it OK?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would not want a law that those people (like you) who would be offended by nudity could use against the nude. There are situations where an encounter would be unavoidable, and taking into account the probably-general toleration of nudity in isolated locations it would be unfair to criminalize such encounters. People may say "you can't" for their own reasons but not backed up by law.

Kari P

[NUDKIWI]

Rocket,Rocket,Rocket...tsk tsk tsk,before you claim that clothes are natural i suggest you thumb through a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.I am sure you will find that natural is not something that is man made,and clothes are.
However you are correct in what you say when you state that it doesnt make sense to wear nothing in some climes,though i am sure that given time most humans would become acclimatised to most extremes.If i am cold i,even though i am a naturist,will put on sufficient clothing to keep warm,it is just common sense.Therefore it also makes sense that when i am hot i will remove my clothing.Its just the natural thing to do,dont you agree?

Yours, hot and NATURALLY naked KIWI

Kari,

"How much care you require for not to be seen?"

Just make sure that you yourself can see a good distance around you so that if someone approaches you can cover yourself with a towel, or get into the sea or put on some shorts.

"Do you allow being seen from a long distance so that the viewer can, without using binoculars, tell only that there's a very-probably-naked person?"

If you are far enough away that people can't tell you are naked without binoculars then that's OK.

"If the naked person at once takes another direction to keep out of sight when he/she becomes aware of a viewer, is it OK?"

Of course.

"I would not want a law that those people (like you) who would be offended by nudity could use against the nude."

My suggestion would make a clear law. If you are naked in a remote place where you had no reason to think others would see you then you are guilty of nothing. If somebody does come unexpectedly, then you have the chance to cover up. Only if you refuse to cover up would you be guilty.

"There are situations where an encounter would be unavoidable..."

Then in such situations you should not be nude.

"..and taking into account the probably-general toleration of nudity in isolated locations it would be unfair to criminalize such encounters."

If people are carelessly nude - in places they know that people are likely to encounter them - then they are being inconsiderate and antisocial and the law should punish them.

"People may say "you can't" for their own reasons but not backed up by law."

Well here we are talking about the law. People are entitled to say "You can't" be nude outside of naturist places if they are likely to be offended.

My proposals gives naturists a choice:

1. Use recognised naturist venues, or

2. Find somewhere remote - but then be prepared to cover up or leave if somebody objects.

I think that is very fair.

Stu

Kiwi

"Therefore it also makes sense that when i am hot i will remove my clothing.Its just the natural thing to do,dont you agree?"

Of course. But I think the "cool" thing is a red herring.

When it gets hot I remove clothing. Then I cool down. But I don't need to remove absolutely everything to cool down - and neither do you.

It's a myth that being nude is the most efficient way of making yourself cooler. If you don't believe me look at what Arabs wear. They stay cool in some of the hottest climates on earth without getting naked.

Stu

[Rocket]

Kiwi,

Unless you start growing a heavy coat of fur and higher body fat...you'll be pretty limited to the climates you can endure..

Ever wonder why people wear hats in the summer? Keeps them cooler and the sun from beating down on them..

It's simply not natural to be nude /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not what nature intended /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

"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.."

We invented clothes to protect ourslves from the extremes in the weather. If we didn't have clothes, then yes, we would be just like any other animal who must decide how to survive when the weather gets colder. And in my opinion, that would mean that we would migrate south (or north in the southern hemisphere).

My question for you Rocket, is why you think that just because we have clothes, that nudity is no longer natural?

"f you are naked in a remote place where you had no reason to think others would see you then you are guilty of nothing. If somebody does come unexpectedly, then you have the chance to cover up. Only if you refuse to cover up would you be guilty."

But if you had no reason to think that no one else would see you, then why would that person suddenly negate that first part? Why can't the discussion between the two trump anything else? Why can't the behaviour rule? What if soomeone happened upon a nude familyskinny-dipping in such a remote place and the next thing they know, the authorities come along, saying that they had a report of them being naked? But Joe Smith, his wife Jane, and his children Jerry (7 years old) and Jean (9 years old) had not seen anyone else there.

Can they still be convicted even though they supposedly "messed up" someone else's outing, but never were asked by the others to put their clothes back on? And don't you think that would be the most common reaction?

"It's a myth that being nude is the most efficient way of making yourself cooler. If you don't believe me look at what Arabs wear."

Arabs also have very stringent religious laws against nudity. They have to make do with what they are allowed to wear. Sweating is the most effective way that your body has to make itself cooler. The more of your body that can be exposed to the air, the more sweat can evaporate from the skin. Unless they can come up with air conditioned clothes.

Bob S.

[NUDKIWI]

Rocket,
I think you would be surprised just how much the human body can adjust to climate changes.The skin pigments create darker skin to protect it from the harsh sun,voila different races,in fact one of the best ways to protect yourself from melanoma is gradual exposure to the sun,building up a tan,and the more you expose yourself to colder temperatures the more you become accustomed to it.But as i said previously clothes have a purpose.That purpose however is not to hide certain body parts.But in no stretch of the imagination can you call a man made item natural.Like the old saying goes,"If we were meant to be nude,we would have been born that way."

Yours Naturally KIWI /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob

"And in my opinion, that would mean that we would migrate south (or north in the southern hemisphere)."

Mammals don't generally migrate, Bob. We can't cover the sort of daily distances that birds can, and our young, pregnant women and elderly would have to be carried. There are relatively few places on the planet that we could survive without clothing.

"But if you had no reason to think that no one else would see you, then why would that person suddenly negate that first part?"

It's all down to the circumstances and reasonableness. If you genuinely believe that there is virtually no chance that anyone who may be offended will encounter you, so you go skinny-dipping, then, under my suggestion, you are guilty of nothing. Unless the place is a designated naturist beach (etc) then being clothed is always the default state and if someone happens along then they are entitled to request that the nude people cover up. Offences would only arise if either the nudist must have known that it was likely that others would encounter him and got naked in spite of that, or he was asked to cover up and refused.

"Why can't the discussion between the two trump anything else?"

It can. If the naturist says: "Do you mind if I remain naked because I feel more comfortable that way" and the clothed people agree, then there would be no problem.

"Why can't the behaviour rule?"

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I know that you don't regard nudity as a behaviour but we are talking law here and, in law, a person's attire or lack or attire is behaviour in itself.

"What if soomeone happened upon a nude family skinny-dipping in such a remote place and the next thing they know, the authorities come along, saying that they had a report of them being naked? But Joe Smith, his wife Jane, and his children Jerry (7 years old) and Jean (9 years old) had not seen anyone else there."

There would be no criminal offence because it is a remote place (the family didn't expect others would see them) and they have not been asked to cover up and refused to do so.

The authorities would, however, have discretion to require the family to cover up if they want to continue swimming because of the likelihood of people encountering them.

"Can they still be convicted even though they supposedly "messed up" someone else's outing, but never were asked by the others to put their clothes back on?"

No.

"And don't you think that would be the most common reaction?"

I think the most common reaction in very remote spots would be for people to simply keep their distance from the naked people as soon as they realised they were naked and leave them to it.

"Arabs also have very stringent religious laws against nudity. They have to make do with what they are allowed to wear".

If you talk to Arabs about this they tell you that the robes they wear actually keep them cool by reflecting the heat away and providing shade for the body from the sun. At my primary school in the 1960s the summer uniforms consisted of loose-fitting cotton dresses (white and blue gingham pattern) and they were cooler and airier than a shorts/T-shirt combination ever could be. I think some schools over here still have those today. Light and loose garments like that protect you from the sun whilst providing the coolness and comfort you look for in the hot season.

Stu

"Mammals don't generally migrate, Bob. We can't cover the sort of daily distances that birds can, and our young, pregnant women and elderly would have to be carried. There are relatively few places on the planet that we could survive without clothing."

Sure they migrate. Animals that live in the mountains migrate down in winters. American Indians migrated all the time, to follow the herds of food animals that they ate.

As for surviving without clothing there are tribes of people the world over that live either totally nude or with little on past decorations.

I don't think surviving without it is a necessity though. Nudists put clothes on when they are cold. We aren't insane.

Even when we dress though we tend to do it differently than non-nudists though. Less underwear, less make up, less uncomfortable clothes are a common thing.

[Rocket]

Cyndiann,

Stu said animals don't GENERALLY migrate..he didn't say they don't migrate at all..

Bears/ground squirrels/marmots don't migrate. Around here, there are LOCAL DEER who stay here 12 months of the year-rain or shine.

Snakes and amphibians don't migrate either..btw.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Animals that migrate:

sea turtles, salmon, elephants, deer, antelope, alligators, wolves, bats, starfish, seals, ants, bobcats, mountain lions, zebras, polar bears, horses, wildebeasts, wild dogs, apes, any schools of fish, chimpanzees, snakes, ostriches, very many other birds that can fly, panthers, lions, sea urchins, ant eaters, foxes, buffalo, sheep, mountain goats.....

There are four different types of animal migration:


Removal Migration - animals move one way and do not return to their original home
Nomadic Migration - animals have no set pattern, moving randomly to potential breeding or feeding sites
Return Migration - an animal has moved to a Winter feeding ground and will return to their breeding sites in Spring
Re-migration Circuits - when the return leg of a migration pattern is completed by one or more subsequent generations.

Rocket, I think you'd do a whole lot better if you'd research before you post. You have the entire Internet for research and obviously don't use it. You've never posted a single link to a single thing you've ever posted here.

[Rocket]

Cyndiann,

READ what Stu said SLOWLY...

It is NOT practical for US to migrate carrying naked old people, naked sick people, naked handicapped people...

I can see it now...here in Canada..with NO CLOTHES most of this country would be inhabitable in the winter. Flocks of naked Canadians descend on the US border, and then, after meeting with a naked US Customs Officer carrying a gun, head for Southern States for the winter. Of course, because no one has clothes, they have have to compete with flocks of nude Americans who are resident of Northern States as well..

Once they arrive at their new 'nesting grounds'..it poses a couple of questions..

How are all these nude people to support themselves? Will the infrastructure handle it? Are there enough jobs for all these nude people? Will there be enough schools, with qualified nude teachers, to teach all these nude children that have arrived?

The USA would have to change the working status..because all these naked Canadians are going to need jobs as well. Perhaps, when Congress meets in the nude, they can modify the US Employment law.

Finally, the weather in the North starts to change..and it is now time for the 30 Million Nude Canadians, and I don't know how many million Nude Americans to return home..

Can where they settled withstand this mass nude exodus?

Anyway, after checking into Canadian Customs nude, and being helped by a nude Canadian immigration officer, the nude families return home.

Do you think it is fine to leave one's house that long? We are talking cities..not individual houses...

The nonsense of your position defies logic.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW..I don't have to post ANY links..because your view on that other subject simply make no sense. Ever heard of male and female ends on an electrical cord? It doesn't take a Journeyman Electrician to figure out which belongs where... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[gamblefish]

I'd like to know where I can get a job as a "naked US Customs Officer carrying a gun" please.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I can see it now...here in Canada..with NO CLOTHES most of this country would be inhabitable in the winter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nonsense!

Canadians inhabit tropical subclimates most of the time during the cold months.

Every Canadian I've ever met spends most of their time indoors during the Winter. Not a one of them was in the custom of wearing a parka or snowsuit in the warm indoors.

Even in Winter clothes serve little 'weather protection' purpose for the 90% or so of the time not actually spent out in the weather.

So Canadians could spend MOST of their lives nude if not for social convention and law.

-Mark

[Rocket]

Mark,

Not nonsense at all..

Read the weather forcasts and pay attention to how much snow fell today..

People HAVE to work..live..get around..buy gas..shop..

Life does go on..WITH CLOTHES.

But according to what is said, clothes are unnatural..we aren't to have clothes..our bare skin will do..

FYI..with windchill..in Winnipeg Manitoba (that's just North of MN and ND) it can get 40 BELOW ZERO CENTIGRADE. That is COLD. People there still have to work with it..can't stay inside ALL THE TIME..and do..with clothes..

The Mailman/woman comes...the police work..Fire Dept..etc......

As Stu and I have correctly observed..the human body and our enviroment is geared for clothes..not nudity..

Even bare feet are inferior for running to wearing runners..and they offer protection against stubbed toes..grass cuts..

If we are SUPPOSED to be nude..why are we so ill suited for it? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

LOL,

What is the windchill INDOORS? What is the temperature INDOORS?

What percentage of the day does the average Canadian spend outdoors during the winter?

Clothes are NOT a physical necessity MOST of the time. Even for Canadians.

-Mark

[NudeAl]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that clothes serve no purpose. What some here fail to understand is that what we are saying is that when the climate or physical conditions demand it wear clothes. Any other reason is purly a social convention one that naturists tolerate but may disagree with.

I do know that our human ancestors were some of the worlds greatest migrators. We eventually populated the entire world. And yes clothes were a part of that. But that would illustrate my point they needed them for protection. Many tribes still exist in South America and the interior of Papua New Guinea and other places that wear no or very little clothing so yes it is possible and in those places it is practical.

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

READ what Stu said SLOWLY...

It is NOT practical for US to migrate carrying naked old people, naked sick people, naked handicapped people... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And that has nothing to do with what I posted and what he said. I was not addressing what was "practical". All I was answering was that we migrate and so do most animals. Even one that lived in a fix place migrates when the food runs out. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I can see it now...here in Canada..with NO CLOTHES most of this country would be inhabitable in the winter. Flocks of naked Canadians descend on the US border, and then, after meeting with a naked US Customs Officer carrying a gun, head for Southern States for the winter. Of course, because no one has clothes, they have have to compete with flocks of nude Americans who are resident of Northern States as well..

Once they arrive at their new 'nesting grounds'..it poses a couple of questions..

How are all these nude people to support themselves? Will the infrastructure handle it? Are there enough jobs for all these nude people? Will there be enough schools, with qualified nude teachers, to teach all these nude children that have arrived? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who cares? It isn't relevant to what I posted.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The USA would have to change the working status..because all these naked Canadians are going to need jobs as well. Perhaps, when Congress meets in the nude, they can modify the US Employment law.

Finally, the weather in the North starts to change..and it is now time for the 30 Million Nude Canadians, and I don't know how many million Nude Americans to return home..

Can where they settled withstand this mass nude exodus?

Anyway, after checking into Canadian Customs nude, and being helped by a nude Canadian immigration officer, the nude families return home.

Do you think it is fine to leave one's house that long? We are talking cities..not individual houses...

The nonsense of your position defies logic.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What position? You changed subjects from what my post was about. I'd never discussed people migrating so they could live naked. My post was about animals migrating. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

BTW..I don't have to post ANY links..because your view on that other subject simply make no sense. Ever heard of male and female ends on an electrical cord? It doesn't take a Journeyman Electrician to figure out which belongs where... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Posting links is simply elementary on any discussion list. That is why so many people think you are full of crap because you post whatever you think, don't research your point of view and have put your foot in your mouth about every other post. No matter what the topic you've introduced opinions that you were evidently not able to back up with evidence found online. Don't think you can play with the big boys.... better you stayed on the porch. If you can't back up your theories why bother posting? You are annoying many of us actually. Is that why you came here? Are you aware of the negativity you have spawned on here? Do you consider that a reason to come here so often? Do you understand that nobody will consider your viewpoints when you can't back them up? Why be here at all?

[NudeAl]

We get quite a few what we call snow birds down here in our southern California deserts durring the winter months. I hear Arizona gets quite a few too so some still are migrating even in this day and age. Not a bad life if you can be away from your home for four or five months out of the year.

I do like the mental imagry that Rockets earlier post painted. All those nude huddled masses waiting to be let across the border. I bet it would speed up the screening process. They wouldn't have anything to hide. Wouldn't have to carry a heavy suit case either, hmmm, she just may have something here.

[Rocket]

Cyndiann,

You and your group need to get on ONE PAGE..

BobS has argued that being naked would be viable if people migrated..

That was the initial reason for Stu's response..which you tried to take issue with /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was thinking of Mark's claim of people living nude all the time. Here's some thoughts..

Would it be hygenic? Women do have periods, and since they are to have no clothes as Mark has claimed is possible to live with..that would mean a lot of blood around. Remember, we are doing away with any undergarments to help hold padding, or tampons in place. Is that a healthy enviroment to have?

People at nudist clubs carry towels to sit on..but since in this example we are talking about 30 Million people for Canada, and 300 Million for the USA, out and around most everyday, can it be assured that they would ALL carry towels to sit on? How could that be enforced?

What if someone didn't? People do have bowel movements..and forgot or neglected the towel. Would that be sanitary?

What about our national pastimes? In Canada..hockey is a major game..but it wouldn't be possible to play that game nude..so the NHL would collapse. What about baseball? Would not all the players nude take away from the quality of play? No longer could people slide to base..no shoes means less traction for running..so on.

What of Basketball? How could the teams tell who was who when everyone was nude on both sides? Could the players run as fast?

Football simply wouldn't be possible with everyone nude..so the NFL would collapse as well.

Right now in CA they have fires..but if the FireFighters were trying to fight the blazes in the nude, it is unlikely they could do the same quality of job. Even more losses would occur than what we've seen so far.

I am going to try to think of more examples on this subject. Gotta work on my essay right now /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

"There are relatively few places on the planet that we could survive without clothing."

The tropics do have a lot of places to survive. But really, this has nothing to do with the fact that nudity is natural. What is more natural than procreation? Clothing hinders sexual activity. The same can be said for elimination. Clothing gets in the way of uritation and defecation. No other animal has clothing. Humans are the only ones who are intelligent and agile enough to create clothes.

With that in mind, realize that I my suggesting that if humans had no clothes, that would mean that we would not be intelligent to create them. In those conditions, primative humans needed to stay in warmer climates. As I previously stated, in the course of human evolution, relative hairlessness came before clothing.

But we are intelligent and figured out that the hides of animals killed for food would make us warm when it got cold. The early humans marched through the snow with their primative footwear, which would not have been much.

Clothes made it possible for us to venture into cooler climates. Now, we can control environments so that inside buildings, we can make it as warm or as cold as we want. So in these artificially warmed buildings, wouldn't clothes be unnatural? Since we can now make warmth, isn't nudity natural again?

Just because we can make coverings does not make nudity unnatural. According to your logic, the penis is unnatural because we now have dildos and can get women pregnant without sex. A woman's breast is unnatural because we have formula for babies.

Yes, clothes serve a purpose, many purposes. But the irony is that it's original intent was to protect the wearer, now the intent seems to be to protect the viewer.

Bob S.

Mark

?Every Canadian I've ever met spends most of their time indoors during the Winter. Not a one of them was in the custom of wearing a parka or snowsuit in the warm indoors.?

If we?re talking about it being natural to be nude, the there?s nothing natural about centrally-heated buildings.

?So Canadians could spend MOST of their lives nude if not for social convention and law.?

I don?t think they would even without law and social conventions. People actually like wearing clothes. Clothes protect you from draughts and sitting on cold surfaces (all of which you can get in centrally-heated buildings). Clothes give you a choice of styles, appearances and colours to reflect your mood, identify yourself, exert your authority or make a statement. Clothes also have things like pockets. Most people inside heated buildings don?t walk about nude, nor even in swimwear and generally not in bathrobes. People feel better dressed in substantial clothes.

Bob

"Humans are the only ones who are intelligent and agile enough to create clothes.?

True ? and the only animals that do a lot of things. We don?t live a natural life in the way that wild animals do, and we haven?t lived that way for thousands of years. It is erroneous to look at the way creatures behave I the wild and compare our habits or behaviour with theirs. Even most animals we see are actually man-made. The vast majority of dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, camels etc etc are specially bred by us for our own purposes and bear little resemblance to their wild forebears.

?Now, we can control environments so that inside buildings, we can make it as warm or as cold as we want. So in these artificially warmed buildings, wouldn't clothes be unnatural? Since we can now make warmth, isn't nudity natural again??

Of course not. The simple fact is that people actually like wearing clothes. See what I said to Mark above about this.

?Just because we can make coverings does not make nudity unnatural.?

I never suggested that nudity was ?unnatural? ? I merely assert that it is no more natural for us to be naked than to wear clothes. The main reason for this is because our lifestyles and habits have become so far removed from those of our distant ancestors that their ways must be utterly irrelevant to us. I can?t see the rationale of looking back 60,000 years and trying to impose one aspect of the early human lifestyle on modern man. It would be like expecting a corgi to hunt buffalo.

?According to your logic, the penis is unnatural because we now have dildos and can get women pregnant without sex?.


No, because the penis hasn?t gone unused for thousands of years. It is still something in daily use for sex (if you?re lucky!)

?A woman's breast is unnatural because we have formula for babies.?

Again, it?s not unnatural. If women stopped feeding babies breast milk for thousands of years and the perfect formula was discovered and used, then there would be no point in reverting back to breast milk. And even if we wanted to we could find it was either impossible or detrimental to do so.

?Yes, clothes serve a purpose, many purposes. But the irony is that it's original intent was to protect the wearer, now the intent seems to be to protect the viewer.?

Clothes have both purposes and I see nothing wrong with that.

By the way, Bob, I changed my avatar back to one you liked. I'm sure you'll agree she's a heck of a lot more decorative than I am!

Stu

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

To get to your LAST point..I take it you are eluding to that other discussion..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket, put up or shut up.... if you can't back your words up don't post them. I don't believe what you say any more than I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Nobody else does here either.

Why must you be the center of attention? Not getting enough at home? Your arguements aren't valid and you are unable to prove they are.

Just answer this one question... why do you feel it is ok to troll this board?

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"How much care you require for not to be seen?"

Just make sure that you yourself can see a good distance around you so that if someone approaches you can cover yourself with a towel, or get into the sea or put on some shorts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your requirement is impractical and creates a feeling that you are doing something illegal. Nudity were not illegal but to be seen is, and the latter is partly out of your control. The forbidden fruit is fascinating, but I don't want nudity to be seen this way.

With this definition you practically don't allow any moving. Walking naked on a path is not allowed because you don't know for sure what there is ahead.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"Do you allow being seen from a long distance so that the viewer can, without using binoculars, tell only that there's a very-probably-naked person?"

If you are far enough away that people can't tell you are naked without binoculars then that's OK.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a very strict requirement. You require constant observation of the environment. When a group of naked people is having fun, one of them has to watch and cannot partake.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
My suggestion would make a clear law. If you are naked in a remote place where you had no reason to think others would see you then you are guilty of nothing. If somebody does come unexpectedly, then you have the chance to cover up. Only if you refuse to cover up would you be guilty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, your suggestion does not make things clear. You can suppose a place to be remote enough, but you can be wrong, maybe just temporarily.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If people are carelessly nude - in places they know that people are likely to encounter them - then they are being inconsiderate and antisocial and the law should punish them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The question is about people being carelessly nude in a place where they believe that other people are not likely to encounter them, still someone seeing them and approaching them with a purpose to stop their joy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
My proposals gives naturists a choice:

1. Use recognised naturist venues, or

2. Find somewhere remote - but then be prepared to cover up or leave if somebody objects.

I think that is very fair.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it isn't. The "somebody" objecting can be very unfair to the naked people he/she has found.

