Without bathing suit in Spain

[Agde]

Since work is taking me to Spain this week, I was doing some online prep and ran across a report on "The Day Without Bathing Suits" that was held way back on July 15. A search on CFI didn't turn up a reference to it, so I thought I'd provide this link to the ADN report (in english) (http://www.naturismo.org/adn/ediciones/25y/20e.html). The reported press and public reaction is quite interesting.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Wouldn't this be great if it happened in North America but not holding my breath.

[au revoir]

Wouldn't this be great if it happened in any where in the world?
It would be peace on earth.

[Arnabas]

That's awesome.

Yeah... If only it could happen here.

[OZJames]

I think Spain will be on our next summer (winter here) holiday itinerary http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Stu2630]

Don't kid yourself that this supposedly relaxed attitude is indicative that Spain is a progressive nation - the opposite is true. Wherever you look there you will see vice. Hardcore pornography is openly on sale next to children's comics. In Spanish cities, prostitution and sex shows are as open they are in Bangkok, and drugs are openly sold on many streets. In many Spanish holiday resorts, drunkenness is visible on the streets with people vomiting, swearing and fighting most evenings. Their apparently relaxed attitude to nudity has not come about because the public have consciously mandated their elected representatives to legislate for this - it has come about because Spanish law is a complete mess (I can cite many examples to back this statement up!).

Unless their country is to subside into a pit of debauched anarchy, the Spanish government will have to clean up their act - and their streets - at some time. If they don't, their tourist trade will start to suffer significantly. Sooner or later they will have to make some proper laws to control vice and public disorder and when they do they may well decide to limit nudity. And so they should. Nudists are extremely well catered for in Spain and those of us who find nudity offensive should also receive some consideration - there is no excuse for people to practise nudism elsewhere. Spain is a staunchly Catholic country, and it is certain that many locals find the sight of naked bodies on their beaches incompatible with their moral values. Hopefully, these people will make their voices heard.

Stu

[jon71]

It's absurd to think that because a person is Catholic (or Protestant, or Jewish, etc.) that they would find nudity/naturism offensive. In what universe is that an affront to morality? I'll acknowledge that it goes against the doctrinism of some people but dogma/doctrinism has absolutely nothing to do with real morality.

[Stu2630]

It's absurd to think that because a person is Catholic (or Protestant, or Jewish, etc.) that they would find nudity/naturism offensive.

Jon - the Catholicism practised in much of Spain is ultra-conservative. Many of the older women still wear garments in black and ankle-length somewhat reminiscent of what you see in Islamic states. For them, open nakedness would be something profoundly shocking.

Stu

[nimrod]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Don't kid yourself that this supposedly relaxed attitude is indicative that Spain is a progressive nation - the opposite is true. Wherever you look there you will see vice. Hardcore pornography is openly on sale next to children's comics. In Spanish cities, prostitution and sex shows are as open they are in Bangkok, and drugs are openly sold on many streets. In many Spanish holiday resorts, drunkenness is visible on the streets with people vomiting, swearing and fighting most evenings. Their apparently relaxed attitude to nudity has not come about because the public have consciously mandated their elected representatives to legislate for this - it has come about because Spanish law is a complete mess (I can cite many examples to back this statement up!).

Unless their country is to subside into a pit of debauched anarchy, the Spanish government will have to clean up their act - and their streets - at some time. If they don't, their tourist trade will start to suffer significantly. Sooner or later they will have to make some proper laws to control vice and public disorder and when they do they may well decide to limit nudity. And so they should. Nudists are extremely well catered for in Spain and those of us who find nudity offensive should also receive some consideration - there is no excuse for people to practise nudism elsewhere. Spain is a staunchly Catholic country, and it is certain that many locals find the sight of naked bodies on their beaches incompatible with their moral values. Hopefully, these people will make their voices heard.

Stu

For someone who says that they support nudist rights, your comments here read as just the opposite. You actually put nudity in the same sentence with vice and public disorder.

[newton]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
when they do they may well decide to limit nudity.
Stu

Stu:

Thank you for that perspective. It is important to consider that. I do not necessarily agree with you that the Spanish government do so, but I agree that it might happen.

Newton

[jon71]

The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between genuine faith that comes from GOD and dogma that comes from the church. There are not only conservative Christians that support naturism but Mormons and Muslims that have an overall reputation of being as body modest as you can get. Unfortunately there are plenty of people using religion as an excuse to be anti-nudity, anti-gay, anti-feminist, etc. etc. I still reject the notion that it's an automatic however.

[Stu2630]

For someone who says that they support nudist rights, your comments here read as just the opposite.

Nimrod - I support responsible and considerate nudism, not the sort of laissez-faire, get-naked-where-you-like nudism that the Spanish naturists seem to want to foist on the textile world.

You actually put nudity in the same sentence with vice and public disorder.

I certainly consider irresponsible and inconsiderate nudity to be a public order issue.

Jon - you make a fair point and I do not disagree with you. Maybe the predominantly conservative catholic inhabitants of Spain don't have a problem with nudity, but my knowledge of them and my intuition tell me otherwise. I have been to many Spanish beaches and it's notable that if you find one used mainly by local people, both sexes seem to be dressed far more modestly than you see on those used by tourists (the biggest part of whom are Germans). Certainly the Spanish intelligentsia have typically European broad-mindedness, but they account for a very small minority in Spain and they are not representative of the Spanish zeitgeist.