The worst thing in your proposal is that you don't mention private places possibly visible to public or other's private places as places where nudity is allowed. Obviously you classify private places that really are visible to public or other's private places as public places. This kind of classification is not acceptable, because you are taking away already recognized rights (at least in Finland).

To formulate an acceptable ban of public nudity you have to list the really public places where nudity is banned, not those where it is allowed.

Kari P

Kari

"...but I don't want nudity to be seen this way."

I do want it to be seen this way. Naturism is an activity enjoyed by a tiny proportion of the ppulation. Clothing is therefore the default position in public.

"With this definition you practically don't allow any moving. Walking naked on a path is not allowed because you don't know for sure what there is ahead."

Exactly right. If you want to walk naked then you must find a naturist place.

"If you are far enough away that people can't tell you are naked without binoculars then that's OK."

No, that's not OK. If they can tell you are naked without binoculars then you shouldn't be naked.

"This is a very strict requirement. You require constant observation of the environment. When a group of naked people is having fun, one of them has to watch and cannot partake."

Certainly, because you are not at a naturist place so it is upto the naturists to be vigilant.

"No, your suggestion does not make things clear. You can suppose a place to be remote enough, but you can be wrong, maybe just temporarily."

OK - in which case you either discover that you were wrong and you cover up or go elsewhere, or someone tells you and again you cover up or go elsewhere. No harm is done. You will only break the law if you go to a place that is not remote, or if you do and someone comes and you don't cover up.

"The question is about people being carelessly nude in a place where they believe that other people are not likely to encounter them, still someone seeing them and approaching them with a purpose to stop their joy."

That may happen but in most cases it won't. If they want to be 100% certain that they will not be stopped then they must go to a naturist beach or a private place.

"No, it isn't. The "somebody" objecting can be very unfair to the naked people he/she has found."

But if it isn't a naturist place then people are entitled to object.

"The worst thing in your proposal is that you don't mention private places possibly visible to public or other's private places as places where nudity is allowed. Obviously you classify private places that really are visible to public or other's private places as public places. This kind of classification is not acceptable, because you are taking away already recognized rights (at least in Finland)."

If you have a private place that is visible from the street then it might as well be a public place. If you want to be naked in your garden then erect a high fence, build a wall, or grow a tall hedge. This is the case in England. But even here, if you are in a private place and nobody complains then usually the police will not take any action.

"To formulate an acceptable ban of public nudity you have to list the really public places where nudity is banned, not those where it is allowed."

No. Nudists are the minority and therefore clothing should be the default position in public. Nudists should only have a right to be naked in private places or in designated naturist places in public. If they want to be naked elsewhere then it is for them to ensure that they are unlikely to cause offence and, if they do unintentionally cause offence in spite of taking reasonable care, they should straight away do what they can to stop any further offence - i.e. cover up.

Stu

"I was thinking of Mark's claim of people living nude all the time. Here's some thoughts..

Would it be hygenic? Women do have periods, and since they are to have no clothes as Mark has claimed is possible to live with..that would mean a lot of blood around. Remember, we are doing away with any undergarments to help hold padding, or tampons in place. Is that a healthy enviroment to have?


No garments hold tampons in place. They stay where they belong all on their own. I've gone nude with just a tampon on for years without a problem and so have countless nudists.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I was thinking of Mark's claim of people living nude all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nonsense!

I was responding to Rocket's claim that clothes are necessary to survive in northern climates. I pointed out that clothes are only needed for the very brief periods people are actually out in the elements. The vast majority of the time most people are in comfortable surroundings (commonly called 'the indoors') where clothes are not needed for anything other than social convention and law - even during deepest winter.

Can someone please explain how wearing clothes indoors all the time helps you survive in a cold climate?

My point has always been that there is little physical necessity to clothes wearing *most* of the time. In a society without social and legal coecion there would be freedom of choice about whether to wear clothes.

-Mark

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
No garments hold tampons in place. They stay where they belong all on their own. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As for the whole 'hygenic' argument to clothing compulsion. Every social nudist knows how that concern is accomodated, or they would never be allowed to sit down.

It is not uncommon for nudist women to wear panties during menstruation to hold a sanitary pad in place. Clothed when necessary.

How could Rocket think that panties are needed to hold a tampon in place? No woman would make such a mistake. I still think 'Rocket' is a chain yanker.

[dharmabum]

Hi. I've managed to slog through this thread, and a couple of thoughts occur to me...

This whole 'what is natural' debate is pointless. Different concepts are being thrown about - the naturality of clothing as protection vs. the naturality of clothing as modesty. Apples and oranges. One side (nudist) uses the first and downplays/ignores the second; the other (textile) uses the second and downplays the first. Unless both sides agree to stick to (and debate) either one or the other, it'll just go on ad infinitum.

It seems to me that the real debate should be on 'tolerance vs. intolerance'. The intolerance of a certain segment of textiles toward nudists is readily apparent; but what is seldom mentioned is the intolerance of NUDISTS toward textiles, particularly at resorts (mandatory nudity while swimming, etc.; restrictions on memberships based on gender quotas, etc.) Both sides make a big deal about being naked - and then complains when the other side takes them to task on it.

If nudity is no big deal, then it needs to be just that - NO BIG DEAL. I go naked when convenient and appropriate; but I do not around my step-daughter, even though she was raised with the concept of relaxed nudity around her mother. Her father has extreme modesty issues, and would have Child Protective Services over here in a flash at the idea of a grown man being naked around his daughter. No big deal - there are other times and situations to take advantage of.

Is my nudity really the issue? Nope. The issue is why someone can force their insecurities on others when they are not needed or wanted.

Intolerance is the enemy. Focus energies on promoting the tolerance of diversity and exposing the insecurities and control issues of the intolerant.

I'll go back to lurking now.

Namaste!

[Rocket]

Mark,

The fact I make a "slip" as I write (I do this while writing an essay) doesn't invalidate what I have said...

Mark..if it was warm enough inside we could live there naked..but that is not how it is meant to be..because staying inside ALL THE TIME is pretty boring..

As well, what is so "natural" about living nude in an artificial enviroment? So...even doing what you suggest doesn't qualify as natural living /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How would we construct these building nude? Go to any work site..and you'll learn pretty fast how impractical that would be...

Construct High-Rises nude? Sounds real good..

Sorry Mark, but there is nothing natural about being nude...because it is simply not practical to our species. It's practical to wearing clothes though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Jochanaan]

Actually, Rocket, nudity may not be practical in these northern lands, but it's very practical over much of Africa, India, and the Middle East, except for the deserts in which clothing is required for protection against sun and wind. These areas are the "cradle of mankind", as both the Bible and science document. And it's certainly practical in the African and Amazonian rain forests, the Pacific Islands, and Australia. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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


Sorry Mark, but there is nothing natural about being nude...because it is simply not practical to our species. It's practical to wearing clothes though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Practical according to whom? Rocket, the more you try to convince those here who are actually nudist, which you apparently aren't since you're so much against it, the more we will defend it. Clothes are only practical when the weather calls for them. I'm ALWAYS nude when I'm in my house. I only wear clothes when I go outside, and the colder it gets the less I WANT to go out. Clothes are practical when it's too cold to be nude, but it has nothing to do with whether or not nudity is right. Nudity in public only SEEMS impractical because people have been brainwashed into BELIEVING it is. I keep my house warm enough to be nude. After all, I'm the one paying the gas bill.

Being nude has nothing to do with whether or not it's PRACTICAL, it has to do with what one prefers, and I prefer to be nude whenever possible. My body may not turn anyone on, but I'm no longer ashamed of it as I once was.

[Rocket]

Jon-Marc,

You can do what you want in your home...if you want to be there nude..you can..

Don't sound like much fun to me..but I am not you..

I will admit I am becoming less of a nudist all the time. Since being here I've discovered that nudity isn't natural, and that nudists feel they should be able to impose nudity on others. They feel they are "oppressed" because they can't go to the nearest SafeWay or WalMart in the nude.

You've got the right idea though about moving to a Nudist Resort. In this subculture, you can do what you want. A lot here don't feel that way..they want their subculture to become the culture..

It won't happen...

I don't think it's too likely to watch a Presidential Address on TV with GWB in the nude....... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[NUDKIWI]

Geez,is anyone else here sick of going around in circles.Rocket and Stu i think if you read the posts properly you would see that most here AGREE that there is a place for clothes,however we also think there are also a lot of situations where clothes are not necessary or indeed practical,swimming for example.Most nudists at some stage in their lives were textiles,and nearly all nudists wear clothes part of the time.Therefore we know the advantages and disadvantages of both states of dress/undress,and have decided,through personal experience that there are times where being nude is peferrable,logical and practical.And from my experience most who take the chance to try social nudity come to the same conclusion.The two of you however,as far as i know do not have the same advantage and therefore your views are somewhat biased or,for want of a better word,one eyed.So although it is a free world and you are entitled to hold your own opinion it is an opinion based on little knowledge of the facts.

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

Rocket,

Your immature attitude about nudity is a joke. Also, your asinine and worthless opinions mean nothing to me.

The "subculture" is the one where people think it's necessary to wear clothes when they aren't needed for protection, which is the only real reason to wear clothes.

[Rocket]

Jon-Marc,

Now that is a PERSONAL ATTACK!!!

But don't worry...I won't report it to the moderators..and I don't want it removed..I want the nudist movement to be heard, and the rational reasons (they think) why we should build and artificial enviroment so we can be stark naked to be examined..

What happens if it's cold outside..and suddenly for some reason you find you have to go outside? YOU HAVE TO GET DRESSED. Not being nude, means you don't have to..it saves time..

Also, even indoors it's warmer to be clothed than nude...and if you buy quality clothes..more comfortable as well. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Clearly the advantage is to be clothed..and that seems to be what nature intended..

I don't know where you live..your street or area..but I would be willing to bet if I went to 100 homes with single/married people or people with children..all will have clothes on..

It's the natural thing to do /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[shãybare]

Rocket,

The threads are monitored quite frequently. I am not a monitor but I browse alot of the threads and comment at times.
In reading what Jon-Marc posted, I see where he attacked your attitude and opinions but I fail to see an attack on your person.

[Rocket]

ShayBare,

I do see it as a personal attack..because MY opinions are personal..

I've got a thick skin though..and I am not going to plead with the Moderators for things like this to be removed..

Kiwi,

Regarding the comment that Stu and myself don't know what we talk of...

You've said to be cool..you have to remove ALL your clothes. Removing ALL your clothes won't cool you down..you can still leave some on..

As well, in real hot weather you might try putting on a T-Shirt and lite shorts..then spray yourself with a hose. It will keep you cooler than if you are stark naked, because the water will evaporate from the skin..

Yet.......another advantage of clothes.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

"The naturality of clothing as protection vs. the naturality of clothing as modesty."

I agree, dharmabum. We need to define naturality here as well. Natural, for me in referring to nudity being natural, is that we are born naked. And since childbirth is natural, the the baby coming out must also be natural.

All of our modern conveniences are the result of advacnes in technology. But we can still go back to nature and survive in there. But the existence of our own modern conveninces does not mean that nudity is not natural. In fact, all of our technological advacnes have made clothing unnecessary for most of our life.

Even if we were return to the forests, we could still live most of the time sans clothes. How? Find a cave, get some brances, start a fire. Heat is created.

"The simple fact is that people actually like wearing clothes."

We can also exist with being herbivorous, but some of us choose to be omnivorous.

"The main reason for this is because our lifestyles and habits have become so far removed from those of our distant ancestors that their ways must be utterly irrelevant to us."

They were in survival mode. We can have lives. The biggest difference is that back then, they had no time to think about many non-survivalist thoughts. With increased intelligence and better lives, we can think about different things. And we can also get unnatural ideas such as seeing nudity as something bad.

Our society may have declared clothes as preferrable, but nudity is used in most of the same ways as it was back then.

"No, because the penis hasn?t gone unused for thousands of years."

Neither has the naked body!

Kari's idea:
"To formulate an acceptable ban of public nudity you have to list the really public places where nudity is banned, not those where it is allowed."

That seems easier than your idea of where it is allowed.

" I've gone nude with just a tampon on for years without a problem and so have countless nudists."

Isn't it about time you changed that tampon, cyndiann? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bob S.

Bob!

<font size="+5" font color="purple"> Ewwwwww!!!!</font></font>
<center> /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </center>

[namedun]

um, yeah I don't need to hear about that......

Anyway, if any of you ever read Ishmael, you will be enlightened by the opinion of the author, which I have taken as well, that our society promotes modernity far more than the "out of date". For example, with the exception of food, when was the last time you saw a promotion for a new product that wasn't along the lines of "new and improved"?
Subsequently, this is one reason why society shuns nudity; it's the old way of doing things; "cavemen" (apparently viewed as a lower form of life, than modern materialistic humans) were nude; "let's proggress from nudity".
In other words, our society, due to it's fascination with modernity, sees nudism as a step backwords along the cultural evolutionary scale (which is also bs, because culture is never going to reach a point that is veiwed as "supreme").
As well, clothing IS over-rated when it comes to protection from the elements. Rain does not hurt you (yet). Also, unless you are in a frozen tundra during winter, you can find shelter from the cold, most likely in a cave or igloo or something, and yes, there is that wonderful thing called fire (which is also usually considered "outdated")

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Rocket]

Namedun,

I do a lot of backpacking...and I am NOT finding clothing to be over-rated..

For cold weather, I wear long thermal underware..and then dress in layers. Mitts and a warm hat do much to keep heat in accompanied by good boots and socks..

I would hate/and wouldn't last long out there nude..

For rain...if you get clothes with Gortex (The North Face makes them) you will be fine..

Yes..when it is cold fires do help you get/keep warm..but it's extremely difficult to start one if you are too cold (like if you were nude)..so that's another advantage to clothes as well..

BobS commented that people could live in caves....

I wonder just how many caves he's encountered that would make suitable living quarters..and is there enough of them for a nude population?

As well, if you've ever been in some (like I was once) they go down quite a way and are COLD. Infact, I had to put warm clothes on to go into it..couldn't have done it in the nude..

Further, even around a fire, it wouldn't be really possible to sleep nude around it without covers comfortably, and you'll find as the logs burn during the nite..it gets pretty cold. You would have to have a more than adequate wood supply, and a way of maintaining that supply. As well, you would have to forage for more wood constantly, and that would be very difficult if it's too cold and you were nude..

Sorry, Namedun, but our natural existance demands clothes..and it's not possible to do without them. It's natural to wear clothes...and unnatural not to /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

Why is anyone arguing that a nudist must live outdoors during winter? What a silly strawman argument.

[Rocket]

Mark,

You've argued that we don't need clothes because we can create an artificial enviroment to live in...

We wouldn't even be at that point without clothes...and while I don't know about you..but I have no interest in living 4-6 months of the year 24/7 indoors...

There's much to do outdoors..when it snows I can go taboggoning (sp?)...walks..take my dog for a run..

When it freezes, one can go ice-fishing, or skating..

When it rains..I admit it's not so fun..but one can still go outside for a walk..have fresh air..

Even inside though, because wearing clothes is so comfortable, it beats being nude..and it keeps you warmer as well..

Other than swimming perhaps, clothes have every advantage to being nude..because they are natural. Man and woman were intended to wear clothes..and not be nude /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Mark,
We wouldn't even be at that point without clothes...and while I don't know about you..but I have no interest in living 4-6 months of the year 24/7 indoors...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who ever said that?

You don't wear just your house clothes when you go outside in the winter do you? Don't you put on a jacket, perhaps a parka and snow trousers if tobogganing? You dress appropriately for the weather, but you don't dress for a blizzard when in the house just because its snowing outside. Or do you?

[Rocket]

Mark,

You are a funny guy to debate with...

You've said with poor weather we can just stay inside...and now you reverse your position..

Nothing natural about being nude in a created enviroment....and clothes are better inside as well /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[namedun]

Rocket, I must disagree. There are no wrong opinions.....but you are just utterly wrong. Humans do not need clothing to survive. Clothing is not natural. Humans have been living the way we (those of us who are using computers, buying food and grocery stores, working our lives away, etc.) have for about ten thousand years, this pales in comparison to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which has been around for an estimated two hundred thousand years.
Any human with the proper survival training (which can be taken in either the form of growing up amongst humans that live in non-"modern" cultures, or actual "wilderness survival training"), can live a healthy life without clothing or excessive shelter (like "modern" housing).


You have been brainwashed by your culture
Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[shãybare]

It has been said, Nude when possible, clothed when necessary. Clothing serves several purposes-warmth, protection. Nudists do not see modesty as a valid reason for wearing clothing. As a nudist, I have no problem wearing clothes when I am cold or doing something that could harm me if I didn't wear them.

[Rocket]

Namedun,

Try to think of this rationally..the whole argument is based on the fact we are born without clothes..which is being used to try to substantiate that nudity is "natural."

But....from that moment forward clothing or coverings are necessary. Babies are wrapped in blankets (would they survive if they were in some dark cave next to a fire in the nude?)...

They have diapers...and clothing to protect them from elements..

Would babies survive in the nude in cold weather? I think not...and I further think to subject an infant to conditions like that would be cruel and inhumane..

So.....why..at the very beginning of life is it necessary to have clothes? Because IT IS NATURAL..just as natural as living in a house, or in a cave with a fire, or anything else...

And then, as the child matures..still has to be kept warm..and the child's family as well to nurture and care for him/her. Why aren't they nude? Simply because it doesn't work /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If nudity was natural, then our nudity would be supported by the enviroment. Animals are nude, and their enviroments support that they should be nude; they can live in the elements without clothing or to seek cover..can hole up under bushes and trees. That can't be said for humans, because the enviroment is too cold to support them; too hot to support them; or inbetween..

Our bare feet won't allow us to thrive in the wild...and our nudity wouldn't allow us to construct homes.......

No...there's nothing "natural" about being a nudist...that's just a facade. A true naturist is the one with the clothes!!!

This argument of being born nude means it's natural to be nude is as substantial as polar bears being born in the Sahara desert is natural when there isn't food to support them, and their physical makeup deny that they are equipted for desert living /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Boreas]

Good grief Rocket. You have a wonderful way of putting words in peoples' mouths and twisting or exaggerating things all out of proportion! You drag the arguments around in circles and you do not seem to listen to what is being said. No one is saying it would be wise to go outdoors nude when it is -40. Everyone is saying that clothes have their time, place and usefulness. At the same time, they are saying nudity is natural...covering up purely for modesty isn't necessarily natural.

When I read your posts, I read the words of a little girl who is very immature and thinks she is acting like a grown up. I see an angry little girl as well. Spoiled? Maybe. I am sure you will attck me and call this a personal attack. Oh well. I have broad shoulders and a strong self-image.

I'd like to quote something Cyndiann said a while back....Please don't feed the troll. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[namedun]

My argument wasn't: because babies are born nude, clothing is unnatural,
My argument was: because humans have lived without clothing for two hundred thousand years, clothing is unnatural.

[Rocket]

Namedun,

Nothing can be further from the truth to suggest that clothing is unnatural because our ancestors may/may not have survived without clothing. Man has the ability to reason, make decisions, which IS natural, and from that make adaptions to suit his/her enviroment. Therefore clothes are completely natural.

If our present situation was that we lived in an aquatic enviroment about 70 degrees, and had gills and fins for swimming (like Mermaids and MerMen) and we still kept wearing bathing suits..then perhaps you would have a point..but that is certainly not the case..

I am curious...since you say clothes are "unnatural"..that means we can do without them...so please suggest how EXACTLY are we to do it? Remember, mankind is native naturally to almost every area of the world.

Here's an idea....why don't YOU try...

For one week...find a cave...live nude..live by a fire...and see how it goes..

Now...you are to have NO SLEEPING BAG...nothing..no shoes...afterall your ancestors didn't /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Since you say we can do this, that means we can do this 365 days of the year (not the ideal warm conditions)....12 months of the year..year in and year out..

In the winter, I bet you last time measured in minutes, fall..not much longer...summer not long either..

With clothes though...you can..although perhaps in the Winter there will be times you'll be uncomfortable...but you will make it..

Clothes are natural....and nudism isn't....and there is certainly nothing natural about living in an artificial enviroment in the nude as Mark suggests..

Still Boreas,

You seem to be under the impression that myself, and perhaps Stu are here to change your mind(s). I am not gunning for you...I want the lurkers and I suspect Stu is interested in them as well. We both know the pro-nude side is totally absurd and contrary to logic, and will not stand up to any scrutiny. And we need your help to expose it.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

Rocket, if you would replace the word natural with preferred, then your arguments would make sense. No one here is arguing that nudity is preferable to clothing in extreme cold. We are saying it could be done, but only up to a point. Other animals will die if the weather gets too cold.

Clothing is akin to sunscreen in terms of exposure. They allow you to withstand more time outside in cold than if you were naked, but there is even a limit for that as well. People have gotten frostbite on their toes which are inside of socks and boots. And think of this, experts suggest that if you are trapped in a very cold environment like being lost in the snow, if there are two of you (or more), to undress and get into a dry sleeping bag. The body heat wil keep you two warmer.

Yes, clothes were an amazing invention. They allowed humans to go into colder climates. In effect, without clothes, humans would only be inhabiting warmer climates.

"When it rains..I admit it's not so fun..but one can still go outside for a walk..have fresh air.."

Naked in the rain is much more comfortable. When naked, the clothes get wet and stick to your body, making you feel even wetter and more uncomfortable. Naked, the water flows off of your body.

"Even inside though, because wearing clothes is so comfortable, it beats being nude..and it keeps you warmer as well.."

That's your opinion, not fact. Being naked in the summer allows you to be able to keep the thermostat at a higher temperature. In the winter, putting a heater on in one room can work wonders to keep you warm while naked.

"Nothing natural about being nude in a created enviroment"

If we can control our environment, then we can make it perfect temperature for being naked. Is it natural to be in a natural environment with created ccoverings?

"Babies are wrapped in blankets (would they survive if they were in some dark cave next to a fire in the nude?)"

How did the early homo sapiens survive? Scientists have determined that the first clothing came hundreds of years after hairlessness. It can be done. It has been done. It is done still.

"They have diapers...and clothing to protect them from elements.."

They have diapers because they cannot control their bladder or bowel. It is easier than constantly cleaning up the floor after them. And in a house with controled environments, they won't be exposed to the elements. And when a baby gets a diaper rash, the pediatricians' advice is to keep them naked. The rash will go away with fresh air.