Stu

[LamontCranston]

Spain is a staunchly Catholic country, Your first paragraph does not describe a staunchly Catholic place. It sounds the opposite. Maybe Spain was once, but it appears to have drifted the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Still, thanks for the story link and thanks Stu for the perspective. I know little about Spain. Interesting post.

[nudefree03]

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Spain is a staunchly Catholic country, Your first paragraph does not describe a staunchly Catholic place. It sounds the opposite. Maybe Spain was once, but it appears to have drifted the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Still, thanks for the story link and thanks Stu for the perspective. I know little about Spain. Interesting post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely not as bad as how Stu describes it though. Yes, there are sex shows and porn on sale in newsstands, Italy is the same though, and I'm sure a few other European countries too. Sex shops aren't very hidden in Austria or Germany too, some are on main streets in cities too. I remember one in a large street in Vienna, one of the main ones, where a sex shop was smack back in the middle. I have Spanish friends and have been to Spain several times, and found Stu's attitude bordering on racist.

[luvnaturism]

We'll be spending 3 weeks in Spain and Portugal starting at the end of this month, so it will be interesting to see how reality compares to Stu's comments. I'm particularly interested to see if the devout Catholic women he mentioned who wear black ankle-length clothing actually go to ANY beach.

With respect to the open sale of sexual reading material, that's common in many European cities. It can hardly get more blatant than what we observed in Scandinavia. It's just a different culture (or cultures) than what we have in the US, and seems to have a different impact.

[David77]

In the USA most the time they do not have porno magizines on a rack on the street, but there are legal sex stores throughout USA. There is a legal sex store a few blocks from where I live in my decent suburb. For one thing, women can buy their personal vibrators there.

[Stu2630]

I'm particularly interested to see if the devout Catholic women he mentioned who wear black ankle-length clothing actually go to ANY beach.

No, of course they won't generally go to beaches wearing long, black garments - but beaches in Spain are often visible from other places. Spain is a pretty big country by European standards and tremendously diverse. There are some resorts where the only native Spaniards you are likely to meet are those who service the tourist industry, and they will have seen it all before and virtually immune from being shocked by what outsiders do. If you stick to these areas you will see little of the catholic culture I mentioned. Many beautiful beaches in Spain, however, are close to fishing villages or rural areas where the way of life has changed little over centuries and religiously inspired sensibilities run deep. Remember, too, that there will be other tourists there who made a conscious decision NOT to go to a nudist resort/beach and it is inconsiderate and ignorant to disregard their sensibilities. Getting naked on a popular beach where nudity is not expected is every bit as antisocial as being a "gawker" at a nudist beach. Both forms of behaviour are offensive.

By the way - we're going to Spain for a 2-week holiday next May, staying in a village close to the Costa del Sol. I go to some trouble to avoid nudist areas when I book a holiday and it's not unreasonable to expect others to be equally considerate by conforming to the norms and expectations of the resort.

With respect to the open sale of sexual reading material, that's common in many European cities. It can hardly get more blatant than what we observed in Scandinavia. It's just a different culture (or cultures) than what we have in the US, and seems to have a different impact.

Scandinavia, Germany and Holland are all pretty bad in that respect, but remember that they don't have the strong religious associations that you find in Mediterranean countries.

Stu

[luvnaturism]

We'll be staying a week at Marbella on the Costa del Sol. We'll have a car, so we'll be exploring around the area. Hopefully the weather in October will be just right.

[Stu2630]

luvnaturism - I don't know if you've been before but that part of the coast is lovely and, aside from the beaches, there's plenty of sightseeing. It's worth hiring a car: Grenada and Gibraltar are within easy travelling, and there are lots of fascinating rustic villages around the Sierra Nevada mountains that are worth exploring. So far as nudist beaches are concerned, I have no doubt that you'll be spoiled for choice. If you are taking your partner with you shopping in Marbella - take plenty of money with you - there's lots to spend it on, especially if for a female with an eye for fashions and jewellery. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif We're planning to hire a villa in a little town called Mijas.

I hope you have an absolutely fantastic time - I'm sure you will!!!

Stu

[Pete Knight]

When I leave Cap d'Adge at the end of the month I'm going to Spain, will visit Barcelona and Vra Playa then over to Leon to visit a friend before driving back to Calais for the ferry crossing back to blighty.

Pete Knight

[sknny_dipper]

I have been to main land Spain and the Canary islands many times. I have also been on the beaches frequented by both naked tourists and naked locals. Yes i have also seen the old dears dressed in black sitting knitting and taking in the sights on the beach and obviously enjoying themselves. Nudity is now quite widely accepted through out Spain and the Canaries. Like everywhere else there will be those for it and those against it. Lets not forget public nudity on any of the beaches in Spain is not illegal. If the majority of the Spanish people were so against nudity, i'm sure they would soon get the law changed. Lets not forget Spain is now and has been for some time a democracy.

[Stu2630]

Like everywhere else there will be those for it and those against it.

So where can people go if they dislike nudity? People like me, who takes the trouble to avoid nudist places?