"So.....why..at the very beginning of life is it necessary to have clothes?"

It isn't. Unless the weather conditions necessate it. All the baby needs is his mother's body heat.

"And the child's family as well to nurture and care for him/her. Why aren't they nude? Simply because it doesn't work"

It doesn't work because of people like you and stu who are against nudity. Because of people who see pedophiles behind every corner (note, two separate groupings of people).

As a final note, clothes are necessary for certain weather conditions. Nudity is fine for other weather conditions. The difference, some people do not like to be naked for whatever reason.

Clothes and nudity can coexist. Nudity is our natural state of being. Clothes are there to act as protection. Consider this: underneath our clothes, everyone is naked.

Bob S.

[Duneman]

Wow... this topic is becoming quite a "scorcher!?"

My view is,.... that the basic need of being nude or clothed probably depends where you live?

If you live in the Amazon Jungle........ whole communities spend a lifetime naked.

Until the "good" Catholic & Christian pioneers from the "civilized worlds" discovered these tribes & communities, these folks were quite happy!?

"Values" were then passed on by means of religous education, that "being naked" was decadent and degrading????

Think about this??

Canada... Alaska, Greenland.... in Winter. Christ!! of course you are going to wear clothes!!

But note.... it is quite ok in Eskimo Communities, to be naked in an igloo!?

Lighten up some of you.......

Being naked is NOT a crime..... But it should recognise the local community standards.

Many Countries are slow/behind in this regard, but it will come.......

There are (and have been for decades) parks in Berlin, Germany. where folks taking their lunch breaks in the summer, can be nude or in any state of attire, and nobody is offended, or goes into cardiac arrest!

I also remember the days when, if it were discovered that you were "gay" many individuals committed suicide.

Now in Canada, gays are able to get married.

I am always amazed, when on T.V. or some Movies, you are cautioned that you may encounter
nudity, yet they are quite happy to show Rambo, machine gunning dozens of people away!?!
That to me is offensive and obscene.

To me...... a naked human being is one of the most beautiful forms on this earth.

That is why I'm a nudist/naturist

[Naturist Mark]

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

With clothes though...you can..although perhaps in the Winter there will be times you'll be uncomfortable...but you will make it..

Clothes are natural....and nudism isn't....and there is certainly nothing natural about living in an artificial enviroment in the nude as Mark suggests..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is Rocket's obsession with 'proving' we must be clothed at all times because we couldn't live in the outdoors in northern winters? NO-ONE has suggested nudists should live naked in the snow.

Why can't Rocket understand that when you are in a controlled environment you don't need clothes except for the requirements of social or legal coercion?

Why can't Rocket understand that a 'controlled environment' is not weather engineering, but 'buildings' with heat?

Why is proving clothing as 'natural' now the point of Rocket's posts in this threads, and not in the 'is naturism natural' thread?

Why does Rocket deliberately 'misunderstand' and twist people's comments? Is anyone impressed?

-Mark

[Nude in the North]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
You seem to be under the impression that myself, and perhaps Stu are here to change your mind(s). I am not gunning for you...I want the lurkers and I suspect Stu is interested in them as well. We both know the pro-nude side is totally absurd and contrary to logic, and will not stand up to any scrutiny. And we need your help to expose it.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Have you ever heard of the term 'Backfire'?

The only thing your exposing is your Ignorance.

Has anybody noticed that Rocket has not ever, not once answered anyone's posts to her in a direct manner? Has anybody noticed she has never, not once provided figures and links to support her arguements?

Does anyone really believe she's ever gone to a nudist event?

Kiwi

?.. a lot of situations where clothes are not necessary or indeed practical, swimming for example?

I can?t see how wearing swimming trunks for swimming is ?impractical?. Apart from showering or taking a bath there is never a need to be naked.

?..we know the advantages and disadvantages of both states of dress/undress, and have decided, through personal experience that there are times where being nude is preferable, logical and practical?.

And most textiles are nude at times, so we too know the advantages and disadvantages of clothing.

?And from my experience most who take the chance to try social nudity come to the same conclusion.?

Nobody is forced to try naturism. To try it in the first place generally means one has a favourable disposition to it from the start.

?...your views are somewhat biased or, for want of a better word, one eyed...it is an opinion based on little knowledge of the facts.?

Everyone here is biased. We see things from where we?re at. This isn?t really a debate about knowledge or facts ? it?s about attitudes, perceptions, feelings, ethics and, in the final analysis, opinions. I know what it?s like to be clothed and what it?s like to be nude. I know which I prefer.

Bob

"... nudity being natural, is that we are born naked. And since childbirth is natural, the baby coming out must also be natural?.

What is natural for a newborn baby isn?t natural for an older person.

?In fact, all of our technological advances have made clothing unnecessary for most of our life.?

It depends what you mean by ?unnecessary?. Technological advances mean that we no longer need legs to get about, and we cannot bother to eat food that required chewing and just take in food through a feeding tube. Clothing has become an essential part of the human experience for 99%+ of the human population and this has been the case for millennia.

"They were in survival mode. We can have lives. The biggest difference is that back then, they had no time to think about many non-survivalist thoughts?.

Funny! They managed to find time to paint animals on cave walls.

?With increased intelligence and better lives, we can think about different things. And we can also get unnatural ideas such as seeing nudity as something bad.?

Sorry, Bob, but who said that nudity was bad? I?ve never said that.

?Our society may have declared clothes as preferable, but nudity is used in most of the same ways as it was back then.?

Throughout the ages there have been traditions, values and taboos and not all of these have been based on pure logic. Don?t you think it strange that many peoples and cultures even in hot climes far removed from western influences have chosen to cover their genitals when in public? Only I the most primitive cultures has this not been the case (e.g. places such as Borneo).

?Kari's idea:..To formulate an acceptable ban of public nudity you have to list the really public places where nudity is banned, not those where it is allowed?.That seems easier than your idea of where it is allowed.?

It may be easier but it would be unfair and unacceptable to most of us. If nudists were in the majority it would be acceptable but they aren?t and clothing in our society is the default position. The vast majority of people wear clothing for the vast majority of their waking hours, and there are very many people who find nudity offensive when it is done out of context.

Duneman

?Being naked is NOT a crime..... But it should recognise the local community standards.?

Being naked IN PUBLIC is a crime in most societies. Local community standards are rightly supported by laws that reflect them.

?Many Countries are slow/behind in this regard, but it will come.......?

It will come if people want I to come. I see no evidence that they do.

?There are (and have been for decades) parks in Berlin, Germany. where folks taking their lunch breaks in the summer, can be nude or in any state of attire, and nobody is offended, or goes into cardiac arrest!?

I have never been to Berlin so I can?t comment on that city. But have been to Germany many times, and enjoyed their lovely parks in other cities (e.g. Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Duisburg etc). I have seen hundreds of Germans enjoying the sunshine on warm days in these parks. Total number of naked people seen in German parks? Zero!

[Rocket]

Cyndiann,

Don't need figures to demonstrate that human civilization isn't geared to be nude. Literally thousands of history supports it..

To everyone else:

You guys need to get on ONE PAGE because you disagree with one and another. Stu and I aren't disagreeing with each other..

What has been claimed by the nudists (and I quote no names so people won't get upset):

*we are natural to be nude..and we are to migrate..
*we aren't to migrate..we can live in an artificial enviroment in the nude
*we don't need to live in an artificial enviroment..we can survive in the nude outdoors
*we can live nude..because pigs and hairless cats can do it
*a nude population can live in caves with a fire
*Babies can live nude even at the infant stage..no need to wrap them in blankets
*not being allowed nude in public in oppression..we should be nude anywhere we like and people can just look away.
*being nude should be allowed..and public sex is fine too. There should be no laws against this.
*not being allowed to be nude in public is discrimination that compares to that of race discrimination.
*Steve Glough, a penniless, unemployed, naked vagabond is someone to be admired.

I'm sure there's more arguments by the pro-nude side put forward I can't think of at this moment. Please continue to explain your side... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[NudeAl]

I wasn't aware we had to all have the same exact opinions. I thought we were allowed to have our own idea of what level of nudity is or isn't appropriate.

There are very few absolute's in society. This isn't a black and white situation it has many shades of grey. We are all speaking based on what we have experienced in our own lives and we live in very different areas of the world. I find it particularly interesting to hear about what is common regarding nudity in other cultures in other parts of the world. I do not think we are going to start a nude revolution, I know the apeal is limited. But I admire those idealists out there who still dream of this.

NudeAl

"I do not think we are going to start a nude revolution, I know the apeal is limited."

It is. And sometimes it's best to say "Vive le difference" - accept that you like what you like and others like things different. Being a nudist is part of what you are - part your distinct identity. Enjoy it and share it with those who also enjoy it. Keep an open door for others who may want to try it. But never impose it on those who don't.

"But I admire those idealists out there who still dream of this."

There is nothing wrong with idealists having dreams. The problems arise when idealists become activists and try to turn their dreams into a reality that the rest of us don't want.

Stu

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
And most textiles are nude at times, so we too know the advantages and disadvantages of clothing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are nude ONLY in the shower, so you really don't know the advantages of nudity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It may be easier but it would be unfair and unacceptable to most of us.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You speak with the voice of the great public with no research backing you up. If research is to be done, it must be done well, and of cource in each country.

If a gallup is made with just the question "can you tolerate nudity in public places?", you may get an answer that you are pleased with, but there is a fault. People have different definitions to what is a public place, which was not defined in the question. Many of them would think only about streets, shops, other public buildings and public parks. You would use the result to ban nudity in almost every place where the public has access or visibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Being naked IN PUBLIC is a crime in most societies.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to know the law and you still insist that being naked in public is a crime e.g. in your own country. You yourself have said that the laws are similar in most of the European countries. Let's call this the European model. In it nudity is NOT a crime in itself. The police has to find some other crime, such as indecent behaviour or breach of peace, in order to arrest a naked person, and the court likewise to pass a judgement.

If the things were as you say above, you would not have had a reason to start this thread.

Kari P

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Being naked IN PUBLIC is a crime in most societies.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not in the UK. That may change if the new Sexual Offences Bill is passed. (I for one find it offensive that mere nudity is so often included among 'sexual offences'). That fact that there is no British law against nudity in public is the reason the oppressors must use nebulous charges such as "outraging public decency", "insulting behaviour" or "causing a breach of the peace" as stand-ins.

Not in the US. There is no national law outlawing public nudity in the US. Consequently nudity is perfectly legal on federal land that is not also under local concurrent law enforcement. There are a variety of different State and local public indecency laws of varying scope and applicability, but for the most part nudity -even in public- is still legal as long as there is no 'alarming' or 'affronting' of prudes.

Not in Canada. Canada has a national law prohibiting public nudity, but it has been effectively nullified by the Canadian Supreme Court.

It would be interesting to do a country by country examination of anti-nudity laws, but even this cursory look at 3 body-phobic English speaking countries doesn't support the bare statement that "Being naked IN PUBLIC is a crime in most societies."

-Mark

Kari

"You are nude ONLY in the shower, so you really don't know the advantages of nudity."

You are right. I don't see any at all.

"You speak with the voice of the great public with no research backing you up."

Because there is no reliable, empirical research in existence that I know of so we have to rely upon our perceptions of public opinion based on those we know.

"If research is to be done, it must be done well, and of cource in each country."

I agree.

"If a gallup is made with just the question "can you tolerate nudity in public places?", you may get an answer that you are pleased with, but there is a fault. People have different definitions to what is a public place, which was not defined in the question. Many of them would think only about streets, shops, other public buildings and public parks."

That's what people regard as public places, yes.

"You would use the result to ban nudity in almost every place where the public has access or visibility."

Yes - apart from recognised naturist venues. England is not Finland. Here we have nearly 60,000,000 people. We don't have so many remote areas as you. Very few people in the UK would support a legal right to be naked in our countryside or other remote beauty spots such as the Lake District, Dartmoor, the Peak District, the Cotswolds or the Yorkshire Dales. This is because these places are used by local people - who are often very conservative - and hikers, many of whom are elderly people, or families. I would welcome a proper survey and I have absolutely no doubt that it would establish that public nudity in the UK is unacceptable to most people.

"The police has to find some other crime, such as indecent behaviour or breach of peace, in order to arrest a naked person, and the court likewise to pass a judgement."

That's correct. But they do and those who are naked in public are not ignored by the police - they are arrested. When they are charged they are frequently convicted even if the only evidence is their public nudity (e.g. Steve Gough). Much law in England is worded in this vague way to allow the police and courts some discretion but the effect is still the same.

"If the things were as you say above, you would not have had a reason to start this thread."

I propose this change not because I want to criminalise something that is presently legal but to make the law crystal clear to everyone - naturists, textiles, the police, judges and juries. It would also make it easier for the police to get a conviction for antisocial public nudity without having to get statements from the public to prove that they were offended.

naturistmark1

"Not in the UK."

Yes it is in the UK. Steve Gough and others have been successfully prosecuted both in England and Scotland for public nudity. Mr Gough is in prison for that very thing as I write.

"That may change if the new Sexual Offences Bill is passed. (I for one find it offensive that mere nudity is so often included among 'sexual offences')."

I don't think the Bill will be used against simple nudity. Government ministers here seem to be saying that the police should treat it as a public order offence - which is what it is.

"That fact that there is no British law against nudity in public is the reason the oppressors must use nebulous charges such as "outraging public decency", "insulting behaviour" or "causing a breach of the peace" as stand-ins."

As I have said to Kari, a great deal of UK law is vaguely worded in order to enable the authorities to deal with whatever arises and use their discretion. Whilst public nudity is an antisocial activity, it is also extremely rare and consequently no Parliament has seen a need to introduce a law to ban it when existing laws have
generally sufficed. You would be making a grave mistake to suppose that our government regards public nudity as something harmless that the population should tolerate. If it became a problem the police or courts weren't equipped to stamp on, they'd legislate in a heartbeat. And that's not oppression, Mark, it's protecting the public from antisocial deviancy.

" -even in public- is still legal as long as there is no 'alarming' or 'affronting' of prudes."

Hey, hang on. I don't have a problem bein referred to as a textile, but I'm not sure I appreciate the label "prude".

"It would be interesting to do a country by country examination of anti-nudity laws, but even this cursory look at 3 body-phobic English speaking countries doesn't support the bare statement that "Being naked IN PUBLIC is a crime in most societies."

The acid test is can you be naked in public without the authorities taking action to stop you by, for example, arresting you. The answer in the UK is no. The answer in most other European countries is no. The answer I suspect in most US states is no. The answer I suspect in Canada is no, in spite of the recent judgement. We can argue about the legal niceties if you like but the fact remains that if you get naked in most of the towns and cities and public parks of the developed world you are going to be incarcerated and punished by and on behalf of the state. So public nudity is effectively a crime the world over. And rightly so because it is offensive. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

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

You might want to not talk of Canada..because you certainly no nothing of this country.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On the contrary, I am able to do at least rudimentary research and to post links supporting my statments. Indeed I seem rather more familiar with Canadian law with respect to nudity than Rocket, who claims to be a Canadian. Perhaps that is because I live so close to Canada, watch and listen to Canadian media, I personally know a number of Canadian nudists, and I know how to read and do a Google search...

For example:
A Canadian Lawyer's Analysis (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6107/pride/Jul2297.html)
Canadian Prosecutor refuses to prosecute nude sunbathers because there was no 'lewd' behavior or 'indecent activity'. (http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20011025003)

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Hey, hang on. I don't have a problem bein referred to as a textile, but I'm not sure I appreciate the label "prude". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I certainly didn't mean any offense to you, but I didn't use the word 'textile' precisely because I believe many (if not most) 'textiles' are quite pleased to see naked people - a fact which the media ruthlessly exploits.

Most textiles wouldn't be caught dead being nude in public, but many have a great interest in other's nudity- usually in precisely the unhealthy sexually voyeuristic way that Madison Avenue (or Fleet Street) depends upon.

'Prude' seemed a good term for those who are easily offended by other people's state of dress (or undress), but I'm willing to use another term that you don't find offensive.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Rocket, when stating facts, you need to be able to back them up with evidence, not opinion. You haven't proven that"human civilization isn't geared to be nude."

Your "points:"
"*we are natural to be nude..and we are to migrate.."
If clothes hadn't been invented, then yes, we would wither migrate or stay in the tropics areas of the planet.

"*we aren't to migrate..we can live in an artificial enviroment in the nude"
That's how we live now, with clothes, even though there are still mini migrations from colder areas to warmer areas in the winter as well as in the latter stages of life.

"*we don't need to live in an artificial enviroment..we can survive in the nude outdoors"
If you want to live outdoors without clothes, you would need to be sure to do so in an area that is warm year-round.

"*we can live nude..because pigs and hairless cats can do it"
Everyone is a mammal. And semi-aquatic. No other mammal wears clothes and we haven't evolved significantly in millions of years.

"*a nude population can live in caves with a fire"
That's how our ancient anceestors did it.

"*Babies can live nude even at the infant stage..no need to wrap them in blankets"
Blankets are used mainly for swaddling. The same can be done with a mother's arms.

"*not being allowed nude in public in oppression..we should be nude anywhere we like and people can just look away."
That's our ultimate goal. Everyone has a body. We all know what a naked body looks like. Except for the thoughts of others, there is no reason why nudity should not be allowed.

*being nude should be allowed..and public sex is fine too. There should be no laws against this."
No one here argued that it should be allowed, except for stu.

*not being allowed to be nude in public is discrimination that compares to that of race discrimination."
Discrimination on the basis of skin.

*Steve Glough, a penniless, unemployed, naked vagabond is someone to be admired."
Someone who risks everything for his cause is to be admired. I admire anyone who will suffer for their cause. I may abhor their cause, but I would still admire them for their stand (unless their stand is hurtful to others).

Bob S.

Mark

"'Prude' seemed a good term for those who are easily offended by other people's state of dress (or undress), but I'm willing to use another term that you don't find offensive."

No problem. The word "prude is usually a pejorative term but, as you're stuck for a better alternative, I won't take offence. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu (the prude)

[Bob S.]

"I can?t see how wearing swimming trunks for swimming is ?impractical?"

Explain how they are practical. They do not keep you dry, they drag in the water, at the beach, they can accumulate a lot of sand. The only two reasons I can think of are comfort and legalities.

"Apart from showering or taking a bath there is never a need to be naked."

No absolute need, no. Sleeping, painting, cleaning, gardening, jogging, swimming, keeping cool in summer, all can be done equally well in the nude, if not better.

"And most textiles are nude at times, so we too know the advantages and disadvantages of clothing."

Not enough to truly understand the differnces. Go skinny-dipping. You will wonder why there is the need for a swimsuit. What you are saying is that I understand what it is like to be a parent because I work with children. That a father knows what it is like to give birth because he was there during the delivery. Or like me suggesting that I would know the advantages and disadvantages of living in England if I came to visit for a month.

"Nobody is forced to try naturism."

But everybody is forced to try textilism.

"What is natural for a newborn baby isn?t natural for an older person."

Diapers and soft food. Hahahahahaha! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"It depends what you mean by ?unnecessary?."

Unnecessary: we live in homes where we can control the temperature. Clothes are not needed there. Transprotation can get us anywhere we want to go, like tropical climates, where clothes are not necessary.

"Clothing has become an essential part of the human experience for 99%+ of the human population and this has been the case for millennia."

Replace "essential" with "preferred" and I'll agree with that statement.

"Sorry, Bob, but who said that nudity was bad?"

I live in the USA. Do I need to list who has said it is bad?

"It may be easier but it would be unfair and unacceptable to most of us."

How would determining where nudity is not allowed unfair and unacceptable? Don't you want people to know where they can't be naked? Isn't that a part of your law?

"I have seen hundreds of Germans enjoying the sunshine on warm days in these parks. Total number of naked people seen in German parks? Zero!"

So stop harping about making the law harsher! Your evidence shows that nudists are very considerate. Even those few rebels whom you are afraid of seem not to be around.

Bob S.

[Rocket]

Mark,

I was just on a Canadian Naturist site..and they were advising the Criminal Code..

It's NOT legal to be nude in Canada without public excuse. Now, whether the Crown will proceed is another matter (they have the option) is another matter.

In Canada, the laws are divided as Summary Conviction (less serious) and Indictable (serious). Indictable is like a felony in the USA.

BobS,

Those points I posted were argued by the nudists...NOT ME.

I find them nonsense arguments..

Regarding nudity in warmer climates....because of the damage and risks the sun presents to unprotected skin..that is NOT advisable..at least for extended periods of time..

People in warm climates (like the Middle East) DO wear clothes..one reason being is they find it cooler..

Sorry, Bob, but clothes beat nudity almost everytime...nothing natural about being nude /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
The acid test is can you be naked in public without the authorities taking action to stop you by, for example, arresting you. The answer in the UK is no. The answer in most other European countries is no. The answer I suspect in most US states is no. The answer I suspect in Canada is no, in spite of the recent judgement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhh, but do you see the vital distinction that in every case no one is being charged with public nudity. In every case it is some variation of 'offending public sensibilities' due to lewd or indecent behavior. In each nation there is growing doubt about just how lewd or indecent simple nudity is, and the laws are so nebulous that prosecution is an ever more risky proposition for authorities.

'Fuzzy' offenses make it easier on authorities because they can project their prejudices upon behavior - or persons - they wish to control when they have no specific legal justification. But evolving public opinion and legal precedent is narrowing those opportunities.

You have often mentioned Steve Gough's present incarceration. What are the charges? Public nudity? Nope. At least not yet. I'd wager that if Mr. Gough is ever convicted it will be for violating the terms of bail and not for nudity. He returns to court 0n Nov. 7. It will be interesting to see if any charges will actually be pressed, or if these latest charges will be dropped just as so many others have been.

-Mark

Bob,

Re trunks: "Explain how they are practical. They do not keep you dry, they drag in the water, at the beach, they can accumulate a lot of sand."

That does rather depend on the type you wear. Some are like shorts and, as such, you can wear them away from the beach - even in a supermarket or some restaurants. The brief ones, however, are no impediment to swimming and they protect you from getting sand in your various crevices.

"The only two reasons I can think of are comfort and legalities."

Yes, I think swimwear is comfortable. It gives you support.

"...Or like me suggesting that I would know the advantages and disadvantages of living in England if I came to visit for a month."

Not exactly, Bob. Textiles actually experience nudity - they know what nude feels like because they are regularly nude albeit not for extended periods nor outdoors.

"But everybody is forced to try textilism."

I don't think there is such a thing as "textilism". Wearing clothes is such a basic and ingrained human behaviour it's as natural as eating. Are we going to have a category of people we call "food-eaters"?

"Unnecessary: we live in homes where we can control the temperature. Clothes are not needed there."

You are still in the mindset that the only function of clothing is to protect us from the elements. That may have been their earliest purpose but we have long since extended the functions of clothes.

"Replace "essential" with "preferred" and I'll agree with that statement."

It's stronger than a preference - it's a basic human necessity. Charities that supply to the poor of the third world plead for donations of clothing even for those who live in the gentlest of climates. To have no clothes is accepted to be almost on a par with starvation.

"I live in the USA. Do I need to list who has said it is bad?"

Are you saying that there are people in the USA who believe that all nudity is bad?

"How would determining where nudity is not allowed unfair and unacceptable? Don't you want people to know where they can't be naked? Isn't that a part of your law?"

Yes I do. OK, it should be illegal on any street, road, footpath, bridleway, forest, park, centre of transportation, hospital, etc etc (how long a list do you want?) and beach, with the exception of authorised, signposted and screened naturist beaches. Everywhere else it's legal. That should keep everyone happy.

"So stop harping about making the law harsher! Your evidence shows that nudists are very considerate. Even those few rebels whom you are afraid of seem not to be around."

My suggestion isn't aimed at making the law harsher for the considerate majority - it's mainly to provide clarity and to ensure that the tiny minority of individuals who are inconsideate with their nudity are properly punished.

naturistmark1

"Ahhh, but do you see the vital distinction that in every case no one is being charged with public nudity. In every case it is some variation of 'offending public sensibilities' due to lewd or indecent behavior. In each nation there is growing doubt about just how lewd or indecent simple nudity is, and the laws are so nebulous that prosecution is an ever more risky proposition for authorities."

It's not too much of a problem here because we no longer charge "indecent exposure" for simple nudity. The overwhelming majority of magistrates in the UK wouldn't think twice about convicting someone for simple nudity if they were charged with "insulting/disorderly conduct" - an offence that requires no evidence of lewdness nor indecency. I should know - I help to train magistrates!

"'Fuzzy' offenses make it easier on authorities because they can project their prejudices upon behavior - or persons - they wish to control when they have no specific legal justification. But evolving public opinion and legal precedent is narrowing those opportunities."

We are a very very long way from public opinion regarding public nudity as acceptable and also from the prosecuting authorities and the courts deciding that simple nudity is a lawful behaviour in ordinary circumstances.

"You have often mentioned Steve Gough's present incarceration. What are the charges? Public nudity? Nope. At least not yet. I'd wager that if Mr. Gough is ever convicted it will be for violating the terms of bail and not for nudity."

Sorry, Mark, you've just lost your wager. Earlier this year he was convicted before the magistrates court at Southampton of an offence under sectio 5 of the Public Ordr Act 1986 (insulting behaviour) simply for nude cycling. He has already accrued a conviction before the Sheriff's Court in Inverness on 4th October for "breach of the peace". On both occasions he pleaded guilty.

"He returns to court 0n Nov. 7. It will be interesting to see if any charges will actually be pressed, or if these latest charges will be dropped just as so many others have been."

I bet they won't be. Remember that he'll most likely be appearing before the very same Sheriff that found him guilty him last time and gave him a warning about his future conduct!!! We shall see /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Stu

[Rocket]

If Gough was nude cycling...and then warned...and now charged..if convicted (and he will)..I am going to change my opinion from conditional discharge to 2 years prison...

Maybe 2 years to think about what he did/is trying to do will be enough to stop his nonsense. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu..btw..well done..

If this was a Football game..the score would be 20 to nil right now in favor of the Textiles over the Nudes..

[NUDKIWI]

Stu
Knowledge and personal experience are a great,if not major ,influence on a persons,"attitudes,perceptions,feelings,ethics and in the final analysis,opinions".Without a knowledge of the FACTS from both sides of an argument an opinion free from prejudice is impossible.In fact the cause of most forms of prejudice is ignorance.And the only way to cure ignorance is with familiarity and education,and yes Stu i do think education is the right word here.Education is the MOTHER of all KNOWLEDGE.

Yours Naturally KIWI /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[NUDKIWI]

Rocket
If this was a football game it would be 40-nil to us,you would be so busy running round and round in circles trying to prove you had scored a goal that you wouldnt notice our strikers had already run past your defence on 40 different occassions.
GAME OVER,now lets swap jerseys,oh hang on i aint wearing one(tee hee hee) /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yours Naturally KIWI.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Earlier this year he was convicted before the magistrates court at Southampton of an offence under sectio 5 of the Public Ordr Act 1986 (insulting behaviour) simply for nude cycling. He has already accrued a conviction before the Sheriff's Court in Inverness on 4th October for "breach of the peace". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So the crown no longer prosecutes public nudity under indecent exposure laws, they now rely on even more nebulous charges like 'insulting behavior' and 'breach of the peace'? Are the statutes very precise about the definitions of these offences, or do they allow peace officers great latitude in deciding what does and does not fit?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"He returns to court 0n Nov. 7. It will be interesting to see if any charges will actually be pressed, or if these latest charges will be dropped just as so many others have been."

I bet they won't be. Remember that he'll most likely be appearing before the very same Sheriff that found him guilty him last time and gave him a warning about his future conduct!!! We shall see /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting. So the outcome is a foregone conclusion because Mr. Gough will be facing a prejudicial court already predisposed to convict him. Or do I misunderstand?

-Mark

[Rocket]

Mark,

You know NIL about law..and that is clearly evidenced by your interpretation that because the Crown here decided not to pursue some cases..it means this country is prepared to accept social nudity.

LMAO!!!!

Mr Gough, according to several independant reports, was warned by the Magistrate of what would happen if he continued his conduct. That he chose to ignore those warnings and continue his disreputable conduct means he is in for some serious trouble..

Around here, you start disrespecting a court and judge..you are going to be a sorry individual.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
You know NIL about law.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am certainly willing to take instruction from Stu, I trust his expertise. I'm not a lawyer, my degrees are in administrative and political science.. My own legal training (in the US) was mostly in law enforcement, administrative and environmental law.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Around here, you start disrespecting a court and judge..you are going to be a sorry individual. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Around here it is expected that free citizens have a right, even an obligation, to question authority. That is not the same as 'direspecting', which I wouldn't do.

Stu made a statement that suggested Mr. Gough would not receive a fair trial. I suspect he mispoke. My question was meant to elicit a clarification.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

"That does rather depend on the type you wear. "

When I refer to trunks, I mean shorts-like bathing suits.

"you can wear them away from the beach - even in a supermarket or some restaurants."

Well, at all nude beaches, people wear their clothes when walking to the beach, take off theri clothes when there, and after drying off, put their clothes back on. And these clothes are dry! There isn't even a need to find a restroom to change in or trying to keep your towel on to change. You can just change right there in the open!

"are no impediment to swimming and they protect you from getting sand in your various crevices."

They are also restricting. And you will not get that much sand in your crevices, and if you do, just wash it off in the water.

"Textiles actually experience nudity - they know what nude feels like because they are regularly nude albeit not for extended periods nor outdoors."

And that's where I give point. They experience nudity in the shower. Partial nudity when changing or using the facilities. When people argue against nude beaches or nudist parks, most of the time, they only have one side of the story. Rep. Foley from Florida took on the nudist summer camps for teens this summer. He was concerned that the nudity could lead to sexual abuse of the campers. Now he knew that in the ten years the camps had been going on, not one complaint came from the camp. And he would know, being a part of the National Center for Missing or Exploited Children.

"Wearing clothes is such a basic and ingrained human behaviour it's as natural as eating. Are we going to have a category of people we call "food-eaters"?"

Societal accepted behaviour. Societal necessitated behaviour. And when I referred to the term "textilism," I was talking about the ideals surrounding that which are opposite that of nudism.

"That may have been their earliest purpose but we have long since extended the functions of clothes."

Other functions: Caste system and showing certain jobs. The other functions such as comfort, fashion, stowing belongings, etc are subjective. Legal reasons is the biggest reason.

"t's a basic human necessity. Charities that supply to the poor of the third world plead for donations of clothing even for those who live in the gentlest of climates."

It is because of our outdated modesty. We feel that we need to give them clothes so that they can be civilized. Missionaries decided that long ago. To be naked is to be primative.

"Are you saying that there are people in the USA who believe that all nudity is bad?"

Yes, stu. I have even heard of uber-religious folks who actually believe that having sex is sinful. But that we must bear that sin to follow G*d's order to procreate.

"t's mainly to provide clarity and to ensure that the tiny minority of individuals who are inconsideate with their nudity are properly punished."

But they are being punished now.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"I was just on a Canadian Naturist site..and they were advising the Criminal Code.."

I know this will probably be a useless question, but...can you provide us the link that you went to. I would love to see that website, and I am being serious and sincere in my request.

"Those points I posted were argued by the nudists...NOT ME."

And I responed to them, not you.

"I find them nonsense arguments.."

Rocket, in every message site that I have been in, everyone has been at least respectful to other's opinions. If not, they would have an intelligent and thoughtful counterargument. You are just dismissing our arguments by caklling them nonsense. No matter what we argue, you will just find anything that we say as nonsense unless it agrees with what you believe.

"clothes beat nudity almost everytime"

That's your opinion and I respect it.

"You know NIL about law."

You wrote that to Mark. So if you don't mind me asking, how knowldgeable are you about the law? To make that pronouncement, you imply that you are more knopwledgeable than he is.

Bob S.

[namedun]

Now now, be nice to Rocket, she is fully entitled to her own opinion.
It is my opinion that she has been brainwashed by "modern" society. Nonetheless, if she wants to say "clothes are always better" even without reasonable arguement, she is entitled to do so.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kiwi

"Without a knowledge of the FACTS from both sides of an argument an opinion free from prejudice is impossible."

Kiwi - I really don't think that the facts are in dispute here. What 'facts' about nudity do nudists possess that the rest of us don't?

"In fact the cause of most forms of prejudice is ignorance."

I totally agree.

"And the only way to cure ignorance is with familiarity and education,and yes Stu i do think education is the right word here. Education is the MOTHER of all KNOWLEDGE."

But educate WHO about WHAT? And HOW do you achieve it? And do people want to receive such education? Or are they going to get it whether they want it or not? These are important practical and ethical questions.

naturistmark1

"So the crown no longer prosecutes public nudity under indecent exposure laws, they now rely on even more nebulous charges like 'insulting behavior' and 'breach of the peace'?"

Generally speaking that is the case, yes.

"Are the statutes very precise about the definitions of these offences, or do they allow peace officers great latitude in deciding what does and does not fit?"

They allow latitude to the police and the courts. Often they are unsure how to respond and this results in uncertainty and inconsistencies. That's why I'm suggesting clarifying this area.

"Interesting. So the outcome is a foregone conclusion because Mr. Gough will be facing a prejudicial court already predisposed to convict him. Or do I misunderstand?"

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that he has already been found guilty of the same charge by the same judge in the same court just a few weeks previously for identical behaviour - AND he was warned not to repeat that behaviour. That isn't a case I'd like to try to defend.

Bob S.

"Well, at all nude beaches, people wear their clothes when walking to the beach, take off theri clothes when there, and after drying off, put their clothes back on. And these clothes are dry! There isn't even a need to find a restroom to change in or trying to keep your towel on to change. You can just change right there in the open!"

OK. On textile beaches you just put on a tee-shirt and a fresh pair of shorts. When I'm at the beach I normally erect a little beach tent that is useful for getting changed in as well as keeping the flies off your picnic. In terms of convenience, Bob, there isn't a lot to choose between the two lifestyles. It's just down to preference.

"They are also restricting. And you will not get that much sand in your crevices, and if you do, just wash it off in the water."

I'll take your word for that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"Other functions: Caste system and showing certain jobs. The other functions such as comfort, fashion, stowing belongings, etc are subjective. Legal reasons is the biggest reason."

I'm not sure about that. If a law was introduced that effectively legalised nudity everywhere and made it illegal to discriminate against someone for not wearing clothes, do you really believe that suddenly vast numbers of people would cast aside their clothes indoors, and outdoors on warm days? I serously doubt that. If that was the case then most people would take off all their clothes as soon as they got into their homes and other private places - but they don't. The simple fact is that people generally prefer not to be naked when in the company of others and they prefer others not to see them naked.

"It is because of our outdated modesty".

I don't think it's outdated, Bob. Most people wear clothes most of the time partly so that others won't see them naked. This is a real phenomenon - the way the world is today - who says it's outdated?

"We feel that we need to give them clothes so that they can be civilized."

Are you saying they don't want these clothes? That we are foisting clothes onto them? That they would prefer to remain naked?

"I have even heard of uber-religious folks who actually believe that having sex is sinful. But that we must bear that sin to follow G*d's order to procreate."

How odd! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"But they are being punished now."

But it's too hit and miss, too inconsistent. Naturists, textiles, the police and the courts need a clear and precise law to deal effectively with people such as Messrs Bethell and Gough, nude protestors, and also the tiny proportion of inconsiderate and irresponsible naturists.

One more thing - and this is for EVERYONE here - please try to be a little nicer to Rocket. I've been coming here a long time now and you are used to me and I'm used to you. I think you know I'm sincere and we've enjoyed some good debates - it's been fun. Rocket may not be quite as diplomatic as me, but she's intelligent and makes some very interesting points. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

[Nude in the North]

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


One more thing - and this is for EVERYONE here - please try to be a little nicer to Rocket. I've been coming here a long time now and you are used to me and I'm used to you. I think you know I'm sincere and we've enjoyed some good debates - it's been fun. Rocket may not be quite as diplomatic as me, but she's intelligent and makes some very interesting points. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NONSENSE!

[Trailscout]

Rocket is an intelligent young lady, but her stubborn refusal to consider the other side of a debate short-circuits that lovely mind of hers.

I used to share some of her opinions about nudity and defended them just as fiercely. Even stubborn people can change their minds.

I contend that nudity is its own best advocate. If she would spend 48 hours in the nude at a family nudist resort, I can almost guarantee that she will see with clarity what we have been trying to tell her all this time.

[Rocket]

BobS,

To let you know...I am computer technically challenged..so I really don't know how to do links..

I've thought of copying them down, but they are SO LONG it's not practical..I'll see what I can do. Do a search on Google for Nudism in Canada and you might see what I am looking at..

Towards law...I am not a lawyer...but I have taken some courses..and have a friend who is a lawyer. BTW...Mark seems to think he IS a lawyer or a Canadian legal expert..because he takes a decision, and on that basis and without the context of the decision (I mean the court documents) and from that draws the conclusion that public nudity is fine in Canada..

If it was fine in Canada..if you go nude shopping at the nearest WalMart..you wouldn't be arrested. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

Rocket,
Please! A Walmart or any other commercial establishment is free to set its own dress code for workers and even customers, independently of any laws. That's why we can have restaurants that can require coat and tie for gentlemen to even get in the door.

The battleground is for public facilities, not private.

Stu wants nudity banned in forests. That's pretty extreme. You might as well ban thinking about nudity if you intend to ban it in places where no one will see you.

Repeat after me, "I will not think about naked people. I will not think about naked people..."

[Rocket]

TrailScout,

The public areas such as parks, on street, in the city, is frequented by people who don't want to see nudity..and because they enormously out number you..that's how it goes /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Interesting enough..the Canadian Naturist Site I was on was opposed to any anti-nudity laws. They claim these laws prohibit freedom of expression, free speech etc..

Total nonsense to think this country is going to support public nudity..

TrailScout,

You have a long..long..long way to go.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[gradschool2004]

Thing is, I don't think a lot of countries are going to support naturism. I know not here in the United States and I am sure in a lot of other countries as well....I can only hope that one day that people would see and understand that there is nothing wrong with being nude.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
BTW...Mark seems to think he IS a lawyer <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is simply a lie. I posted a statement saying exactly the opposite not even 24 hours ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>or a Canadian legal expert..because he takes a decision, and on that basis and without the context of the decision (I mean the court documents) and from that draws the conclusion that public nudity is fine in Canada.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually I've taken those decisions in context according to available online documentation, media accounts, and expert Canadian legal opinion. And my conclusion is not that public nudity is 'fine' in Canada, just that it is effectively legal in many circumstances due to court decisions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If it was fine in Canada..if you go nude shopping at the nearest WalMart..you wouldn't be arrested. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Walmart stores are private property. It would be perfectly legal to be nude in Walmart if Walmart allowed it. Just as nudity is legal at every Canadian nudist resort.

The question is, would it be legal to walk down the public street on your way to Walmart? It is certainly legal to be topless, whether you are male or female. Since there is no lewd, sexual or indecent behavior in such non-sexual nudity there is (in my opinion) a strong probability that prosecution would be unsuccessful under existing Canadian law (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6107/Canada/ccc.html) and legal precedent -especially if you had shoes on. This would be little different from Streaking (http://www3.sympatico.ca/myriade.capucine/jurisnudite.html) , which is legal (http://www.religioustolerance.org/nudism1.htm#laws) in Canada.

-Mark

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
The public areas such as parks, on street, in the city, is frequented by people who don't want to see nudity... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket,
Are you also one of these people who want to put clothes on animals? Is animal genitalia okay to look at but humans are obscene? If so, why?

http://jersey.smugmug.com/photos/728859-S-1.jpg

Just because someone doesn't want to see something, doesn't mean their rights "to be" should be taken away. Just look away. It is sort of like "racism" against others who are different.

Trailscout

"The battleground is for public facilities, not private."

Public facilities shouldn't be a battleground at all. The minority should respect the feelings and comfort of the majority when it comes to public places.

"Stu wants nudity banned in forests. That's pretty extreme."

I've not advocated a blanket ban on all nudity in all forests. I don't see why certain specified forests or carefully segregated parts of forests couldn't be set aside for naturists (properly screened off and signposted etc). But I would find it wholly unacceptable if I were to go on a popular forest path and encounter naked people. Sorry if you think that's extreme but I think you'll find it's pretty representative of most textile opinion here in the UK.

"You might as well ban thinking about nudity if you intend to ban it in places where no one will see you."

Who said no-one should see you? Don't people (i.e. other naturists) see you when you go to a naturist beach? Or is it that for some reason you actually want to be seen by non-naturists? I hope that isn't the case!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Soundman

I know this was aimed at Rocket but here's my take on your points:

"Are you also one of these people who want to put clothes on animals? Is animal genitalia okay to look at but humans are obscene? If so, why?"

I don't particularly worry about seeing animals copulating, deffecating, urinating, eating food off the ground or even killing other animals. We accept certain behaviours from animals BECAUSE they are animals. That doesn't mean to say I would find the same sights acceptable from human beings in public places. Biologically we may be animals, but our intellect and psyche have made us very different in many ways.

"Just because someone doesn't want to see something, doesn't mean their rights "to be" should be taken away".

Nobody is advocating taking away anybody's right "to be". All that is asserted is the public places people HAVE to use and HAVE to pay for should be made as comfortable and user-friendly as possible for as many people as possible. No selfish minority should try to take away that right.

"Just look away. It is sort of like "racism" against others who are different"

Naturists aren't different any more than golfers, skiers or bassoon players. The term is merely a convenient cumulative noun referring to people who enjoy being naked among others who enjoy being naked. No-one is compelled to be a naturist. No-one is born a naturist. Naturism is simply a recreational preference enjoyed by around 2% of the population.

The Santa Barbara law seems fairest to me:

"a) It is hereby declared a public nuisance and unlawful for any person to appear on any beach, park, street or in any other public place or place open to the public or exposed to public view, including specifically a view from any private residence or any portion of the real property in the immediate vicinity of such private residence, whether such place is publicly or privately owned, unclothed or in such a state of undress as to expose, in the case of a female, any portion of her breasts below the areolas thereof or in the case of any male or female, any part of his or her pubic or anal region or genitalia."

Now - if you make an exception for designated naturist beaches, what's wrong with this wording?

Stu

[NUDKIWI]

Stu,
You have just stated that nobody is born a naturist,i have to say ive never seen a baby born with clothes on.They are born nude and with out any shame about the naked body.That shame is drummed into most children from an early age by the parents,who also had it drummed into them and so on,all because of a false sense of modesty and sexual connotations.Nudity is just a state of undress.You can be nude and modest(oh yes you can Stu)and you can be clothed and totally sexual.
And as for the Santa Barbara law on nudity,how does a mother breastfeeding get on here.Is she breaking the law by breastfeeding in public,i certainly hope not.A case of "young lady can you put your breast away your enciting lustful thoughts in our men folk" No wonder so many young ladies today choose not to breastfeed and deprive their children of the goodness of Mothers Milk and the bond it creates between mother and child.

Naturally KIWI

[Rocket]

Mark,

I saw that site on one of my searches on Google..

Sorry..our criminal code is clear..be nude and you can be arrested and charged. If you doubt, just try to do it here:

*Go to Stanley Park in Vancouver in the nude...
*Walk the streets of Calgary in the nude..
*Go to the Edmonton Mall in the nude..
*tour Niagra Falls or the Parliament Buildings au naturel..

See what happens /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Time to get the latest updates on that Football match between the Nudes and the Textiles. Last we looked it was 20-0 Textiles. Let's hear what
the announcers have to say:

Announcer1: Well..this is quite a game we have here!!! The Textiles, though playing with less than half the players have increased their lead to 25 to Nil and there is more game to play!!!

Announcer2: Yes..total domination by the Textiles..what do you attribute to the Textiles domination in this match?

Announcer1: The Textiles knew they were outmanned, but thought if they just stuck to their game plan..they would win!!! Oh...did you see that???!!!!

Announcer2: What? I must have missed it!! But the Textiles just scored another goal!!!

Announcer1: The Nudes kicked the ball to their Striker, who in turn, turned around and kicked the ball into his own net!!! It was pretty funny watching this guy jump up and down in the nude till he found out it was his own goal!!! The Textiles have scored a couple goals this way. The Nudes aren't that bright...

Announcer2: Let's see what happens next!!! They are continuing the match..the ball goes down to the Nudes end...oh geeze..now look!!!

Announcer1: The Nude is on the ground calling for a yellow card!!! Apparently he's not getting it though!! The Nude was running after the ball and the Textile apparently accidently stepped on his toe with his cleats!! That would hurt..geeze..you think these guys would at least wear cleats!!!

Announcer2: You couldn't be a Nude then....and the Textiles don't want them on their team..let's see what happens next!!!!

Announcer1: Okay...ball goes into the corner..the Nude has got it...there's an opening!! If the Nude can kick the ball to his teammate..he kicks the ball!!! Oh....geeze!!!

Announcer2: I know...I saw it!!! Those soccer balls hurt when you kick them with bare feet and the Textile was able to get it..and scored again!! The score is now 27-0. Why do these guys insist on playing football in the nude?

Announcer1: No one else can figure it out either!! You try to reason with them..the fans..no effect..they think nudity is the way it's supposed to be. You should have seen them last week in that game when it started to snow!!