Lets not forget public nudity on any of the beaches in Spain is not illegal.

See my first post on this thread. We know that is the case but it doesn't mean to say that it is either right, or that it's what the people actually want.

If the majority of the Spanish people were so against nudity, i'm sure they would soon get the law changed. Lets not forget Spain is now and has been for some time a democracy.

That doesn't follow. The Statute Book in any country rarely coincides with the will of the people, that's why capital punishment in the UK was abolished, as was corporal punishment in schools, yet polls show most people favour these. In the case of Spain, the laws are known throughout the legal world to be poorly developed. The lack of any legal sanction against public nudity there didn't come about through any democratic process - when the fascist regime was thrown out and a new, secular Constitution was written, and laws which were based on religiously-inspired morality were thrown out in their entirety. That did leave gaps - the ban on public nudity was one of them - and this may very well be addressed when the Cortes Generales (Spanish Legislature) gets around to reviewing and updating the laws on public order. The problem the Spanish have in passing laws is that there is fragmentation - so many conflicting political parties, including parochial interest parties (Catalans, Basques etc) each with their own agendas that it's difficult to get anything through. If they get a strong centre-left or republican majority government in place, a party like the increasingly popular Christian Conservative "Partido Popular", then watch this space! Similarly, if nudists go too far in exploiting the existing situation, you can bet the authorities will remedy it in quick time.

Stu

[luvnaturism]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
luvnaturism - I don't know if you've been before but that part of the coast is lovely and, aside from the beaches, there's plenty of sightseeing. It's worth hiring a car: Grenada and Gibraltar are within easy travelling, and there are lots of fascinating rustic villages around the Sierra Nevada mountains that are worth exploring. So far as nudist beaches are concerned, I have no doubt that you'll be spoiled for choice. If you are taking your partner with you shopping in Marbella - take plenty of money with you - there's lots to spend it on, especially if for a female with an eye for fashions and jewellery. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif We're planning to hire a villa in a little town called Mijas.

I hope you have an absolutely fantastic time - I'm sure you will!!!

Stu

Thanks for these good wishes. It's our first time, and we're really looking forward to it. My wife and I, along with two of our friends, are taking a two-week tour of Spain and Portugal. There's even an overnight in Morrocco on the itinerary. Afterwards we will have a week together in a timeshare in Marbella. One way and another, we'll do a lot of sightseeing.

RE: shopping - I tell my wife she's free to buy anything in the store. The reason it's safe to do that is that she's very thrifty, much more so than I. There's no danger that she'll break the bank.

[luvnaturism]

Originally posted by Stu2630:

So where can people go if they dislike nudity? People like me, who takes the trouble to avoid nudist places?
Stu

Come visit the US. You'll be absolutely safe from accidental contact with nudists, and we need the money. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif

[nimrod]

Stu, I have a hard time with your views of how nudist should have rights but only if they are segragated. To me it is like saying, nudist can have freedoms but only the freedoms that I allow them, and that is not trully being free. If a city, state, or nation chooses not to ban or criminalize simple nudity, you still have the freedom not to visit that city, state, or nation. If you do visit and decide to walk down the streets clothed, you would not risk being thrown in jail as a sexual preditor.

[missouriboy]

If you walk down the streets clothed, you would not risk being thrown in jail as a sexual preditor. Yay! I LOVE it! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Stu2630]

luvnaturism

Come visit the US. You'll be absolutely safe from accidental contact with nudists, and we need the money

I very nearly went to visit my wife's cousin in San Francisco a couple of years ago and then I read somewhere about a guy who does naked yoga in the street, so we abandoned the idea.

Nimrod

Try to see it from my point of view. Nudists are people and I'm not singling them out to be denied rights that the rest of us enjoy. What I want to see segregated is nudity - so that there are places that anyone (nudist or otherwise) can go and be naked, and elsewhere there is a dress requirement. It's no different to me wanting to do rally driving - there are places I can go and enjoy that pastime if I wish but they are segregated from mainstream roads. That's not denying rally drivers a basic freedom - it's making sure everyone is safe and comfortable and can enjoy using the public places they have to pay for in their taxes.

If a city, state, or nation chooses not to ban or criminalize simple nudity, you still have the freedom not to visit that city, state, or nation.

If you can show me any city, state or nation in which the majority of people want to practise nudism, or at the very least, actually want to be around naked people in public, then I'll accept that location should not criminalise simple nudity. Elsewhere, however, it is likely that a significant proportion of the public will not be comfortable with the idea of nudity anywhere in public and so it should only occur in private, and in those public places where it is unlikely to cause offence.

If you do visit and decide to walk down the streets clothed, you would not risk being thrown in jail as a sexual preditor.

I am not a nudist so I don't go to nudist places - if I did so, clothed, I could be suspected of going there for sexual reasons (i.e. as a gawker) and would probably be rebuked or worse. And I could have no complaint if that happened even if I had no sexual intent. So it cuts both ways. I promise I will never go clothed in a nudist venue and would respectfully ask the tiny minority of people who are nudists to reciprocate by avoiding being nude in the places I'm likely to visit or frequent.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

shaking my head

Stu, I do not understand someone who is adamantly anti-nudism stays and posts on a nudist site. How do you come to this forum and ignore the avatars of naked forum members? Do you find these offensive? I am truly curious.

Let's try this.....you want nudists segregated. Well....let's see, I would like to see beaches segregated so that singles and couples without children have theirs, and let's be sure that couples with children have their own beach too! Now, that would make some great fun for all ..... singles would not be offended with the loud couples and their children; couples could choose either or. Maybe, we could segregate further and let teens, ages 13 to 16 have their beach; and 16 to 19 will have theirs. Hmmm, you might have a good point with segregation.

[David77]

Stu says;
I very nearly went to visit my wife's cousin in San Francisco a couple of years ago and then I read somewhere about a guy who does naked yoga in the street, so we abandoned the idea.

Please read the newspaper article I posted under "Nudes in the News" regarding the "Naked Yoga Guy" in San Francisco.

[walter05]

Stu;

You said, "then I'll accept that location should not criminalise simple nudity."

Are you saying that simple nudity should be criminal?

[Stu2630]

Moonshadow

Stu, I do not understand someone who is adamantly anti-nudism stays and posts on a nudist site.

I'm not anti-nudist - I actually support responsible, considerate nudism as practised by the majority of nudists.

How do you come to this forum and ignore the avatars of naked forum members? Do you find these offensive? I am truly curious.

On my computer, the avatars are only tiny so I've got used to ignoring them.

Let's try this.....you want nudists segregated. Well....let's see, I would like to see beaches segregated so that singles and couples without children have theirs, and let's be sure that couples with children have their own beach too!

Nice idea! Get enough people who want the same thing and then let's press for some "adults only" beaches. Actually, there already are such beaches and they are for you naturists, e.g.:

http://www.hiddenbeachresort.com/en/index.php

How about some for us textiles, too? You are right when you say some adults like the peace and quiet you get when there are no kids around. I'm not sure that further age segregation is necessary or that enough people would want it, though, but a few "kids-free" beaches - great!

David

Please read the newspaper article I posted under "Nudes in the News" regarding the "Naked Yoga Guy" in San Francisco.

Thanks. That story has appeared a few times and they said he's not breaking any ordnances in San Francisco, so we cancelled our trip.

Walter

Are you saying that simple nudity should be criminal?

It should be contrary to law to be naked in public in circumstances that are likely to cause offence. That's already the case in my country and most US states have restrictions on public nudity. If these laws are breached, they are classed as contraventions of the criminal law over here.

Stu

[nimrod]

Stu, safty and comfort are two seperate things, their only commonallity is that neither can be assured. I can see having race tracks for the people who wish to race for safty reasons, but having laws that prohibit someone from being nude because it might make someone uncomfortable is just wrong.

Tatoos are a choice that people make. Some are uncomfortable around people that have tatoos. Should there be laws against having visible tatoos, and only let those with tatoos show them in certain areas? It is the same with ones state of dress.

I think that you missed my point on the city, state, or nation. What I was trying to say is that if there were such a place, you would not be asked to take your clothes off or go to jail, you would have the freedom to dress any way you saw fit. I am not saying that everywhere should be nudist only, just clothing-optional. Everyone should be offered the freedom of choice. I am not opposed to indivisual buisnesses having a dress code either, but I should have the freedom to walk, bike, or drive to that store nude or in a three-piece suit.

[Stu2630]

having laws that prohibit someone from being nude because it might make someone uncomfortable is just wrong.

This is where we disagree. We don't allow people to have sex in public, or display pornographic images on billboards, or use obscene language, or defecate into a bucket in the street and so on - why not? These things are not safety issues, but they are likely to cause people offence, thus impinging on the comfort they are entitled to enjoy when using a public place.

Some are uncomfortable around people that have tattoos.

I don't think anyone is uncomfortable around someone just because they have a tattoo. My sister-in-law has a small rose tattood on her right shoulder, but I have yet to see anyone shocked or upset at the sight of it. A tattoo may be thought by someone who sees it as a symbol of violence, or belonging to a gang or aggressive section of society, just as would someone dressed in Hell's Angel clothes may engender fear. But it's not the tattoos or clothing that is feared, but its association with a particular faction that may cause alarm, and that is often based upon the fact that such groups have been known to be violent or dangerous. We can't make a blanket ban on tattoos, or leather jackets with studs, etc because people who have no links to such groups wear these purely for the purpose of fashion.

Nudism and nudity is different. Nobody is worried by the presence of someone wearing a tee-shirt bearing the sentence "I love nudism", because they don't mind nudists as people. But what they possibly WILL find upsetting, though, is nakedness in public. Whether they know the person concerned belongs to a nudist organisation or not is immaterial.

What I was trying to say is that if there were such a place, you would not be asked to take your clothes off or go to jail, you would have the freedom to dress any way you saw fit.

I understood your point perfectly - I just disagreed with it. The way one person behaves in public affects everyone else in that space to a greater or lesser degree. I believe that public spaces should be regulated in such a way as to maximise comfort for the greatest number of people. I also believe that the proportion of people who actually want to be naked in public is dwarfed by the number of people who would be offended or angered by it, so I agree with laws that say public places are not clothes optional: you can wear what you like, but there are small parts of your anatomy which must remain out of sight when you are visible from a public place in the interests of the comfort of everyone. That's the status quo now, and it's not unreasonable, especially when places are provided for those who want nothing less than an opportunity to wear nothing at all.