Announcer2: Or the week before when..it started to pour rain!! They had to forfeit the game because it was too cold and the field was to slushy...

Announcer1: They are starting again...the Nude has the ball....he kicks it..ANOTHER OPENING!!! Oh...geeze..they blew it again!!

Announcer2: I know..I saw it..this team can't play as a team!!! Each Nude wants to do his own thing!!! If that Nude had just stayed there he might have had a scoring opportunity!!! Instead..he ran backwards and missed the pass..the Textiles have the ball...oh...penalty kick!!! The Textiles have a penalty kick!!!

Announcer1: They are taking the ball for a penalty kick..oh..there appears to be some confusion of the Nude end..

Announcer2: I see that!!! Apparently none of these guys want to guard the net in the nude with a soccer ball coming at them!!! I don't blame them though!! I wouldn't want someone to kick a soccer ball at me if I was nude!!!

Announcer1: I've never seen this before..but yes..none of the Nudes are willing to guard the net! This is going to be a penalty kick with an unmanned net!!!

Announcer2: Well..we've seen a lot we never thought we'd see...another goal...

This nude football is ridiculous!!! I wonder what will happen next.........

*********************************************

Perhaps we'll look in later and see how the game is progressing /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Public facilities shouldn't be a battleground at all. The minority should respect the feelings and comfort of the majority when it comes to public places.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The civil rights battles of the '60s and '70s in the US, which virtually everyone today agrees were rightly fought, were precisely for equal access to public facilities.

American citizens of a certain skin color found that, in large parts of the country, they couldn't use the public parks, swimming pools, schools, and other facilities for which they paid taxes. They could only ride in certain cars on the trains, though they paid the same fare as everyone else. Movie tickets cost them the same as everyone else, but they could only sit in the balcony. On a bus they had to give up their seat and move back for any white person who boarded.

Travel in the US often involves very long distances. It's a big country. American citizens of the "wrong" color had to plan car trips with great care, because it might be hours before they found a restroom they could use, a drinking fountain from which they could drink, or a motel where they were permitted to stay the night.

Sometimes "separate but equal" facilities were available, but they were never equal. Always the alternate facilities were inferior.

It's not my intention to equate the naturist struggle for reasonable opportunities on public lands with the heartbreaking trials that brought forth the civil rights movement. The two struggles are not equal. I'm simply pointing out that it's a very uninformed opionion that states that "Public facilities shouldn't be a battleground at all."

Where else would there be a struggle? There are exceptions, but in general it's not that hard from a legal point of view to buy some land, fence it in from prying eyes, and open a naturist club. The problem is that the costs involved with that automatically exclude many from participating.

It shouldn't be surprising that there are those who are equally paying their taxes to support public lands who say, "We want some access also."

There's also the further point that without continual struggle those places that have been used by naturists for generations suddenly go off limits because those of textile preference never have enough places to satisfy them. The majority are like that old saying about farmers: "The farmer is a simple man who only wants his own land and that which adjoins it." Continuing struggle for naturist uses of public places is absolutely necessary.

[Naturist Mark]

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

I saw that site on one of my searches on Google.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which of the 3 links I posted are you referring to?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Sorry..our criminal code is clear..be nude and you can be arrested and charged. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Go back and read some of the cases. The Toronto Gay Pride Day March is a case where people were nude in public and were not arrested and charged precisely because of legal precedent which the authorities knew would cause them to lose the case.

The case of the Quebec streaker rested on the decision that full nudity, not for lewd, indecent, or sexual purposes did not violate the criminal code.

That seems pretty clear.

-Mark

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Wearing clothes is such a basic and ingrained human behaviour it's as natural as eating.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A difference: If you don't eat, you die. (Not counting intravenous dripping.) If you don't wear clothes, you have other ways to keep yourself warm, and if you follow them, you don't die.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
You are still in the mindset that the only function of clothing is to protect us from the elements.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I and Bob have admitted that there are other functions, too. Of those that you listed, "covering your private parts" is the one which is not accepted at all by naturists as a reason to wear clothes. There are other applicable reasons based on body protection and sometimes practicality (e.g. need of pockets) that could lead us to the same result (the law and environment conditions permitting nudity): to wear clothes that cover our "private parts" - but not for that reason!

The "private parts" of a human body is a taboo we want to break. Covering them for the sole purpose of modesty isn't necessary. It's not a reason to use clothes. ... At least in places where you *don't expect* to encounter any other people, or people who could be offended by the sight and having an irrefutable right to use the place where they can see you. (That's not the case I expressed in my last post. Why would they have to come so near to my private place?)

Kari P

[Rocket]

Mark,

You obviously didn't read the post Cyndiann posted..

Mention was made that the Crown, in the letter the wrote to the defendant on advising that they had decided not to proceed...said that "shoes" argument wouldn't fly in court..

I suspect they decided to not prosecute because of fears of backlash for not supporting gays..things like that..

But as I said..why don't you come here and try it!!!

Take a naked walk on the Trans Canada Hwy...and see how far you get..

Sorry Mark...nudity isn't ok in Canada..and you trying to interpret it is by reading into individual decisions from the Crown demonstrates, as I've said earlier, how grossly ignorant you are of the legal system here..

Why don't you post the legal links (I'm trying to find that) on these cases you've posted? Everything is public record...and we'll see what the Crown has to say...

To let you know...I did try to look on the net for prosecutions..but as of yet I found none...we simply aren't having that many people running around here nude to prosecute or charge..but you can bet..do it..and expect to be arrested /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[b]"Mention was made that the Crown, in the letter the wrote to the defendant on advising that they had decided not to proceed...said that "shoes" argument wouldn't fly in court..

I suspect they decided to not prosecute because of fears of backlash for not supporting gays..things like that.."/b]

Suspect all you want but the judge wrote that he didn't proceed because it was his determination that the paraders weren't nude because they had shoes on. He specifically mentioned his exact reasons for it, there was no guessing.

[Bob S.]

"But educate WHO about WHAT? And HOW do you achieve it?"

Educate the non-nudists about what is and is not nudism and social nudity. There are many ways to achieve it, one is to invite them, I also think more PR needs to get done to put out the good word of nudism.

"And do people want to receive such education? Or are they going to get it whether they want it or not?"

They would have the choice to listen to the message or not. Take the invitation or not. Debate it or not. Educating the public is different than changing laws.

"I'm not sure about that. If a law was introduced that effectively legalised nudity everywhere and made it illegal to discriminate against someone for not wearing clothes, do you really believe that suddenly vast numbers of people would cast aside their clothes indoors, and outdoors on warm days?"

I never suggested that they would. All my subjective functions are preferential.

"who says it's outdated?"

Didn't I just say it was outdated?

"But it's too hit and miss, too inconsistent."

So too many people are allowed to roam around your country naked?

"please try to be a little nicer to Rocket."

You accept our points and debate them. She just dismisses them and demeans them.

"Public facilities shouldn't be a battleground at all."

The public arena is our battleground. Nude beaches are too few. You even agreed that we do not have enough places to go naked. Now you don't want us to fight for that right anymore?

"No-one is born a naturist."

Not in that sense of the word. But we are all born naked. If you give a two-year-old the choice to run around naked or with clothes, which do you think they will choose? In the day care where I work, the preschool bathroom is just three toilets with no privacy. Boys and girls use the bathroom at the same time. They do not care. They have not fully accepted that nudity should be hidden. My guess is by around the age of seven or eight, if the children have not been raised in a nudist household, they start to become more modest in regards to privacy with their nudity. And that is learned by watching their parents and listening to what they tell them.

We have to be taught to put clothes on. We have to be taught when it is aceptable and when it is not. If no one tells a young child when to put clothes on, my guess is that they will rarely do so.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Rocket,

To post a URL, go to the location bar of your browser. Click on the address until it highlighted. Press down the buttons ctrl C. That will copy the URL into your computer's clipboard (kind of like short-term memory). When you start to write your message, press down the buttons ctrl V. You should then see the web address on the message screen. Note-this is for PCs. I am not sure if that works for Macs.

"Total nonsense to think this country is going to support public nudity.."

That's what they told Galileo when he dared to say that the Earth revolves around the sun.

"Perhaps we'll look in later and see how the game is progressing"

Rocket, this isn't a game. It is a serious discussion. There are no winners or losers. Stop attempting to keep score.

"I suspect they decided to not prosecute because of fears of backlash for not supporting gays..things like that."

So a judge is going to be swayed by a minority group? A judge is going to let a group of people decide for him how he is going to proceed in a case? You are accusing this judge of illegal conduct. This case was not about ciivil rights, it was about public nudity. That issue covers the entire population. And Gary has said that he has been naked in his yard and (I believe) gone to get gas in his car whilst naked. And he hasn't been arrested yet.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

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

You obviously didn't read the post Cyndiann posted.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mention was made that the Crown, in the letter the wrote to the defendant on advising that they had decided not to proceed...said that "shoes" argument wouldn't fly in court..

I suspect they decided to not prosecute because of fears of backlash for not supporting gays..things like that.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I suspect they declined to prosecute because of previous case precedent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Sorry Mark...nudity isn't ok in Canada.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps not socially 'OK', but in the absence of indecent, lewd or sexual intent it isn't illegal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and you trying to interpret it is by reading into individual decisions from the Crown demonstrates, as I've said earlier, how grossly ignorant you are of the legal system here.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Individual decisions are how case law is made.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why don't you post the legal links (I'm trying to find that) on these cases you've posted? Everything is public record...and we'll see what the Crown has to say... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have done that in some cases.

In other cases I've had to rely on expert commentary and media reports. Although all case law is public record, it is not all available on the internet unless some third party chooses to publish it. As you know legal publishing is a thriving private business which has no interest in putting case law on the internet for free. (As an amusing/alarming aside, one company in the US - Westlaw publishing- unsuccessfully attempted to assert copyright ownership over all US case law.)

I am not aware of any free online depository of Canadian case law, but there is abundant commentary and analysis available among the chaff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To let you know...I did try to look on the net for prosecutions..but as of yet I found none...we simply aren't having that many people running around here nude to prosecute or charge..but you can bet..do it..and expect to be arrested /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps you aren't finding the cases because people aren't being arrested. From media accounts Streaking doesn't seem uncommon in Canada, yet people don't seem to be prosecuted for it. Why do you suppose that is?

-Mark

[Rocket]

Mark,

Streaking had it's heyday in Canada in the 70s..as a fad..it's gone now..

If there was this "streaking" going on...I would read of it in papers (I live in a major city)..and there would be reports on the news...

And there is NONE...

As I said...if you think public nudity is within the law here...then come and try it and we'll see how far you get..

As I said...there was a nude jogger in this neighborhood..and the Police were dispatched and a bulletin published in the paper with a number to call on him..

Now..if he had done NOTHING wrong..that wouldn't have happened would it?

If someone called the Police because someone was jogging the neighborhood in shorts and T-Shirt..they wouldn't have responded.

I live here..you don't (have you ever been here?) and I suspect with that I am a little bit more familar with what you can/can't do around here..

On what I've been reading on the net, the nudity charge is very seldom leveled..the Police will go for the Indecency Charge instead..if they decide to charge. They don't necessarily charge...

Anyway...you have my personal invitation to vacation here in Canada au naturel. Go see Niagra Falls nude...walk around Toronto..or see the CN Tower in the buff and we'll see who is right/wrong.

You might enjoy a hockey game in the nude...or you could see the Toronto Blue Jays nude as well. Just make sure you've got shoes on..and you'll be ok /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Rocket]

BobS,

Thanks for the advise on the computer..

Curious....since you see the public as your "battleground" for nudity..why be HERE?

Are you talking to your Congressman/woman about what you want?

Have you spoken to City Hall?

Why don't you talk to them...tell them it isn't right about being forced to be clothed in public..see what they say...

Perhaps you could get it on a ballot or something..and then it would be voted on..

I wouldn't predict a positive outcome though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Mark,
If there was this "streaking" going on...I would read of it in papers (I live in a major city)..and there would be reports on the news...

And there is NONE... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One (http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/021108/6/q41w.html)
Two (http://www.streaking.co.uk/relatednewsmontrealexpostreaker.htm)
Three (http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS2000Canada/photo2.html)
Four (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam030808/cfl_cal-cp.html)

These are all news reports of Sporting Event streakers. They can be prosecuted, not for nudity, but for "interfering with public property". The streaking is not illegal, but trespassing and interfering with a sporting event is.

Perhaps you don't read much about people being charged for streaking in parks or college campuses because they are not in front of national media and are not being arrested.

-Mark

[Rocket]

You quote 3 (one didn't count because he actually wasn't nude) of how many games..and over how many years?

Sounds like we don't have a streaking problem..

OK..maybe not zero (none)like I said....but not enough to matter....and perhaps they were drinking so they didn't know what they were doing..

BTW...you've got too much time on your hands if you can look for obscure incidences of someone being nude here..

My invitation still stands...if you think it's within the law the be publicly nude here..come for a vacation and we'll see. Bring Cyndiann with you as well. Go for a nude walk or jog around Stanley Park in Vancouver (Bill Clinton and Mick Jagger did clothed ones there)..and see if anything happens.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

"Curious....since you see the public as your "battleground" for nudity..why be HERE?"

Why are you here? You don't seem to embody any of the naturist values.

"Are you talking to your Congressman/woman about what you want?
Have you spoken to City Hall?"

I admit that I haven't. I need more people for that, and so far I haven't found enough. I am also not very good with public speaking or organizing things. My other problem lies with Pat Robertson, who lives down the street from me.

"tell them it isn't right about being forced to be clothed in public"

That is not what I would start with. We have to start small and build up from there. First would be inquiring about a nude beach, something that is lacking in Virginia.

Bob S.

[Rocket]

BobS,

OK...let's talk of this nude beach...

What do you have in mind?

I don't have a problem with a CO optional beach if it's hidden from view...and of course...if the beach is presently not being used by what you call "Textiles" because making it clothing optional might not be fair to them.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BobS...if "naturalist values" are public nudity despite what the public wants...then I don't share those values. I don't believe in imposing things...I really think you and your group are asking for the unreasonable..

Even you know that...which is why you wouldn't want to address City Hall with a petition to make your town CO. It would fall flat...and also would keep you from your objective of a nude beach..

Anyway...you really should talk to THEM..because they can make it happen (maybe). But to sit and stew..and wait for someone else means what you want probably won't happen...and if you do..be reasonable rather than an "all or nothing" approach..because you'll most likely get nothing. It's the Textiles who can give you what you want...but don't put their back up against the wall /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I don't believe in imposing things... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then why are you imposing your dress code on us?

We could care less how you dress. If we don't want to see you, we look the other way out of respect.

[Trailscout]

Excerpt of the transcript from the April 31st broadcast of the 700 Club:
Pat Robertson read a prepared statement:
"The Christian Church by and large has been plain wrong about nudity. Nudity is the natural state that God intended for humanity, but somewhere along the way, the church lost this simple truth that God's creation is good and complete just the way he made it, nude! Now I know it's a shock to some of you, but if you'll take a closer look at the book of Genesis, you'll see that body shame did not come from God, but was the byproduct of Adam and Eve's shame over their sin. The church never should have taught us to be ashamed of our bodies, but hurtful elements of Greek philosophy crept into the church in the years immediately following the death of the apostles and we have been been ashamed of what God called good ever since.

So I am proposing that we create a little bit of the Garden of Eden right here in Virginia Beach. I am asking all our 700 Club listeners to send in as much money as they feel led, to help us publicize our proposal to set aside part of Virginia Beach as an area for wholesome nude recreation. Let's rename it Eden Beach. Now we'll also need all our viewers to contact city and county officials to let them know how much tourism Eden Beach would bring to our fair city, so send those faxes and e-mails showing your support!" Editor's note: The studio audience burst into thunderous applause.

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

OK...let's talk of this nude beach...

What do you have in mind?

I don't have a problem with a CO optional beach if it's hidden from view...and of course...if the beach is presently not being used by what you call "Textiles" because making it clothing optional might not be fair to them.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BobS...if "naturalist values" are public nudity despite what the public wants...then I don't share those values. I don't believe in imposing things...I really think you and your group are asking for the unreasonable..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See this? http://sffb.com/images/frameHaulover.jpg

This is Haulover Beach. See those tall buildings in the background? That is because Haulover is a C/O beach right in the middle of a big city, Miami.

What you say can't be done has already been done. We pay taxes and we deserve beaches because we pay the taxes that support those beaches. One day you will grow up and pay taxes and you can ask for what you want. Until then you have no right to tell anyone how and where to have a beach.

Oh, and naturalist values have nothing to do with nudity. A naturalist is a field biologist. We are naturists.

You need to take your smart little mouth that claims to know more than people who have degrees in law and wash it out with soap. You are nasty, ignorant and are constantly making yourself look like the spoiled brat you are. Shame on you for being so nasty to people who probably don't want you here anyway.

Discussions aren't games, nobody keeps score and you aren't "winning" anything. Every time you post I (or someone) prove you wrong. Like them toes I guess.... they must be tastie.

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Excerpt of the transcript from the April 31st broadcast of the 700 Club:
Pat Robertson read a prepared statement:
"The Christian Church by and large has been plain wrong about nudity. Nudity is the natural state that God intended for humanity, but somewhere along the way, the church lost this simple truth that God's creation is good and complete just the way he made it, nude! Now I know it's a shock to some of you, but if you'll take a closer look at the book of Genesis, you'll see that body shame did not come from God, but was the byproduct of Adam and Eve's shame over their sin. The church never should have taught us to be ashamed of our bodies, but hurtful elements of Greek philosophy crept into the church in the years immediately following the death of the apostles and we have been been ashamed of what God called good ever since.

So I am proposing that we create a little bit of the Garden of Eden right here in Virginia Beach. I am asking all our 700 Club listeners to send in as much money as they feel led, to help us publicize our proposal to set aside part of Virginia Beach as an area for wholesome nude recreation. Let's rename it Eden Beach. Now we'll also need all our viewers to contact city and county officials to let them know how much tourism Eden Beach would bring to our fair city, so send those faxes and e-mails showing your support!" Editor's note: The studio audience burst into thunderous applause. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please tell me where you got this? Your source. I see it nowhere else on the net. Thanks!

Yes, I would like to know if that is actually something Pat Robertson said.

Cyndiann,

Very good post! I agree with it wholeheartedly!

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by soundman:
Please tell me where you got this? Your source. I see it nowhere else on the net. Thanks! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, come on! You guys have been seeing Trailscout's rich humor for as long as I have. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Trailscout]

Well Jon-Marc and others, April 31st is a day on my calendar, but I don't know anyone else in the world with a calendar like that.

I know Pat Robertson is pretty conservative, but one can always hope that Rush Limbaugh will take him aside and set him straight about social nudity. For all his conservative ways, Rush learned, apparently firsthand in Europe that social nudity is "no big deal".

I would LOVE to see some Christian media figure come out and advocate wholesome nude recreation.

For an increasing number of Christians, nude is the way we were meant to live and is eminently compatible with other facets of Christian living.

So here's hoping that Virginia Beach will one day have a nude section and yeah, let's name it, "Eden Beach"!

luvnaturism

?The civil rights battles of the '60s and '70s in the US, which virtually everyone today agrees were rightly fought, were precisely for equal access to public facilities?.

The circumstances were wholly different. A person?s colour isn?t something they choose, nor something they can choose to change. I?m not advocating banning naturists from anywhere ? just nudity.

?Sometimes "separate but equal" facilities were available, but they were never equal. Always the alternate facilities were inferior.?

And that was plainly wrong. Naturists facilities should be every bit as good and as accessible as those for textiles. But that doesn?t mean to say that you should spoil the pleasure of the majority in order to grant a slightly greater choice to a tiny minority.

"Public facilities shouldn't be a battleground at all."

What I meant by that was that there are alternatives to ?battles? ? and those alternatives should make everybody happy. Permitting public nudity only satisfies a small minority.

?There are exceptions, but in general it's not that hard from a legal point of view to buy some land, fence it in from prying eyes, and open a naturist club. The problem is that the costs involved with that automatically exclude many from participating?.

I agree. You pay your taxes and you should have a fair allocation of beach-space etc. But from visiting this site I see that there seems to be plenty of places for naturists in the US. Cyndiann just posted a picture of one such beach close to the centre of Miami. What more do you want?

?There's also the further point that without continual struggle those places that have been used by naturists for generations suddenly go off limits because those of textile preference never have enough places to satisfy them.?

Now this is a fair and persuasive argument and one that you should win. It is upon cases such as this that you should be focussing your energies ? and not trying to demand the right to be naked anywhere you like.

?Continuing struggle for naturist uses of public places is absolutely necessary?

This is a ?struggle? you can?t hope to win and the pursuit of it is manner from heaven to your opponents. They will say that you won?t be satisfied with more facilities so why should you be given any. That will persuade those who presently have a benign and tolerant attitude to you that you are really rather extreme and unreasonable, and they?ll dig in against you. Most people don?t want to encounter nudity in public. Foist it upon them at your peril!

Kari

?A difference: If you don't eat, you die. (Not counting intravenous dripping.) If you don't wear clothes, you have other ways to keep yourself warm, and if you follow them, you don't die.?
In most climates and in most circumstances you can?t practically live without clothing any more than a person who can?t eat can?t live without drip-feeding. You would have to have someone to go out for you and bring you food and other requirements, someone to provide the heating, someone to take away the waste materials ? and if the heating broke down in winter you would be in trouble. Clothes aren?t a luxury, Kari, they are a necessity for the vast majority of the world?s population.
?Of those that you listed, "covering your private parts" is the one which is not accepted at all by naturists as a reason to wear clothes?.

No but it is accepted by textiles ? and textiles form the great majority of people in the world.

?The "private parts" of a human body is a taboo we want to break. Covering them for the sole purpose of modesty isn't necessary. It's not a reason to use clothes.?

Most people feel differently to you about that. The idea of allowing others to see them naked is unthinkable. This ?taboo? is a value most people don?t want you to break ? thanks!

? ... At least in places where you *don't expect* to encounter any other people, or people who could be offended by the sight and having an irrefutable right to use the place where they can see you.?

I?m sorry, Kari, I don?t understand what you mean here. If you look at my suggested law you will see that I propose that it would not be an offence to be naked in a very remote place where you genuinely didn?t expect to be seen by others who might be offended. If someone did come along who might be offended, then, provided you did what you could to conceal your private parts, there would still not be an offence.

Bob S

?Educate the non-nudists about what is and is not nudism and social nudity.?

I don?t have a problem with that. I think, if there is a lack of such knowledge, then there is a benefit in people being informed.

?There are many ways to achieve it, one is to invite them, I also think more PR needs to get done to put out the good word of nudism.?