I think nudists often give too much thought to the dim-and-distant possibility of some day living in a nudist utopia, where people can wear as much or as little as they like pretty much anywhere. It's not a feasible proposition in the foreseeable future and it's not a reasonable demand to make of the wider society who really don't want to live like that. What IS reasonable, though, is to demand more and better venues for nudists, including the limited use of some public facilities (nudists are taxpayers, after all) and a removal of whatever stigma ignorant people attach to nudism (you are decent, law-abiding people and entitled to RESPECT!).

Stu

[nimrod]

Stu, since I have tatoos I have come across people who react in a very negitive way to tatoos, not the association of a gang, but to the tatoo itself. I have recieved comments about how I am desicrating my body, and over heard others saying it was sick and disgusting, how they would never get one or even be friends with anyone who had one. Simular to the comments I have heard about nudist and nudity, and that is why I used it has an example.

I am not so sure that the acceptance of nudity is in the minority. If you think about it everyone accepts nudity in some form. There is a very broad spectrum of opinions about public nudity, from naked only in private to naked any time, any where. Most of the people I know and have talked to about nudity usually say they do not care if I am a nudist, as long as they do not see it, but they also cannot see the difference between simple nudity and having sex. What I have experienced from friends, family, in the media and from this forum the acceptance of public nudity is close to 50/50, and there would be a larger majority in favour of puplic nudity if the stigmas attached to nudity did not exsist.

What about the comfort I, and we as nudist are entitled to enjoy when using a public place. Defecating in a bucket on the street could be a safety issue. Sex in public, porn in public, obscene language, nudity, religious practices, the color of ones skin, tatoos, clothing, hair style, eye color, name any thing, and it has the posibility to cause people offence. I am not calling for anarchy, but I do not like having my freedom of choice taken from me.

[Agde]

Wow! I focus on work for a couple days and the thread fills up with philosophy, denunciations and concern about tatoos! Fun! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Spain is a wonderful, diverse country with little resemblance to Stu's caricature. As we've discussed over in the legal forum, Spain has just taken the very practical step to unburden the courts with disputes over personal choice of clothing. There are specific legal principles about nudity and then custom is left to regulate attire in specific situations. Within that, people are expected to use common sense, respect each other, and respond to requests to cover up. Sexuality issues are handled separately from nudity, so all the debate here on pornography, etc is kind of tangential at best. Again, if anyone wants to get into the details, the CFI legal forum has some links, but Spain's laws clearly are not "a mess", and in fact the experience of the Spanish model is being watched by other EU countries.

The "Day Without Bathing Suits" I thought nicely caught the spirit of what's going on. The FEN website has an indication of times that various public facilities are promotionally nudist. I actually dropped into this forum just now to report on my informal tour of Madrid parks. Basketball enthusiasts may figure out what took me to Madrid, and why one of the (bored?) spouses was happy to chauffeur me around for a quick midday park survey. Madrid has many small and some very large parks varying in formality and accessibilty. In one of the most central and formal ones where there were hundreds of people scattered lounging on the grass among the trees -- we only ran across one guy and a couple of women together who were nude. There wasn't the slightest hint that any of the people passing by found it disturbing, including two motorcycle policia who happened to roll by while we were there. Anyway, since we were looking, we found maybe a dozen nude people around town -- nude sunbathing is clearly not the norm, but it clearly isn't going to result in arrest either.

Anyway, just my reality check contribution. Back to work. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Josh-here]

Agde knows what he is talking about. Stu on the other hand doesn't seem to know squat about Spain. The little old ladies in black? That has noting to do with conservative Catholicism or conservatism at all! It just means that they are widows. It's a very old tradition that women who are widows dress in black. In more modern times, some no longer do it, some do it a few days, but some of the elderly who are widows will dress in black until the day they die. They also have seen lots of nudity, because Spanish public TV has lots of it and no one protests. Conservative Catholics are considered backward and ridiculed many times on TV. Watch any public debate program on homosexuality or nudity and you will quickly see where the Spanish majority stand! Those who hold to very conservative views are viewed as repressive and backward. Conservative Catholic Spain? Spain is fastly becoming totally non-religious, and agnostic. Spain is so conservative Catholic, that it is one of the few countries on earth where gays have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals and were abortion is unquestioned. Sure the old Catholic festivals are observed but its more an excuse to drink and party than anything else for the Spanish people. Of course there are exceptions as anywhere, but they are the minority by far!

[Stu2630]

Stu, since I have tattoos I have come across people who react in a very negative way to tattoos, not the association of a gang, but to the tattoo itself. I have received comments about how I am desecrating my body, and over heard others saying it was sick and disgusting..

Nimrod

This must be something unique to your society because in my 50 years on this planet, and having lived in four countries, I have never heard such attitudes about tattoos. But in all four countries, the majority of those I have discussed this with (with the exception of nudists) consider that nudity is something which has to occur only in certain, limited contexts.

I am not so sure that the acceptance of nudity is in the minority.

Walk through any town, onto any train or go anywhere else in public in the UK displaying your tattoos, and nobody would bat an eyelid. Do the same naked and some people will complain either to your face or to the police. The key issue is, as I said, a comfort one and the simple and inescapable fact is that far more people find public nudity offensive that the number of people who want to practise it or actively want to see it. In all these respects, I can't believe your society and mine are so very different about this.

Defecating in a bucket on the street could be a safety issue.

Where is the safety issue? We lets dogs defecate in public so long as the owner cleans up after them, so are you saying dog poop is less offensive than human poop?

Sex in public, porn in public, obscene language, nudity, religious practices, the color of ones skin, tattoos, clothing, hair style, eye color, name any thing, and it has the possibility to cause people offence. I am not calling for anarchy, but I do not like having my freedom of choice taken from me.

Virtually anything can cause offence, that's why you must take the numerical, utilitarian approach I suggested above.

Agde

Spain has just taken the very practical step to unburden the courts with disputes over personal choice of clothing.

No it hasn't. It hasn't actively legislated for the legalisation of public nudity specifically - it is simply a lacuna in Spanish law that they have not bothered, or not got around to, remedying.

Within that, people are expected to use common sense, respect each other, and respond to requests to cover up.

And when you leave it up to people to use use common sense, and to respect each other, a selfish minority forget to do that and instead insist on pushing the envelope and their own agendas. If I go to Spain and carefully avoid the nudist beaches, of which there are plenty in that country, then some despicable person walks into my view naked because somebody somewhere decides it's a "Day Without Bathing Suits", then I have every right to get upset. That's not responsible nudism, it's despicable.

Stu

[David77]

That story has appeared a few times and they said he's not breaking any ordnances in San Francisco, so we cancelled our trip.
Stu,
It seems to me that your priority of values are amiss. It seems that you and your family going to visit with your wife's sister should get priority over the extremely slim chance that you may see anyone nude in San Francisco.

On the other hand, does it mean that you will not visit London because of some possible suprise sighting of nudes, or many nudes as seen in the video of nude bicycling in the London park?

You may accidently see a nude <u>in your city</u>. Please have a pleasant trip in San Francisco. I know that you would enjoy it and especially visiting with relatives there.

Here is an 8 minute video of nude cyclists in the London park, to confirm what I am claiming.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=605314988861282...ype=search&plindex=0 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6053149888612822952&q=London++nude+cyclist+bicycle&total=9&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[Agde]

Well, Stu, I don't know if you read Spanish, but I would refer you to Art.185 del Codigo Penal (Spanish Penal Code) which establishes limits that nudity, to be illegal, must have sexual intention to excite others or oneself and occur in the presence of minors or mentally handicapped persons.

The removal of legal sanction against casual nudity in fact occurred through a very careful and thoughtful democratic process, with legal revisions in 1989 and 1995. Given their bad experience with micro-criminalization of personal choice and activities, there is broad public support for tolerance unless there is actual harm. Dislike or offense, even by the majority, is politically not reason enough to write a restrictive law. Even if politically thinkable, there are specific constitutional guarantees on the "equality of moralities" and against reduction of freedom based on others' opinions. Also, unlike in many countries, municipalities may not further restrict constitutional limits without being granted an explicit exception. "Maximizing comfort for the majority" is an idea that a strong majority would find uncomfortably fascist.

Where can people go if they dislike nudity? If someone is too close to you, just talk to them. Commercial establishments and places like sports arenas may in any case legally have their own dress standards. The basic rule is that if you want to be nude and nobody objects, its ok. If somebody objects, discuss it and adjust. It is not an absolute right to be nude -- it is just not illegal. If it becomes confrontational, then custom in that situation is not yet ready for nudity. In the meantime, Spain is probably not an ideal holiday choice for intolerant foreigners.

[missouriboy]

nudity (in Spain), to be illegal, must have sexual intention to excite others or oneself and occur in the presence of minors or mentally handicapped persons. (Emphasis added)

I don't know how the Spanish reads, or is interpreted, but in English the above combination of words means that even "sexual intention" nudity is not illegal unless it occurs in the presence of minors or mental cases.

The word "and" means both conditions must be true. I should think it would be the same in Spanish, unless there is some ambiguity in the translation.

[Stu2630]

David

In the case of London - I know when they are planning to stage that event, so I avoid going anywhere where I may see it. I would never go there just to give me an excuse to complain - I'm a reasonable and fair-minded person.

Please have a pleasant trip in San Francisco. I know that you would enjoy it and especially visiting with relatives there.

Since we told them we weren't coming, they seem to have taken umbrage and I doubt that we would be welcome any more. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

Agde

Well, Stu, I don't know if you read Spanish, but I would refer you to Art.185 del Codigo Penal (Spanish Penal Code) which establishes limits that nudity, to be illegal, must have sexual intention to excite others or oneself and occur in the presence of minors or mentally handicapped persons.