I agree. I think that to achieve this you MUST preserve and defend the good reputation of organised nudity. This means going that ?extra mile? to prevent people being offended and distancing yourselves from the more extreme elements who try to fasten themselves to your bandwagon.

"They would have the choice to listen to the message or not. Take the invitation or not. Debate it or not. Educating the public is different than changing laws.?

I agree.

"Didn't I just say it was outdated??

A social phenomenon is only outdated if it is clung onto by an ever shrinking minority. An aversion/opposition to nudity in public is still the norm, Bob, so it ain?t outdated. Sorry to disappoint you.

"So too many people are allowed to roam around your country naked??

Yes! Mr Bethell got away with it because the law wasn?t clear. Some of Mr Gough?s charges have fallen by the wayside because the police and Crown Prosecutors weren?t sure how to respond. The same applies to nude protesters trying to gain press attention and also streakers making spectacles of themselves. These things need to be dealt with firmly, forcefully and with consistency.

?The public arena is our battleground. Nude beaches are too few. You even agreed that we do not have enough places to go naked. Now you don't want us to fight for that right anymore??

Of course I do, Bob! See what I said about this to luvnaturism, above.

"Not in that sense of the word. But we are all born naked. If you give a two-year-old the choice to run around naked or with clothes, which do you think they will choose??

Actually, none of my kids ever did run around naked. Nakedness was a state you were in for the bath only ? not elsewhere. So I don?t know.

?In the day care where I work, the preschool bathroom is just three toilets with no privacy. Boys and girls use the bathroom at the same time. They do not care. They have not fully accepted that nudity should be hidden. My guess is by around the age of seven or eight, if the children have not been raised in a nudist household, they start to become more modest in regards to privacy with their nudity. And that is learned by watching their parents and listening to what they tell them.?

But do we decide upon appropriate adult behaviour by watching children? Our children take on the social norms and values of their parents and it?s natural that they do. You will know from dealing with children that they often display annoyance with each other by hitting their friends. That?s natural too. But it isn?t something we encourage ? or even allow ? among adults. It?s the same with public nudity. Who cares if a 2 year old is running about naked on a beach? Nobody. Who cares if an adult is running about naked on a beach? If it?s not a naturist beach ? practically everybody!

Stu

[Rocket]

Cyndiann,

Your attempts to prove what I say is wrong are funny..

The tree bends two ways...as admitted by others here..there's nude beaches way out in the middle of nowhere...and none at all as well..and they are FAR more prevalent.

Curious..that picture you took...

Was it the gay area? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Trailscout, That's what I get for not reading more closely. I thought it sounded too good to be true. Oh well, we can always hope.

[luvnaturism]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
....But from visiting this site I see that there seems to be plenty of places for naturists in the US. Cyndiann just posted a picture of one such beach close to the centre of Miami. What more do you want?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've been to Haulover Beach in Miami, and it's very nice. It's also about 3,500 miles/5,600+ kilometers from where I live. By car you'd want to allow six or seven days each way. I was hoping for something a little more convenient.

[Rocket]

Soundman,

Sorry...but it's majority rule..and most people don't want to be confronted with nudity..

As I've said many times...if you don't like it..LEAVE..

I would LEAVE if this area went CO and I was confronted with nudity all the time. Stu feels the same way..

I don't see CO becoming the thing around here though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[soundman]

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

Sorry...but it's majority rule..and most people don't want to be confronted with nudity..

As I've said many times...if you don't like it..LEAVE..

I would LEAVE if this area went CO and I was confronted with nudity all the time. Stu feels the same way..

I don't see CO becoming the thing around here though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, you and Stu are not the majority HERE. How do you like that? If you feel the majority is always right. Well then, we are right here. Right?

Was the majority right in the 50's in the south when blacks were persecuted? Prejudice people didn't want to see them or be confronted with them either.

Majority is not always right. Is "Majority Rules" the only argument you have? Is there any substance as to why people need to get dressed to go swimming besides the majority rules?

luvnaturism

"I've been to Haulover Beach in Miami, and it's very nice. It's also about 3,500 miles/5,600+ kilometers from where I live. By car you'd want to allow six or seven days each way. I was hoping for something a little more convenient."

Is there nowhere nearer for you? You need to organise - get together with other naturists and campaign for proper facilities. Good luck!

Stu

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
?A difference: If you don't eat, you die. (Not counting intravenous dripping.) If you don't wear clothes, you have other ways to keep yourself warm, and if you follow them, you don't die.?
In most climates and in most circumstances you can?t practically live without clothing any more than a person who can?t eat can?t live without drip-feeding.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Remember the context! This was my comment on you saying: "Wearing clothes is such a basic and ingrained human behaviour it's as natural as eating." Wearing clothes is NOT a basic need because a human can live without them, if environment conditions are adjusted to allow nudity. This physical fact cannot be nullified with the legal and social facts you refer to.

Is it ingrained behaviour then? Because there are so much people, us naturists, who have found that there is an alternative to the standard way of life with clothes, it isn't ingrained. And is it natural to wear clothes? That depends essentially on the definition of natural.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
?The "private parts" of a human body is a taboo we want to break. Covering them for the sole purpose of modesty isn't necessary. It's not a reason to use clothes.?

Most people feel differently to you about that. The idea of allowing others to see them naked is unthinkable. This ?taboo? is a value most people don?t want you to break ? thanks!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is a cultural thing, learned in the early childhood often in the way that the child never can think of a different world. The mission of naturism is to learn to people that there is a fully logical alternative. Taboo breaking means just the speach about a taboo. Do you mean that we may not tell people that there are no "private parts" of the human body that should nearly always be covered?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
? ... At least in places where you *don't expect* to encounter any other people, or people who could be offended by the sight and having an irrefutable right to use the place where they can see you.?

I?m sorry, Kari, I don?t understand what you mean here. If you look at my suggested law you will see that I propose that it would not be an offence to be naked in a very remote place where you genuinely didn?t expect to be seen by others who might be offended. If someone did come along who might be offended, then, provided you did what you could to conceal your private parts, there would still not be an offence.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Think about your law: Is it fair to a naturist or a group of naturists that honestly believing they had found a good place to be naked, if they have to move or cover up immediately when someone unexpectedly comes, says to be offended by nudity and requires them to conceal their private parts? If that person him/herself has a choice to use some other place near by, but not an inevitable need or irrefutable right to use the very same place that was already occupied by naturists, shouldn't he/she move instead?

Isn't it fair to take into account the order of occupation, as we do normally in life? Why naturists should be second class citizens? Your law is discriminative if you don't make any adjustments to it to be fair.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Actually, none of my kids ever did run around naked. Nakedness was a state you were in for the bath only ? not elsewhere. So I don?t know.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sad that your kids never have had the freedom to run naked. Nor they have been breast-fed. Your way of upbringing is not at all natural. I cannot think about how you can justify it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Our children take on the social norms and values of their parents and it?s natural that they do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are talking about the values of parents of your kind. Are their healthy values for the children?

Kari P

[Rocket]

SoundMan,

It's not difficult to understand..

Our culture isn't nudity..

Our culture in clothes..

To do what you want means to change our culture..and we simply don't want to do that...and majority rules..

You are free to either:

*Form a culture within a culture. An example would be to move to a Nudist Resort..or through developement, create a nudist town..

*Leave to another area. IE: one of these Third World Countries where the people are nude..and then do what you want.

We also live in a Democratic Society...so we could put the matter up for vote. A simple question:

Should people have the option of being nude in public areas if they wish...vote YES or NO

I wouldn't be afraid of that plebisite (sp?)...

BTW...to compare public nudity to the trials and tribulations of the blacks (re: slavery, descrimination, lynching, cross burnings, the Klu Klux Klan) makes what you think appear idiotic and absurd to a thinkiing person..if these things were going on against the nudists, you would have a valid argument.

[soundman]

Are you saying our culture is stuck in time. It can never change? Our culture was horse riding farmers a hundred years ago. Now we drive cars and fly. How's that for change?

If we ever just go for a walk not dressed according to your dress code, we would get beat up, yelled at, locked up for months as proven by the very brave Steve Gough. That is why we must hide at all costs. How long do we have to hide? Why can't you just look the other way and be tolerant?

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
BTW...to compare public nudity to the trials and tribulations of the blacks (re: slavery, descrimination, lynching, cross burnings, the Klu Klux Klan) makes what you think appear idiotic and absurd to a thinkiing person.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Surely a thinking person would think about such an idea and if they disagreed they would articulate the reasons why they disagreed. A non-thinking person however would just say that such an idea was idiotic or absurd.

Rik

BTW, the period key on your keyboard still seems to be sticking.

Kari

"Wearing clothes is NOT a basic need because a human can live without them, if environment conditions are adjusted to allow nudity. This physical fact cannot be nullified with the legal and social facts you refer to."

So what? People can live without food if they are given an alternative(e.g. drip-feeding), they can live without air (e.g. an oxygen/helium mix that deep-sea divers use). Some form of covering to protect the body from the elements is just as necessary as something to sustain the need for nutrician and something to sustain breathing. There is one difference - in a very few climates of the world there are peoples who do survive without ever wearing clothes. But they make up a minute proportion of the world's populaton. For the rest of us clothing is absolutely essential to sustain normal life, health and comfort.

"Is it ingrained behaviour then? Because there are so much people, us naturists, who have found that there is an alternative to the standard way of life with clothes, it isn't ingrained."

But most naturists wear clothes most of the time. What naturists have done is chosen to overcome the ingrained resistance to seeing naked people and allowing yourselves to be seen naked. But you have chosen to do that. Most people have chosen not to.

"It is a cultural thing, learned in the early childhood often in the way that the child never can think of a different world. The mission of naturism is to learn to people that there is a fully logical alternative".

People know there is an alternative. Everyone knows what naturism is about - that some people spend part of their free time naked among other naked people. But the majority choose not to pursue that passtime. You should accept that. Enjoy your naturism and abandon your mission to convert the rest of us.

"Taboo breaking means just the speach about a taboo. Do you mean that we may not tell people that there are no "private parts" of the human body that should nearly always be covered?"

There are private parts of the body because people choose to keep them private - and they want others not to display theirs when in public. You can tell people what you think about this, yes. But when they still choose to keep certain parts private then you have your answer. Accept it.

"Think about your law: Is it fair to a naturist or a group of naturists that honestly believing they had found a good place to be naked, if they have to move or cover up immediately when someone unexpectedly comes, says to be offended by nudity and requires them to conceal their private parts?"

Yes. Because we live in a society where the wearing of clothes is the accepted norm, nudity causes shock and offence and also because there are places set aside expressly for nudists.

"If that person him/herself has a choice to use some other place near by, but not an inevitable need or irrefutable right to use the very same place that was already occupied by naturists, shouldn't he/she move instead?"

The fact that oneperson is there first doesn't give them he right to decide what is and is not acceptable at that location. There has to be a clear rule and a rule that is not going to cause argument about who was here first etc.
"Isn't it fair to take into account the order of occupation, as we do normally in life?"

No. Clothing, not nudity, is the default position. As I said, that would give naturists a right to go pretty much where they pleased and, so long as they were there first, everyone else would have to put up with them. hat's totally unacceptable.

"Why naturists should be second class citizens? Your law is discriminative if you don't make any adjustments to it to be fair."

Naturists can use any beach anywhere they want. They are free to remove almost all their clothing and enjoy the beach along with everyone else. What is being controlled is where one can be totally naked. That should only be permitted where no offence would be caused.

"I am sad that your kids never have had the freedom to run naked. Nor they have been breast-fed. Your way of upbringing is not at all natural. I cannot think about how you can justify it."

They are healthy, lively and highly intelligent kids. They are well-balanced, highly motivated and happy. How can you improve upon that?

"We are talking about the values of parents of your kind. Are their healthy values for the children?"

So tell me exactly what you think might be wrong with my children, Kari. How could they have turned out better had I done things differently?

My kids have my values and they are thriving. I'm proud of them.

Stu

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

Sorry...but it's majority rule..and most people don't want to be confronted with nudity..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Prove it!

We don't pass laws here or in Canada by what the majority thinks or wants.

[gamblefish]

I wonder if people in Victorian times had similar arguments...

Victorian Rebel: "I would like to go swimming with just a covering for my loins...would you all mind?"

Victorian Stagnators: "What?!!! You've got to be kidding!!! Face it loser Victorian Rebel, our society does not accept arms and legs being bared for the sake of anything...it promotes...NUDITY!! It promotes...FORNICATION!!! It promotes...UNSPEAKABLE EVILS!!! Next thing you know, you will be suggesting we take our baths COMPLETELY NAKED!!! Ohhhhhhhhh the HORROR!!!!! Why don't you just go back to where you came from and leave us civilized people alone to stew in our own stagnation!!!!! Away with you!!!!!!

[Rocket]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by soundman:
Are you saying our culture is stuck in time. It can never change? Our culture was horse riding farmers a hundred years ago. Now we drive cars and fly. How's that for change?

If we ever just go for a walk not dressed according to your dress code, we would get beat up, yelled at, locked up for months as proven by the very brave Steve Gough. That is why we must hide at all costs. How long do we have to hide? Why can't you just look the other way and be tolerant? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>SoundMan,

Our society has changed...once we didn't have cars..and now we do. Once we didn't have airplanes, and now we do. Microwaves weren't always here..but now they are. I could give you more..but THROUGH IT ALL we are clothed. Show me ONE country where public nudity is the norm, and clothes are the exception. If there's any, well, I sure don't know. Even India, one of the poorest countries in the World, it is standard to have clothes. The only examples you could possibly point to are obscure tribes in some Third World country...but that isn't the whole country, and I suspect the reason they are nude is because they simply have no money to buy clothes...and UNICEF hasn't seen them yet.

You are right..you walk around here nude..you'll probably get beat up. People will think you're some sort of pervert who likes to expose himself. Or, at the least, they'll call the Police, and I can promise you (inspite of what Cyndiann and Marc will tell you) you'll be arrested.

Towards tolerance and looking the other way, it only goes so far. This same argument could be applied to public sex, masturbating in public, urination, even bestiality. Why not allow Nazi symbols in public or graphic pictures of people murdered? After all, one CAN LOOK the other way on that as well.

People have the right to use public facilities without being confronted with things they find offensive. A majority of people, and don't ask me to publish some poll, find public nudity offensive, and because of that, it's not allowed.

We aren't asking you to hide, we are asking you to respect our feelings, and our customs. Our customs are clothes..too bad you don't like it. You can be nude at home all you want; a fenced yard that's private; a private club; other areas...but you'll exist with our tolerance...and if you try to push then expect a fight..

There's that Terra Heuate (might have spelling wrong) resort outside of LA that's CO. Do you think those that go to this place would venture out of it nude? What do you think would happen if they continually did? Do you think this resort would continue to operate?

It would close down because there would be public uproar..and I hope you know that..

Anyway, as I said, if you don't like it then you can leave (no one forcing you to stay here like what was done with the Blacks in slavery times)....or you can form your own subculture and even town. You can move to a nudist resort if you want as well.....but public nudity..NEVER..that's simply not an option.

BTW..those swims I've been to. They are held at regular pools. Guess what? For the nude swims they cover the windows so people can't see in from the outside. I wonder why.......

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
For the nude swims they cover the windows so people can't see in from the outside. I wonder why....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They cover the windows becuase of people like you who are "offended" by other lifestyles. We are then protected from others like you.

We accept your lifestyle. Your don't accept ours. You are right. There is nothing we can do. You are the ones who are in control.

[Bob S.]

Rocket, Virginia Beach has two distinct areas, the northern, suburban area. Highly developed, very populous. And the southern area (Pungo), rural with farms and vast open spaces where development is heavily regulated and, in some places, not allowed. In Pungo, I'm sure there are many areas that one could go skinny-dipping. There is also a state park called First Landing State Park. I'm sure there could also be some beaches there that would be favorable for nudity.

As I have stated, the presence of the head of the Christian Coalition is a major negative for nude beaches. There would be virtually nil chance of convincing this highly conservative government to give us our small strip of sand.

".if "naturalist values" are public nudity despite what the public wants...then I don't share those values."

You really are not knwoledgeable of naturist values. They are basically enjoying being naked and accepting of everyone else's opinion, even if you do not agree with them. Again, like stu, you have either not understood anything I have written or just refuse to.

"I really think you and your group are asking for the unreasonable.."

We are asking for more areas to enjoy being naked. stu has supported this and agrees that we have woefully few places.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"there's nude beaches way out in the middle of nowhere...and none at all as well..and they are FAR more prevalent."

I am going to try to figure out what you are saying. That nude beaches in the middle of nowhere do or do not exist?

And with stu's law, even if did everything we could to not be seen, if we were seen, it would be a crime.

"and I suspect the reason they are nude is because they simply have no money to buy clothes...and UNICEF hasn't seen them yet."

Wrong Rocket. They are naked because that is their culture, uninfluenced by those misionaries who wish to convert them to theri own beliefs. If we had our cultural sensibiities that we do now back when we were discovering these cultures, they would still be naked. We would have a lot better insight into nudity than we do now. It was those missionaries who forced their own morality on the culture.

Many cultures have succumbed to cultrual genocide. ie conversion.

Bob S.

Bob - look at my proposed law again. If nudists are in a remote, non-naturist place and they have no reason to believe that they will be seen then they are guilty of nothing provided they are prepared to cover up if requested to do so. That is more than reasonable.

Stu

[Kari P]

Stu,

"But most naturists wear clothes most of the time."

Most people who call themselves naturists are naked quite a lot - always when possible and practical.

"What naturists have done is chosen to overcome the ingrained resistance to seeing naked people and allowing yourselves to be seen naked."

You have that resistance, but it is not present even in the most textile people. See how eagerly they are viewing nakedness in magazines and movies, and how some come dressed to clothes-optional beaches.

For those people who have such resistance, it's a learned thing. Learned as a child from one's parents attitudes, just in the way you have learned your children. I know you would say that the resistance comes from the culture, but no, it doesn't.

"Everyone knows what naturism is about - that some people spend part of their free time naked among other naked people."

You know that much and perhaps many other textiles know, but this isn't the whole thing about naturism, which is a an all-inclusive lifestyle where nudity plays a great role.

"But the majority choose not to pursue that passtime. You should accept that."

I accept.

"Enjoy your naturism and abandon your mission to convert the rest of us."

I don't stop speaking about naturism. If it results to a "conversion" of an individual, good. Regarding the most people, I am satisfied if we get some tolerance to our ways.

"But when they still choose to keep certain parts private then you have your answer. Accept it."

Accepted by myself and the mainstream naturists in the way that we are not coming naked to the streets and other really public places. But not in the way that we couldn't be naked in any place where someone could see us.

"Because we live in a society where the wearing of clothes is the accepted norm, nudity causes shock and offence and also because there are places set aside expressly for nudists."

There are very few places, you know. That much shock and offence that nudity causes on you, it doesn't on most people.

The thing was fairness. Your law allows very unfair handling of naturists. Your don't see it as unfair but I see.

"The fact that oneperson is there first doesn't give them he right to decide what is and is not acceptable at that location."

Yes and no. Not about everything they do. But occupying temporarily a place in the quiet free nature or another not-very-public place should be a right that exists equally to non-naturists and naturists. Even if they are seen by a person who says to be offended by nudity, there should be no legal right to get them away. The landowner may have that right (Not in Finland! Here we have every one's right to walk in forests etc. Cannot handle this in detail here.) but not a passer-by who just wants to harass the naturists.

"There has to be a clear rule and a rule that is not going to cause argument about who was here first etc."

The clear rule is that in principle non-sexual nudity is allowed. Accepted that the law may list specific places where it is not allowed.

With no adjustments to make your law fairer your law seems not to be acceptable by naturists. I would not accept it.

"They are healthy, lively and highly intelligent kids. They are well-balanced, highly motivated and happy. How can you improve upon that?"

Could they still be more happy with more freedom of clothing and knowledge of body parts gained in the natural way - by seeing?

"My kids have my values and they are thriving. I'm proud of them."

Be proud. You have the indisputable right to bring your children up and to teach your own values to them.

This link has already given to you. Could you once more look at it because it explains what I mean by the healthiness of naturism:
http://naturist.com/resources/205_069.htm

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
A majority of people, and don't ask me to publish some poll, find public nudity offensive, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But if you're so certain then why can't you back up your claim with some published evidence?

Or perhaps what you're really saying is "IN MY OPINION a majority of people...etc" in which case we'll take no notice because so far your opinion has proven to be nothing more than ill-informed prejudice expressed with an astonishing lack of grammatical ability (for someone who claims to have a university education).

Rik

[shãybare]

Rik, is that a nice thing to say? I know it's down right funny since I have a weird sense of humor, but is that a nice thing to say? haha

[Bob S.]

"If nudists are in a remote, non-naturist place and they have no reason to believe that they will be seen then they are guilty of nothing"

That is where it should end. Without using the majority excuse, your mantra, what is wrong with two people making this long, arduous trek just to get away from anyone else who may even remotely think that what they are doing is wrong? They have fulfilled the most important part of the law, avoidance of the general public. And they have no reason to believe that they will be seen by anyone but the birds and the squirrels.

And why should such times be covered by any law? It is the choice of the other person to stay or go. What if they were there, away from all people, with a chicken in hand, killing that chicken for the barbecue? Someone may find that offensive, but should they have that right?

Bob S.

Kari

?Most people who call themselves naturists are naked quite a lot - always when possible and practical.?

I admit I?m no expert on naturism or naturists, but I would gladly wager that many, if not most, naturists are I reality ?holiday naturists? who generally stay fully clothed at home and enjoy naturism simply as a holiday activity.

"You have that resistance, but it is not present even in the most textile people.?

Most textile people are quite happy to see nudity on TV or in a newspaper ? BUT ? they know that they can switch off the TV or close the newspaper. They know that they can control what their children see on TV and read in newspapers to some extent. But there is no censorship for nudity in public places. It is either allowed or it?s not. I am convinced that most textiles agree that it shouldn?t be.

?For those people who have such resistance, it's a learned thing. Learned as a child from one's parents attitudes, just in the way you have learned your children. I know you would say that the resistance comes from the culture, but no, it doesn't.?

You are right and I am right. It is a learned thing, but our culture encourages us to learn it and teach it to our children.

"You know that much and perhaps many other textiles know, but this isn't the whole thing about naturism, which is a an all-inclusive lifestyle where nudity plays a great role.?

You mean there is more to naturism than nudity? Please explain.

"I don't stop speaking about naturism. If it results to a "conversion" of an individual, good. Regarding the most people, I am satisfied if we get some tolerance to our ways?.

People will tolerate you ? but not if you are doing it under their noses.

"Accepted by myself and the mainstream naturists in the way that we are not coming naked to the streets and other really public places. But not in the way that we couldn't be naked in any place where someone could see us.?