The way the law is written in this respect is similar in most European countries - but the interpretation does vary. The relevant part of the Spanish Penal Code is aimed sexual offences, just as over here in the UK we have section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act. If you are telling me that Spanish law expressly states that non-sexual nudity is permitted in public places, then by all means show me where it says that, but I strongly doubt it does. Like our sex laws, that part of the law is intended to deal with predatory sexual offences whereas non-sexual nudity is no such thing in virtually all European countries. Here in the UK, and I'm sure it's the same in Spain, if you want to prosecute someone for being naked in public, you use an entirely different set of laws, namely the public order laws - the same laws that prohibit drunkenness, swearing, urinating in public and so on. Spain's public order laws are famously slack and antiquated and that's why they suffer with so much trouble. Yes, that stems from a reaction to so many years of fascist control. But don't be surprised if, in due course, the Spaniards don't beef up these laws once they get a slightly more right-wing government who promise a crackdown on law and order. You mention the "revisions" in 1989 and 1995, but public nudity simply wasn't an issue then. I don't think it is an issue now, either, but if it becomes widespread, they will have to address it.

At the moment, the bad behaviour and irresponsible nudity seems to be confined mainly to tourist areas and it doesn't seem to bother the local populace too much. But all it would take is a Steve Gough or someone like him trying to walk the length of Spain naked, and then we may see the Spanish taking a much tougher line.

The basic rule is that if you want to be nude and nobody objects, its ok. If somebody objects, discuss it and adjust. It is not an absolute right to be nude --

I totally agree. There is, however, an element of "risk management" here and that means nudists taking reasonable care to use nudist facilities where possible, and where they don't exist, find somewhere out of the way. This campaign in Spain was in a country with countless nudist places and opportunities and yet it was actually aimed at forcing non-nudists - people who had deliberately chosen NOT to go to a nudist beach - to see nakedness. That was unforgivable and shows disrespect and contempt for the textiles right to choose to be free from nudity. In its own way, is every bit as obnoxious as a gawker attending a family nudist beach.

Stu

[nudebushwalker]

I've never been to Spain (yet..), but the few Spanish people I know personally are nice (and seemingly liberal minded).

But I will add one thing to back up just one aspect of Stu's tirade against Spain itself (not the people, or the physical landscape..) - Spain has a corrupt fascist government, that doesn't have extradition treaties with any of our countries - that's why criminals from our countries run away to there - want a reference ? Look up "Christopher Skase". And also, why so many Crime bosses keep holiday villas there...

[blindmanin99]

All I know is that I had a 4 day vacation (holiday) in Barcelona last October and it was the best 4 days I've had in the last 2 1/2 years in the UK. My family and I loved it, and we never even got to go to the beach. Las Ramblas was awesome, any time of the day (dinner at 11 P.M.). My son and his friends were out skateboarding until 2 A.M. I didn't have a single negative experience about the whole trip. No wait, Burger King didn't serve coffee in the morning, only beer.

[Agde]

Since by sheer volume, Stu's comments appear to overwhelm this topic, I'd just like to quietly point out that they are upsidedown and irreal in the context of Spain. "Entirely different laws" are not used to "prosecute someone for being naked in public". There is no "disrespect and contempt for textiles" or forcing nudism on non-nudists. And there is no disrespect and contempt for nudists either. Social tolerance is about accepting, even cherishing, diversity. It is realizing that every freedom granted is an investment in a reciprocal grant of freedom. When "public order" is synonymous with imposed conformity, it is totalitarian. Expanding the scope of reciprocal tolerance is in fact a prerequisite of liberty.

Anyway, this is way beyond the scope of "The Day Without Bathing Suits". It was just a cheerful demonstration that bathing without polyester is one comfortable option. No big deal.

[TANZ]

Originally posted by Agde:
Since by sheer volume, Stu's comments appear to overwhelm this topic, I'd just like to quietly point out that they are upsidedown and irreal in the context of Spain. "Entirely different laws" are not used to "prosecute someone for being naked in public". There is no "disrespect and contempt for textiles" or forcing nudism on non-nudists. And there is no disrespect and contempt for nudists either. Social tolerance is about accepting, even cherishing, diversity. It is realizing that every freedom granted is an investment in a reciprocal grant of freedom. When "public order" is synonymous with imposed conformity, it is totalitarian. Expanding the scope of reciprocal tolerance is in fact a prerequisite of liberty.

Anyway, this is way beyond the scope of "The Day Without Bathing Suits". It was just a cheerful demonstration that bathing without polyester is one comfortable option. No big deal.

Well put Adge,great post http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

Naturally
Kiwi

[Stu2630]

"Entirely different laws" are not used to "prosecute someone for being naked in public".

They are in many other countries in Europe - including very tolerant ones like Germany and the Scandinavian countries, that use public order laws to limit nudity. The critical question asked is "does the behaviour cause, or is it likely to cause, offence?" If the answer is "yes", then the police step in and the matter is put before the courts. That's how it should be IMO.

Social tolerance is about accepting, even cherishing, diversity.

Public order laws exist in all countries to place limits as to when tolerance is appropriate, and if so, how much tolerance, for certain types of behaviour. For example, I don't know any country which allows hardcore porn to be displayed on public billboards, and I am sure there are some people who would love to do that.

When "public order" is synonymous with imposed conformity, it is totalitarian.

Without laws we have anarchy and yet all laws demand conformity to some extent. They demand we display number (license) plates on our cars and that we refrain from shouting obscenities in public and that we don't exceed speed limits. Laws which regulate when and where nudity in public are no different in essence because they ensure that those places are benign to as many people as possible. There is nothing "totalitarian" about that.

Expanding the scope of reciprocal tolerance is in fact a prerequisite of liberty.