It has to be that way because most people don?t feel comfortable seeing you. People ? naturists and non-naturists - have the right to be comfortable in public places. Naturists aren?t comfortable unless they can be naked and the majority aren?t comfortable with seeing them naked. The only answer then is segregation. But there can?t be complete equality here because textile massively outnumber naturists. The answer then is that naturists have special places established for them. Elsewhere they must remain covered up. They should not, though, be prosecuted if they take all possible steps to ensure that other people who might be offended are unlikely to see them. So my law is fair.

"There are very few places, you know?.

I agree. There are not enough places for naturists. There should be more.

?That much shock and offence that nudity causes on you, it doesn't on most people.?

Yes it does! Certainly here in England it does. If you get naked in most public parks, streets, beaches etc in the UK people will call the police. In some places you would be abused or even physically attacked!

?The thing was fairness. Your law allows very unfair handling of naturists. Your don't see it as unfair but I see?.

I think it is too fair!

"Yes and no. Not about everything they do. But occupying temporarily a place in the quiet free nature or another not-very-public place should be a right that exists equally to non-naturists and naturists?.

I don?t agree. That behaviour would shock and offend many people and is unacceptable. If most people were OK with it then the rest of us would have to get used to it. But that?s not the case. Nudists are the minority and it is for them to recognise and respect the sensibilities of the majority.

?Even if they are seen by a person who says to be offended by nudity, there should be no legal right to get them away?.

I think there should be such a right for the reasons I said earlier.

"The clear rule is that in principle non-sexual nudity is allowed. Accepted that the law may list specific places where it is not allowed?.

That would mean that people like myself could not go and enjoy quiet beaches, the countryside, mountains or footpaths without being in real danger of encountering people behaving in a way that we find extremely offensive, shocking and disgusting. You can?t expect people to accept that! No. The general rule should be no nudity except at naturist places.

?With no adjustments to make your law fairer your law seems not to be acceptable by naturists. I would not accept it.?

So we must let the majority decide. I think most people would choose my law rather than yours, Kari.

"Could they still be more happy with more freedom of clothing and knowledge of body parts gained in the natural way - by seeing??

I don?t think so.

"This link has already given to you. Could you once more look at it because it explains what I mean by the healthiness of naturism:?

I will ? but I am very sceptical about health claims of naturism that are collected by naturists.

Bob

?Without using the majority excuse, your mantra??

Everyone can?t have their way in this world, Bob. As for how our (yes OUR) public places should be regulated, I make no apology for chanting ?majority!? at every opportunity. It?s either majority rule or minority interest and I know which I prefer ? faults and all.

? what is wrong with two people making this long, arduous trek just to get away from anyone else who may even remotely think that what they are doing is wrong??

Because instead they could have made a less ?long, arduous trek? to an authorised naturist beach instead. They chose not to so that was a risk they accepted.

?They have fulfilled the most important part of the law, avoidance of the general public.?

Yes. And they failed to avoid the public. They then have three options open to them ?

1. Move to another remote place which might just be 400 yards down the beach)
2. Go to a designated naturist place, or
3. Stay, but keep your private parts out of sight (e.g. by wearing a pair of shorts)

?And why should such times be covered by any law? It is the choice of the other person to stay or go.?

As I said before, a situation that says whoever gets there first determines the dress code is unreasonable and unworkable. There must be a default ?dress code? and, as clothes are the norm and nudity is very much a minority preference, clothing must be the norm unless otherwise specified.

?What if they were there, away from all people, with a chicken in hand, killing that chicken for the barbecue? Someone may find that offensive, but should they have that right??

Killing a chicken is a momentary thing. But if there was a bus full of people intending to kill two-dozen chickens in the presence of people who found it objectionable then they should have no such right. I wouldn?t tolerate that any more than I would tolerate nudity.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
You mean there is more to naturism than nudity? Please explain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey come on Stu, surely you remember the 205 Arguments in Support of Naturism.

You did read them didn't you? No? Ok here's the link again http://www.naturist.com/resources/preface.htm

It's safe to click - there's no naked boidies there!

Rik

[NUDKIWI]

Rocket,
A few posts back you made the claim that if we had a poll asking if people should be allowed to go nude in public places the result would be a resounding NO.I have to say that your probably right(i cant believe i said that).
Likewise if we were to have a poll on this site asking "Does Rocket have a clue?" the result would be the same a resounding NO!!.This however would be an unfair poll.The people polled would be forming their opinions without knowing all the facts.They only know you from this site and your postings.They have no idea what the real Rocket is like.She may be quite an intelligent and reasonable person.If they were able to get to know you better,see what you were really about then they would be in a better position to form an opinion about you.The same can be said for social nudity.I have no doubt that if more people had a better idea about what social nudity was about,the result of the poll would be a lot closer.It might even end up being a YES.
Like someone stated on another thread,we are not looking for converts,just understanding.

Naturally KIWI

Rik

"Hey come on Stu, surely you remember the 205 Arguments in Support of Naturism...You did read them didn't you? No? Ok here's the link again http://www.naturist.com/resources/preface.htm"

Yes, I have just ploughed through them /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif - all of them! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif But none answered my point, namely:

"You mean there is more to naturism than nudity? Please explain."

Those 205 points are all about the alleged benefits of nudity. I'm asking what naturists have in common apart for their desire to be naked among other people.

NUDKIWI

"She may be quite an intelligent and reasonable person. If they were able to get to know you better,see what you were really about then they would be in a better position to form an opinion about you.The same can be said for social nudity."

Of course she's intelligent - just like you are intelligent, Kiwi. Rocket makes many valid and considered points here - just as you do. No unintelligent person would bother even coming here and spending time and effort engaging in a debate like this.

"I have no doubt that if more people had a better idea about what social nudity was about,the result of the poll would be a lot closer. It might even end up being a YES."

I think most people know that naturism is about people who like to be naked for non-sexual reasons in the presence of people like themselves. So really they've got the gist of what it's about. They are happy to see programmes about it on TV and read about it in the newspapers - sometimes with genuine interest. But, as far as they are concerned, it's not for them. They believe they wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. No matter how much information the public was given about social nudity, no poll would show a majority in favour of allowing people to be nude in public. Not here in the UK anyway.

"Like someone stated on another thread,we are not looking for converts,just understanding".

There is no reason why naturists and textiles can't co-exist. But there needs to be separation of the two groups because textiles find public nudity offensive. That's how things are now and how they've been since naturism began. I don't want that to change and I am certain most other people don't.

Stu

[Kari P]

"there is more to naturism than nudity?"

Yes. As said, it is a lifestyle. And it is a lifestyle supported by a vague ideology. This means that we have some common believings and common values.

The following is the definition of naturism by the International Naturist Federation INF, found at http://www.inffni.org/

"Naturism is a way of life in harmony with nature characterised by the practice of communal nudity, with the intention of encouraging self-respect, respect for others and for the environment."

(I suspect that the text is written by a non-native English speaker. The word "communal" is probably a wrong word in this context. I would use the word "social" instead.)

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"You mean there is more to naturism than nudity? Please explain." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES!

It makes us happy. http://www.toledotanclub.com/forum/img/bananadance.gif

The most important thing about nudism is the feeling of freedom, comfort, and stressfree wellbeing we have in our unencumbered state (oops - I almost said 'natural state' LOL). It is almost addictive. Perhaps I shouldn't say 'almost'.

It's a thing a person really has to experience for themselves to understand. But it is obvious that some people can never experience it. I don't think our friend Stu could ever really understand it since nudity would never feel free, comfortable or stressfree for him. He'd have to just imagine how we feel as best he can. I think that is unfortunate, but it is OK. There is no reason that people should find happiness in the same ways.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

"You mean there is more to naturism than nudity? Please explain."

Is there more to parenting than simply having children? Naturism is a way of life. For some of us, it is kind of like a philosophy of life. A way of life of tolerance and acceptance. It is about freedom to be yourself, about breaking down the barriers of the class system, about the feelings of the environment on your skin. That is why we say that just being naked by just taking showers cannot give someone the experience of being naked in the out of doors. Taking a bath is totally different than skinny-dipping.

I do not know what it is like to be a parent even though I work with children on a daily basis.

"It?s either majority rule or minority interest and I know which I prefer ? faults and all."

It should be both.

"Because instead they could have made a less ?long, arduous trek? to an authorised naturist beach instead. They chose not to so that was a risk they accepted."

I have the choice to go to a rural part of the city and find a hidden waterway...or drive about three days (or fly for a good number of hours) to Miami and go to Haulover or drive about eight to ten hours (or fly) to go to The Ledges in Vermont. Which one should I choose?

"1. Move to another remote place which might just be 400 yards down the beach)"

Or the newcomers who don't like nudity can do that.

"2. Go to a designated naturist place, or"

Assuming there is one nearby.

"3. Stay, but keep your private parts out of sight (e.g. by wearing a pair of shorts) "

How about by swimming in the water sans clothing? How about staying naked and acting like it is perfectly normal?

"As I said before, a situation that says whoever gets there first determines the dress code is unreasonable and unworkable."

We're not talking about the general public. We are talking about a hidden watering hole.

"But if there was a bus full of people intending to kill two-dozen chickens in the presence of people who found it objectionable then they should have no such right"

But, "Killing a chicken is a momentary thing." They could turn when the chickens were being killed. They don't have to see someone naked, they can always move elsewhere.

Bob S.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"You mean there is more to naturism than nudity? Please explain."

Those 205 points are all about the alleged benefits of nudity. I'm asking what naturists have in common apart for their desire to be naked among other people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, it would be helpfull if you asked the right question in the first place. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What naturists have in common is that they all experience the 205 benefits to a greater or lesser degree. Non-naturists clearly do not.

Social nudity is a the manifestation of of a philosophy which takes the view that the human body in its entirety is a fundamental part of our human identity and cannot therefore, in itself, be offensive. Those who share this philospophy feel a need to demonstrate it by being naked amongst others for if they didn't they would have a sense of hypocricy.

In recognizing that this philosophy is not shared universally there is a tendency for naturists to congregate together - not entirely because they want to avoid giving offense (for the body is not offensive) but largely, in my view, because they fear retribution (legal or social) from others.

And this is why, as I've said before, when naturists are forced to hide their bodies (and thus their human identity) they have a tendency to feel demeaned. Most naturists seem to outwardly accept that the 'majority' has a right to make the monority feel demeaned and often seem to justify their self-imposed segregation by expressing a wish not to offend others. Some however sense that segregation amounts to an attack on their integrity and therefore push the boundaries by, for example, using unofficial beaches, not hiding behind towels in communal changing rooms, not rushing for cover if caught nude unexpectedly, demonstrating against the war in Iraq by being naked, participating in Spencer Tunick photos or even being as bold as walking the length of the UK naked.

Naturism is more than a simple desire to get naked. All the evidence we have suggests that until a person actually tries it they cannot really understand it and when they try it they usually become converted. But I would suggest that they have already been converted to the philosophy for it's believing the philospohy which prompts them to try it.

Hope this helps.

Rik

Bob

"That is why we say that just being naked by just taking showers cannot give someone the experience of being naked in the out of doors. Taking a bath is totally different than skinny-dipping."

I'll take your word for that, Bob. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

"I have the choice to go to a rural part of the city and find a hidden waterway...or drive about three days (or fly for a good number of hours) to Miami and go to Haulover or drive about eight to ten hours (or fly) to go to The Ledges in Vermont. Which one should I choose?"

That's upto you, Bob, but I would suggest you follow my three options for the time being whilst focussing your efforts on securing more and beter naturist locations. If you choose to go to a non-naturist place then just be prepared to move on or cover up if someone comes who objects to your nudity. As I said, clothing is the default position in all places other than clothing option/naturist venues and that should be understood and respected.

"How about by swimming in the water sans clothing? How about staying naked and acting like it is perfectly normal?"

Because that causes offence. If it doesn't then there's no problem, but it would for me.

"We're not talking about the general public. We are talking about a hidden watering hole."

People know about and seek out these 'hidden watering hole(s)'. You may think it's a remote spot, but others may go there regularly for that same reason.

"But, "Killing a chicken is a momentary thing." They could turn when the chickens were being killed. They don't have to see someone naked, they can always move elsewhere."

No way, Bob. That changes the environment and consequently the whole experience and pleasure for those who find it unacceptable. One person's pleasure is another person's pain. In formulating rules of behaviour there has to be a fallback position. That has to be that clothes are normally worn unless the place is specifically designated otherwise.

Rik

"In recognizing that this philosophy is not shared universally there is a tendency for naturists to congregate together - not entirely because they want to avoid giving offense (for the body is not offensive) but largely, in my view, because they fear retribution (legal or social) from others."

I hope you don't mean naturists don't care about causing offence to others? Now that would surprise me - and I would find it rather disappointing. Reading what you've said again I don't think you meant that, so OK.

"And this is why, as I've said before, when naturists are forced to hide their bodies (and thus their human identity) they have a tendency to feel demeaned."

That's not logical. Naturists are just complying with the norms of the wider society. But you are talking about 'feelings' and, as I have said, feelings are real and must be respected.

"Most naturists seem to outwardly accept that the 'majority' has a right to make the monority feel demeaned and often seem to justify their self-imposed segregation by expressing a wish not to offend others."

But would you agree that it's not about a majority trying to 'demean' a minority. Its about a majority protecting its own sensibilities from certain activities of a minority.

"Some however sense that segregation amounts to an attack on their integrity and therefore push the boundaries by, for example, using unofficial beaches, not hiding behind towels in communal changing rooms, not rushing for cover if caught nude unexpectedly, demonstrating against the war in Iraq by being naked, participating in Spencer Tunick photos or even being as bold as walking the length of the UK naked."

Of course the danger there is that nudity - and consquently naturism - will become associated with protest, agitation, law-breaking and antisocial and inconsiderate behaviour. Not quite the image most naturists would want to achieve I would have thought.

"Naturism is more than a simple desire to get naked. All the evidence we have suggests that until a person actually tries it they cannot really understand it and when they try it they usually become converted. But I would suggest that they have already been converted to the philosophy for it's believing the philospohy which prompts them to try it.

Hope this helps."

Rik, Thank you for that - it was very insightful and has answered some questions for me! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Rocket]

Stu,

I'll fill you in on swimming in the nude..to a bathing suit..because I've done it both ways..

Really, there isn't THAT much difference. I don't believe there is much drag in the swim suits I use to none at all..

Where you DO NOTICE being nude..is if you run or even walk with no clothes..because it IS lighter. Of course, I've always worn shoes..because walking barefoot is real uncomfortable on hot sand..and that trail isn't comfortable to walk barefoot as well.

That's really about it as far as I'm concerned. Would I want to do a nude hike in the wilderness here? Well......no...because of bugs in the summer, ticks, ants, things like that. Shoes protect you from that, and a light shirt and even shorts, and socks offer protection. I always wear a hat as well (even on the nude walks I've done)because sun beating down on you isn't good (gives me headaches) and it offers protection as well.

Hope this helps /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[shãybare]

Rocket, I certainly hope you don't think your speaking for nudists.

[shãybare]

Rocket, after your above post, why, again, do you go nude? Do you recieve a sexual thrill from it? Are you a pervert? You apparently don't enjoy it for the freedom it brings or for the stress relief. I think you have shown your true nature.

Rocket,

"Really, there isn't THAT much difference. I don't believe there is much drag in the swim suits I use to none at all.."

Thanks for that. I suspected as much! I think the vast majority of supposed "benefits" and "freedoms" that naturism is supposed to bestow are eiher a gross exaggeration or entirely spurious.

Stu

[Trailscout]

Stu,
Is it possible that you don't experience many of the benefits of being nude because your discomfort with that condition precludes any possible happiness the rest of us might experience?

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

I'll fill you in on swimming in the nude..to a bathing suit..because I've done it both ways..

Really, there isn't THAT much difference. I don't believe there is much drag in the swim suits I use to none at all..

Where you DO NOTICE being nude..is if you run or even walk with no clothes..because it IS lighter. Of course, I've always worn shoes..because walking barefoot is real uncomfortable on hot sand..and that trail isn't comfortable to walk barefoot as well.

That's really about it as far as I'm concerned. Would I want to do a nude hike in the wilderness here? Well......no...because of bugs in the summer, ticks, ants, things like that. Shoes protect you from that, and a light shirt and even shorts, and socks offer protection. I always wear a hat as well (even on the nude walks I've done)because sun beating down on you isn't good (gives me headaches) and it offers protection as well.

Hope this helps /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It would help if you told the truth. From your description I believe you've never really tried it at all.

Anyone that had really tried it nude would immediately note how much better it is getting out of the water and not having a cold wet suit on. The swimsuit stays cold because it is wet. It also holds sand inside it, especially in the crotch area and anywhere the skin creases. Swimming nude means that many times when you get out of the water you don't even need a towel because you dry fast and stay a lot warmer.

The other huge difference that you don't know about (because you've never done it) is how in the water a swimsuit constantly needs adjusting to keep it in place, especially if you are swimming someplace that has any kind of waves coming in. When swimming nude there is none of that.

As for it being lighter, swimsuits really don't have weight, enough that you can feel. Another fabrication I think.

And anyone that hs done nude hiking knows that you stand less of a chance of picking up ticks because there are no folds of clothes to hide in.

Stu, we have no proof she's really tried swimming nude and from the precedents set by all her previous posts we all know she tends to make up things that she's not capable of backing up with any sort of figures or proof.

[nudeM]

Stu: 99.9% of the members have experienced the "benefits" and "freedoms" of nude swimming. How can you just state that there are some who are exaggerating? Until you have tried it yourself, then there is no way for you to make such a statement. I think it is just plain arrogant on your part. While I usually remain "mute" on many of your posts, I will not in this particular matter.

I see where you may be offended by a nude person in a public setting, but for you to just say that there are exaggerations on being comfortable without swimming suits, is purely unjust. Unless you have tried it, then don't knock it. There are many benefits as well, but not being a nudist yourself, you will never experience it. Think about it.

Rocket is NOT a typical example of nudists, and she is certainly NOT an example of the ones in this forum. She doesn't speak for us--only for herself. Her dislike of seeing other people nude in public is not typical of nudists anywhere. Real nudists are not turned off or offended by seeing anyone nude anywhere.

[Rocket]

Cyndiann,

A swimming suit dries pretty fast..and at the swims I go to...I swim for 1 hour..

I don't get out of the pool nude OR clothed..just laps for an hour (you couldn't do it)..

When I do get out (or if I do) to go on the slide, and this is in a heated building, I am perfectly warm..

At a beach, as I've said, swim suits dry pretty fast, and as well, if anything, on warm days, they ARE cooler for a sort time, because the water has to evaporiate. Arguably, on a hot day (30 degrees Centigrade or 90 Fairenheit) it is more comfortable because it's a little cooler..

When I spoke of being nude as "lighter" that is in comparison to clothes (ie Jeans..jackets..things like that). It's lighter to go barefoot over shoes..but it is sure a lot more comfortable to wear shoes at least where I am.

ShayBare,

Everthing has to be done in context. This nude beach I've been to is recognized as such. It is out of public view. Same with the swims..and the windows are covered so people can't see in from the outside as it should be.

I have NEVER said people shouldn't be allowed to do this....but problems arise when you disrespect the vast majority. People here want to do just that..the right to walk nude in public....nonsense that they are oppressed because they can't..and other things. Say that..and expect to get bashed /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Interesting enough, the Nude Swims are hosted by a club that does put on a party..but I see no sense getting together nude..and just sitting around..

Stu,

At both the swims and beach, males domminate (sp?) the amount of people nude..and by a considerable margin. I would estimate anywhere from 3x-4x as many so I think that says something about the "general attitude" of females. At the beach, an number of females just go topless..or don't take anything off. My girlfriend (and no Cyndiann, not a GF as you think of it) takes her clothes off..so I have..

Anyway, so there you have it...CERTAINLY there is not a NEED to have a nude beach...because one can just as easily go with light shorts or swim suit....arguments to the contrary be dammned..

I suspect it would be much the same way if all swims where clothing optional..nudity was an accepted norm. Mostly it would be males (a lot of females wouldn't like that). Even, notice this board is male dominated, yet females make up approx 50% of the general population.

Still...I don't have a problem with a nude beach if it's in the proper context... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nudeM

"Stu: 99.9% of the members have experienced the "benefits" and "freedoms" of nude swimming. How can you just state that there are some who are exaggerating? Until you have tried it yourself, then there is no way for you to make such a statement."

Yes - you make a fair point. My post was intended to be tentative. In other words, never in my life having been nude outdoors I can only imagine what it's like. I don't imagine it is very different from wearing a thin pair of shorts, and Rocket, who has done skinnydipping, confirmed my suspicion.

"I think it is just plain arrogant on your part."

Does my last response sound arrogant? It wasn't intended to.

"I see where you may be offended by a nude person in a public setting, but for you to just say that there are exaggerations on being comfortable without swimming suits, is purely unjust. Unless you have tried it, then don't knock it."

OK. You make a fair point. I withdraw what I said. You are quite right - I have never tried it so I shouldn't pre-judge. It was wrong of me to do that.

"There are many benefits as well, but not being a nudist yourself, you will never experience it. Think about it."

OK, I will think about what you said.

Rocket

Yes it is interesting that, as a rule, a marked majority of those most keen on naturism seem to be men whilst most of us who find public nudity offensive are female. The evidence of that can be seen here where the great majority of posters are male!

I wonder (and this is PURE speculation!) if there is something particular in the male psyche that stems back to early humans that gives men the desire to display their naked forms whereas women feel disposed to stay covered. That might also explain why a tiny number of men and boys have an uncontrollable urge to expose themselves whereas this phenomenon is virtually unknown in women and girls. Just a thought.

Stu

[Rocket]

Stu,

I think that is worthy of exploration..

I was at the magazine store the other day...and was looking for a naturaist magazine...

I looked for one with Cosmo and People..none where there..

I looked in the Outdoor Section that has magazines like "BackPakker"...weren't there either..

None in the Music Section either..

Then I looked in the Adult Magazine Section..and there they were...

I took a copy of H&E...and while nudists are mostly male..from this magazine you would think they are female..because pictures where many, many more female..

I haven't looked at "N" magazine, so I can't comment...

If we had public nudity..what would happen, I believe, is it would be males doing it..and all over the place. Notice that most of the Nude loons like Gough are male....

Obviously, this would have a detrimental affect on our society, because about 50% of the population (female) would be very uncomfortable with it...and a good portion of males as well.

Rocket

"If we had public nudity..what would happen, I believe, is it would be males doing it..and all over the place. Notice that most of the Nude loons like Gough are male...."

Yes that's what really worries me. It's OK some people here saying hey just want he right to do it but they wouldn't exercise it - I reckon there are enough idiots who would exploit any relaxation for all it's worth!

"..because about 50% of the population (female) would be very uncomfortable with it..."

That's why we have to make our voices heard and not let these extremist men have it all their own way.

Stu

[Rocket]

Stu,

Here, inspite of what has been said regarding Canada's nudism laws..WE ARE having it our own way. Anyone comes here and thinks public nudity is fine, and you can just walk around nude and offend people is going to be in for a real suprise. I suggest these pro-nudes contact our RCMP office...and you'll be told straight what will/could happen.

I believe our society would break down if something like this was common place. Most people wouldn't want to go out in public. I wouldn't like to take a child to the playground..and see some guy hanging around there nude.

The damage this concept of public nudity would cause would just be..

Imagine..as a woman..being on a crowded bus..with a bunch of nude men in it and near me!!! And if someone was aroused....

Imagine...as a woman..going to a public swimming pool..and being confronted with nude men in the pool..

I hate to say it..but we'll use that 10% homosexual figure..most homosexuals are men...and if they are nude..in a public area...or on a bus..

You get my drift...

This society would break down if these extremists ever got their way..but they won't....EVER. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rocket,

I agree. We must protect our public places at all cost. They are our environment and our childrens environment. Nobody is trying to oppress minority opinions or desires but it is the people who own, pay for and use public places who should have the final say in what behaviour is and is not permissible in them. If we can't have unanimous agreement the we must settle for the will of the majority - and that reflects our view that public nudity is unacceptable.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Nobody is trying to oppress minority opinions or desires ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes they are. There is a minority of people who take the view that they should be entitled to be naked in public. Their opinions and desires are being oppressed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>..but it is the people who own, pay for and use public places who should have the final say in what behaviour is and is not permissible in them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But not nudists apparently. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If we can't have unanimous agreement the we must settle for the will of the majority.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why MUST we settle for the will of the majority? How do we know what the will of the majority is? Oh, I remember - you asked the members of your neighbourhood watch scheme and your babysitter. Case solved. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Rocket]

Rik,

Do you see the vast majority of the population asking to be nude in public?

Any Political Parties formed to push this ideal?

Any people running on this issue to get elected into office? And if they are..any real support?

Did the population of the UK cry in outrage when Steven Gough was arrested..several times? Are they crying in outrage right now?

I suspect no real support for this idea...and because it's public areas..clothed is the default position...and what people want.

Why are you...as a male..determined to be nude in public? Because..from what I've seen it's extreme males that want this..so WHY...

I'll let you answer....but as a female I suspect the REAL answer and I've got quite another opinion on that /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It isn't going to happen in the UK and I would pity the English people if it were. I want to visit your country one day..see the castles..the history..and I want to enjoy it with my clothes on..and without being offended /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik,

I think that Rocket has said most of it for me.

"There is a minority of people who take the view that they should be entitled to be naked in public. Their opinions and desires are being oppressed."

No. They are being overruled by decisions made by democratically elected representatives. That's not oppression - it's democracy.

"But not nudists apparently."

Nudists can have a say - of course they can. But the final decision must not be incompatible with the interests of the majority.

"Why MUST we settle for the will of the majority?"

Because we live in a democracy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"How do we know what the will of the majority is?"

I'm all for finding out. When we do find out, will you accept the result as final and binding?

"Oh, I remember - you asked the members of your neighbourhood watch scheme and your babysitter. Case solved."

Short of real, empirical evidence produced by an independent and reputable academic body, I am forced to rely upon anecdotal evidence. But I really don't think that even you believe most ordinary people in the UK would support legalisation of nudity in all public places, hmm Rik?

Stu

[DoubleRK]

As I understand your suggestion Stu, it would be against the law to enjoy your own back yard nude if someone could and does HAPPEN to see you and this is what I think most people here have a problem with. Even though said yard may be visiable from a public place, the yard itself is privite property and no one is MAKING the other person look at you.

As for your neighbors (sp?), if they find your nudity offencive, let THEM build a fence so they don't have to see it. It should not be the responibility of the nude person to ensure they can't be seen when using his own privite property but rather the person that finds it objectionable.

As for Rockets "magizine" theory that since Nudist/Naturist magizines can only be found in the adult section they must be "harmful" she should look to the laws for that answer. The only reason they are placed in "Adults Only" sections is because they contain nudity and therefore the law REQUIRES they be placed there. It has nothing to do with the publishers wish or even with the establishments desire, the law is clear. ANY magizine which contains nudity reguardless of it's context, MUST be place in the adult section.

Can we at least agree that there is both sexual displays of nudity and NON-sexual displays of nudity? I sure hope so.

RK

[Rocket]

It sure takes all kinds with that kind of statement..

Why should the neighbors have to build a fence to safeguard it from someone who possibly wants to expose himself?

They have the right to enjoy their property unencombered...it is the duty of the person who is creating the potentially offensive activity to secure it..not those who are offended..

Gee...I think I will shoot a rifle in your direction while you're outside your yard. Oh...I shot you..well...that's your fault..you should built a backstop so that bullet couldn't enter your yard..

It basically works like this..he who creates an activity has to secure his yard for that activity...not the other way..

Maybe someone will build a golf course near your house..and while your outside..laying there nude offending your neighbors..a golf ball "accidently" come in your direction..strike you on what is arguably called your head..and knock some sense in it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW...I never made any conclusion regarding the naturaist magazines. I simply reported where they were found.

DoubleRK

Whilst I am generally in favour of people doing as they like on their own property, it has always been recognised that there are certain kinds of behaviour that one must ensure cannot be seen or otherwise experienced by others outside that property. This is because hese activities interfere with others' enjoyment of proximate premises or public places.

Examples might include:

Playing loud music
Burning rubber or plastic
Keeping large quantities of rotting (stinking) fish or other foul substances
Openly masturbating or having sex.

Nudity can be every bit as offensive as these activities if one is a passer-by or a neighbour. For that reason it must be unlawful if one is visible to those outside the premises.

Stu

[DoubleRK]

Being nude in my own back yard does not infringe on someone elses rights. Unlike a smell that can drift OVER to their property, all they need do is look the other way. If that's too hard for them to do then let THEM build a fence. The things you pointed out can not be kept off others property without taking extreme measures, seeing something can be avoided easily. My nudity does not physical damage to anyone nor will is cause them any kind of emotional "scaring".

As for the "loud music" issue, the SOUND travels to the other persons property and the only time it's against the law is when it's disturbingly loud, not just able to be heard. My nudity stays in my yard, it's THEIR sight that travels onto MY property.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm not in my yard nude to cause anyone offence and unless they look they wont even know I'm nude where as the other things you cited infringed upon THEIR space without them "breaching" (i.e. looking) into their neighbors space.

[Rocket]

Sorry, they don't have to look the other way..

One call to the Police..and you'll stop..which is what I would do if I was being subjected to that.

I take it you get a kick out of being seen nude by children and women..

We have a word for that..

It's your responsibility to secure your yard, because you live in a communal area. Your so-called "rights" aren't rights because your neighbors have rights...and that is the right to enjoy one's property.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I take it you get a kick out of being seen nude by children and women..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's just the opposite for a nudist. We just don't care about being seen. It doesn't bother us to see nudity or be seen. For us it is not sexual, dirty, good or bad.

Rocket is clearly not a nudist, else Rocket would not have such a strong reaction that nudity is always dirty, despicable, perverted or sexual. Rocket claims to have attended nudist events, but must have gone as a voyeur or swinger. Nudists don't think like that, and we shouldn't have to put up with people trying to color us as perverts out of ignorance or malice.

-Mark

DoubleRK

We see things because light is either emitted or reflected off things. We hear things because sound is emitted by things. We smell things because vapours are given off by things. Light, sound and vapours do not respect human boundaries. The invade public spaces and other peoples property and can affect outsiders.

Here in the UK I wouldn't be allowed to build a huge concrete bunker even on my own land without permission from the authorities. If they agreed that it was unsightly they could order it not to be erected, or that it be demolished. Here the authorities could take action for open nudity.

I would wager that even where you live the police would take action if you were to stand in your front garden and openly masturbate - especially if there were children in the area. As far as I am concerned masturbating is only slightly more offensive than just being nude. If my neighbour was nude in his garden in front of my wife or either of my daughters I'd jump over the fence and rip his head off. I would NEVER behave in a way that would risk causing offence to my neighbours nor to passers-by and I expect a reciprocal degree of courtesy.

Stu

[Boreas]

"We see things because light is either emitted or reflected off things. We hear things because sound is emitted by things. We smell things because vapours are given off by things. Light, sound and vapours do not respect human boundaries. The invade public spaces and other peoples property and can affect outsiders."

We also percieve things to be good or bad through the filter which was created by our upbringing, religion, nationality etc. We do need to make an effort to respect other people's beliefs, yet we can't know what exactly will offend others. We will almost definitely offend someone by accident. Perhaps we need to all stretch our comfort zones in order to be able to live together.

[Rocket]

Mark,

You're not the sharpest knife in drawer...are you?

Read the context of what this guy is saying..

It's ok to be out nude in his yard in plain sight...I object..I am told to either erect a fence at my own expense or look the other way..looking the "other way" isn't an option...so I am to compromise my backyard where I might take kids/have guests/barbecues because he is selfish..

And...you say I am wrong..

BTW...I talked to two friends of mine who happen to be RCMP officers (they are married male&female)...let's say they had a pretty good chuckle when I told them Section 173 (think that's the number) of the Criminal Code of Canada isn't really a Criminal Code. They, too, want extend an invitation to you to visit our country in the nude..walk the streets. Infact, since you think nudity is so ok here, I invite you to try to pass Canada Customs Inspection in the nude..as you enter the country. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[DoubleRK]

Stu

"We see things because light is either emitted or reflected off things. We hear things because sound is emitted by things. We smell things because vapours are given off by things. Light, sound and vapours do not respect human boundaries. The invade public spaces and other peoples property and can affect outsiders."

You are right about light, sound and vapours and when you see someone or something it is the reflected light that causes them to be visible. Unlike emitted light, vapours or sounds, reflected light can easily be redirected by simply not looking at what is causing the reflection. If someone shines a bright light in your window from next door the light still enters YOUR window even if you look away from the window and you can still "see" that light even if you aren't looking at it. If someone is doing something that doesn't smell, make noise or emit light DIRECTED at your property you wouldn't even know about it UNLESS you looked. So, unless you are "casting" your gaze onto THEIR domian, they are not reflecting light into you eyes.

As for "exposing myself", I'm not exposing anything to you, you are LOOKING at me. It doesn't matter to me if you can see me or not. If I'm not mistaken, "to expose" means "to cause to be seen". In order to do that you would need to first draw the other persons gaze to whatever you wanted to expose. In the case of a neighbor doing normal yard work in the nude, they aren't drawing your gaze to their nudity, you must choose to NOTICE it. They are not nude to draw your attention, you GAVE their nudity attention.

I understand that you and I will never agree on this but debating it with you does give me a chance to express my views.

Rocket

I will not debate with you because you are being insulting, childish and petty. You seem to want to cause arguments rather than debates.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
You're not the sharpest knife in drawer...are you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ad hominem

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Read the context of what this guy is saying... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was reading the context of Rocket's constant attacks on the motives of nudists and what that reveals about Rocket's motives.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW...I talked to two friends of mine who happen to be RCMP officers (they are married male&female)...let's say they had a pretty good chuckle when I told them Section 173 (think that's the number) of the Criminal Code of Canada isn't really a Criminal Code. They, too, want extend an invitation to you to visit our country in the nude..walk the streets. Infact, since you think nudity is so ok here, I invite you to try to pass Canada Customs Inspection in the nude..as you enter the country. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nobody except Rocket has suggested that Section 173 or any other part of the Criminal Code of Canada is anything other than a criminal code. What we have explained over and over again is that decisions made by Canadian courts, including the Canadian Supreme Court has modified the ways in which the law can be applied. That is the entire point of studying case law. I'm certain Rocket is perfectly well aware of this, but is being disingenuously ignorant of it in online remarks.

-Mark

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Do you see the vast majority of the population asking to be nude in public? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Any Political Parties formed to push this ideal?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Any people running on this issue to get elected into office? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Did the population of the UK cry in outrage when Steven Gough was arrested..several times? Are they crying in outrage right now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.

So what is your point? What has sunbathing in the nude in my back garden got to do with politics?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why are you...as a male..determined to be nude in public? Because..from what I've seen it's extreme males that want this..so WHY... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Extreme in what way?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'll let you answer....but as a female I suspect the REAL answer and I've got quite another opinion on that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well let's hear it then - we could do with a good laugh!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I want to visit your country one day..see the castles..the history..and I want to enjoy it with my clothes on..and without being offended /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So there's at least one good reason to pursue the idea of public nudity!!!

Rik

Still Boreas

?We also perceive things to be good or bad through the filter which was created by our upbringing, religion, nationality etc.?

OK, but now you are talking about something quite different. I was talking about how the effects of behaviour on one person?s premises permeates into other premises and into the public domain. But yes I agree with that general point.

?We do need to make an effort to respect other people's beliefs, yet we can't know what exactly will offend others. We will almost definitely offend someone by accident.?

I think we all know the potential of the naked body to cause offence. When we choose to divest ourselves of all covering and do so within the view of others it is incumbent upon us to check out that they are comfortable with that. Think of it like smoking. You wouldn?t light up in the presence of people you know objected to it and you would ask if you were in the presence of strangers.

?Perhaps we need to all stretch our comfort zones in order to be able to live together.?

It depends what you mean by ?live together?. A smoker can live with someone who is fiercely anti-smoking. But the considerate smoker will indulge their habit away from their partner. So it should be with nudists.

DoubleRK

?So, unless you are "casting" your gaze onto THEIR domian, they are not reflecting light into you eyes.?

The same could be said for the man masturbating on the front lawn of his house visible to neighbours and passers-by, adults and children. You could say the same thing about a Muslim ritually slaughtering lambs on his land within clear view of a primary school. You don?t have to look ? you can cast your eyes away. Clearly this is unacceptable. Whatever you do on your property indoors or behind walls and fences is private. But anything that can be seen from outside is effectively a projection. The law have recognised this here in England since the 14th century and all reasonable people here accept that there have to be limitations in this respect.

?As for "exposing myself", I'm not exposing anything to you, you are LOOKING at me. It doesn't matter to me if you can see me or not. If I'm not mistaken, "to expose" means "to cause to be seen". In order to do that you would need to first draw the other persons gaze to whatever you wanted to expose. In the case of a neighbor doing normal yard work in the nude, they aren't drawing your gaze to their nudity, you must choose to NOTICE it. They are not nude to draw your attention, you GAVE their nudity attention.?

OK, so that means it?s OK to do anything offensive anywhere because people don?t have to look. Hmm. Paedophiles and perverts would find that proposition very appealing indeed! That approach facilitates any kind of lewd behaviour that could be directed at vulnerable people (e.g. elderly women, lone women, children etc). It would be a great way to harass neighbours you didn?t like out of their homes!! I don?t think any modern government would contemplate adopting that as a principle.

?I understand that you and I will never agree on this but debating it with you does give me a chance to express my views.?

No I won?t. I admit that I think your views on this are philosophically unsound, but it?s fun to debate it! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I think that Rocket has said most of it for me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hasn't stopped you writing an even longer post than hers in response. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No. They are being overruled by decisions made by democratically elected representatives. That's not oppression - it's democracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly what decisions and which elected representatives are you talking about. I'm not aware of any decision by any elected representative which decrees that the mere sight of the human body is damaging or offensive.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nudists can have a say - of course they can. But the final decision must not be incompatible with the interests of the majority.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What final decision? When was it made? Is it really FINAL?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"How do we know what the will of the majority is?"

I'm all for finding out. When we do find out, will you accept the result as final and binding?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not if YOU ask the question. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I really don't think that even you believe most ordinary people in the UK would support legalisation of nudity in all public places, hmm Rik? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If we use your concept of majority will, then most already do for there is no law in the UK which specifically prohibits simple nudity in public places. The real issue, as you know, is one of interpretation of public order laws and as we have seen in the recent past the interpretation that simple nudity is a breach of public order is somewhat randomly applied. When one of Steve Gough's cases was dropped in England it was dropped for "lack of evidence" despite the fact that there was no denying by anyone that he was naked when he was arrested.

Rik

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
That's why we have to make our voices heard and not let these extremist men have it all their own way.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This very statement pegs YOU as an extremist man, yourself. And you want to have it all YOUR own way!

[DoubleRK]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It depends what you mean by ?live together?. A smoker can live with someone who is fiercely anti-smoking. But the considerate smoker will indulge their habit away from their partner. So it should be with nudists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you saying I now have to check with my neighbors before "lighting up" in my own back yard?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> OK, so that means it?s OK to do anything offensive anywhere because people don?t have to look. Hmm. Paedophiles and perverts would find that proposition very appealing indeed! That approach facilitates any kind of lewd behaviour that could be directed at vulnerable people (e.g. elderly women, lone women, children etc). It would be a great way to harass neighbours you didn?t like out of their homes!! I don?t think any modern government would contemplate adopting that as a principle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never said ANYTHING about lewd or harassing behaviour, YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up. Nude is NOT lewd.

Please tell me you are not saying everything that "mainstream society" finds offensive should be outlawed. If that's the case our personal freedoms are in BIG trouble.

Rik

"Exactly what decisions and which elected representatives are you talking about. I'm not aware of any decision by any elected representative which decrees that the mere sight of the human body is damaging or offensive."

People have been, and are being, convicted of offences as a result of simple nudity - as Mr Gough has found out to his cost recently. When this issue was raised by the Home Affairs Select Committee it was pointed out by a Home Office minister that public nudity was, and should continue to be, dealt with under public order legislation. The minister in question, or the Home Affairs Select Committee, or any Member of Parliament, could have included an amendment stating that simple nudity is not unlawful. But nobody even suggested it and arrests and convictions for public nudity look set to continue.

"What final decision? When was it made? Is it really FINAL?"

Any decision about what is and is not permissible behaviour in public. Real, Rik. You must try to keep up! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Not if YOU ask the question."

No, because I'd ask an objective question and not some loaded one!

"If we use your concept of majority will, then most already do for there is no law in the UK which specifically prohibits simple nudity in public places."

Only because there hasn't been a need for such a law in the past. The police have been able to rely upon the courts when charging for public order offences. According to the Home Office, they still should.

"The real issue, as you know, is one of interpretation of public order laws and as we have seen in the recent past the interpretation that simple nudity is a breach of public order is somewhat randomly applied."

I agree. That's why I started this whole thread. I think the law should be made more explicit so that there wouldn't be these inconsistencies.

"When one of Steve Gough's cases was dropped in England it was dropped for "lack of evidence" despite the fact that there was no denying by anyone that he was naked when he was arrested."

As you know, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of a statement or any single essential element in a case make the CPS unwilling to proceed. Bear in mind that CPS lawyers have stringent performance targets and they are marked down severely for acquittals. This makes them cagey about proceeding unless the evidence (as laid down by the legislation) is 100%. Mr Gough WAS successfully prosecute under the Act for simple nudity in Southampton several months ago BECAUSE the police got their act together and presented evidence of the required standard. I have never suggested that the mere fact that someone is nude in a public place automatically warrants a prosecution - and that isn't the case under existing law. People get dressed and undressed on quiet beaches etc confident that they can't be seen by anyone likely to be offended. That's OK in my book. There may be other events such as rock festivals where some nudity is considered 'de rigeur' and is accepted by the revellers. That may not warrant prosecution either. The point is that if you get naked in a public place in the knowledge that you are likely to be seen by other people who may well be offended by it then you should, at the very least, be required to cover up. A refusal to do so will inevitably result in arrest, possibly followed by prosecution. That's what happens now in many cases and I have no doubt it will continue.

missouriboy

"This very statement pegs YOU as an extremist man, yourself. And you want to have it all YOUR own way!"

No. My position is reasonable and my proposals ought, if they were followed, keep everyone happy. If you can offer an alternative that would grant naturists the rights they want whilst guaranteeing that no offence will be caused to textiles the let's hear it.

Well?

"Are you saying I now have to check with my neighbors before "lighting up" in my own back yard?"

I think there is a difference between smoking and nudity in that smoking outdoors shouldn't really offend or bother anyone. But, to extend the analogy a little, I would always consult my neighbour before lighting a bonfire in my backyard!

"I never said ANYTHING about lewd or harassing behaviour, YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up. Nude is NOT lewd."

You are avoiding the point I'm making. I never said that nude was always lewd. You were saying that you should be able to do as you please on your own property because others can look away. I'm saying that argument doesn't stand up because others can look away from ANY disgusting or outrageous behavior - masturbation being one example. In other words, just saying to people "If you don't like what I'm doing then avert your eyes" will not protect you if you are clearly visible. Personally I find the sight of nudity to be equally vile to the sight of masturbaton.

"Please tell me you are not saying everything that "mainstream society" finds offensive should be outlawed."

Not quite. I am saying that any behaviour that the majority finds offensive should not be permitted in public places.

"If that's the case our personal freedoms are in BIG trouble."

I would consider that my personal freedoms to enjoy public places with my family were being curtailed if I couldn't go to them without experiencing disgusting behaviour.

Stu

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

I believe our society would break down if something like this was common place. Most people wouldn't want to go out in public. I wouldn't like to take a child to the playground..and see some guy hanging around there nude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the guy has a reason for being there then there is no reason to be alarmed, nude or not. Using the same reasoning, if he's there because he's a pedophile then he shouldn't be there nude or not. You see, the nudity doesn't change anything. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


The damage this concept of public nudity would cause would just be..

Imagine..as a woman..being on a crowded bus..with a bunch of nude men in it and near me!!! And if someone was aroused.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what damage has nudity caused? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Imagine...as a woman..going to a public swimming pool..and being confronted with nude men in the pool.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We go swimming in public pools all the time with nude men. So whatdamage has nudity caused? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I hate to say it..but we'll use that 10% homosexual figure..most homosexuals are men...and if they are nude..in a public area...or on a bus..

You get my drift... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, I don't get your drift. Are you saying that a gay man is more likely to have sex on a bus than a straight man? Are you saying that being nude would change that in any way? And what makes you think most homosexuals are men? (Must be another one of those fabricated statements you are so good at making and so poor at substantiating.) You poor misguided little girl!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

This society would break down if these extremists ever got their way..but they won't....EVER. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Reality check.....

It isn't just the men that are involved in trying to have nudity become more commonplace. Women all over the world are starting with topfree initiatives and presently it is legal to be topfree in much of Canada as well as a few places in the US like the state of New York.

The Stones had a concert in Toronto and no arrests were made for nudity.

Toronto just recently made their experiemental nude beach a permanent fixture.

Things are changing for the better little by little and Rocket can complain till the cows come home but when it comes down to it nudity is slowly making headway.