Liberty also means recognising the right of people to enjoy living in the kind of environment they are comfortable with and penalising anyone who threatens that.

Those who wish to practise nudism in Spain are spoiled for choice. The behaviour of this group, though, is trying to deny a reciprocal choice for those textiles who prefer to use beaches that are free from nudity. Their behaviour would be like smokers who decide to walk away from the "smoking area" of a restaurant and make their way into the "non-smoking" area to light up in there and foist the stench of tobacco smoke on those mainly non-smokers who were previously enjoying a meal. It's rude and it would be criminal in many countries. And so it should be.

Stu

[Agde]

"Harm" not "offense" is the basis of law.
"Public order laws" have always been the vector of totalitarianism and the tyranny of the majority.
(ref: H.Marcuse and B.Moore)
"Anarchy" does not result from weeding bad laws from an overgrown garden of legislation.
"Liberty" has nothing to do with enforcing the "right to comfort" of any group and it recognizes no right for any group, big or small, to "penalise" other groups who are peacefully different.
Smoking harms others. Stench is an opinion.
Some people can't tell the difference between Lennon and Lenin.
Reminder: this discussion is about some folks enjoying bathing without suits in Spain.
:)

[Stu2630]

"Harm" not "offense" is the basis of law.

So why are things like shouting obscene language, public sex and openly displaying pornography generally illegal in public? In my country, our legal system recognises that people should be able to enjoy public places in comfort and without being exposed to sights that are likely to cause them alarm or distress. Most advanced countries adopt a similar principle.

Smoking harms others. Stench is an opinion.

Smoking tobacco harms others - or so it is claimed. So go into any public area you like where smoking is prohibited and light up an entirely harmless, but foul-smelling, herbal cigarette. When someone reacts to your behaviour, just tell them that "Stench is an opinion" and see how far you get.

The simple fact is that most non-smokers will choose a no-smoking area to eat in a restaurant not just for health reasons, but because they want to enjoy a smoke-free environment. The smell of smoke would interfere with their enjoyment of the meal - and they would feel doubly aggrieved if they knew there were places nearby that were actually designated for smokers. That's how I feel about nudity. I don't want to be around it and I am prepared to choose the places I go to so that I can avoid it. Only the rudest and most inconsiderate people would wilfully disregard the feelings of those like myself and where they have perfectly good alternatives.

Stu

[Skinview]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
Wherever you look there you will see vice. Hardcore pornography is openly on sale next to children's comics. In Spanish cities, prostitution and sex shows are as open they are in Bangkok, and drugs are openly sold on many streets. Spanish law is a complete mess.

Unless their country is to subside into a pit of debauched anarchy, the Spanish government will have to clean up their act - and their streets - at some time. If they don't, their tourist trade will start to suffer significantly. Sooner or later they will have to make some proper laws to control vice and public disorder and when they do they may well decide to limit nudity. And so they should. Nudists are extremely well catered for in Spain and those of us who find nudity offensive should also receive some consideration - there is no excuse for people to practise nudism elsewhere.

Stu

Spain sounds like a libertarian utopia from the way you describe it. As it should be. If someone wants to see sex shows, hire a prostitute, view pornography, get high, or go nude, that is their business. And I doubt if these things would hurt tourism in the least. Thailand makes HUGE amounts of money from tourists who come from afar for the local sex shows and prostitutes. Here in the US, Playboy and Penthouse, often more explicit magazines as well, are on most magazine racks at bookstores and newsstands. I can't imagine that it is different in western Europe. And has been pointed out, most of those naked people ARE the tourists. Authoritarian prudes like yourself are a vanishing breed. Good riddance.

[Skinview]

Originally posted by Stu2630:

The critical question asked is "does the behaviour cause, or is it likely to cause, offence?" If the answer is "yes", then the police step in and the matter is put before the courts. That's how it should be IMO.

So if we are offended by your religion or your politics, we get to drag you into court and throw you in prison?


Liberty also means recognising the right of people to enjoy living in the kind of environment they are comfortable with and penalising anyone who threatens that.
No no no. WRONG! You have no concept whatsoever of what liberty is. Liberty means being able to do what you want, whether or not other people approve of it, so long as you do not threaten other's lives or property, or ability to do what they want to do. If you want to live in a neighborhood where all the houses are painted white, the people dress as you like, mow their lawns, and plant flower gardens in their front yards, you cannot demand the power to impose this on everyone around you without destroying their liberty. You paint your house they color you want, and we will damn well paint our houses the color we want.

Those who wish to practise nudism in Spain are spoiled for choice. The behaviour of this group, though, is trying to deny a reciprocal choice for those textiles who prefer to use beaches that are free from nudity.

Stu

You have the reciprocal choice to wear whatever clothes you want. Don't demand that everyone wear what you want them to wear.
You do not understand the difference between liberty and power. Power is where you get to do as you want and everyone else does as you want. Liberty is where you do as you want and everyone else can do whatever they want to do.

[eaglepeakpete]

I live in Spain and have a naturist complex there.

I think the Spanish have a balanced view on naturism. You can be nude anywhere in Spain its not an offense. Near me is naturist beach called Cantarrijan, although an official naturist beach you will find textiles and naturists happily sharing the beach, no one is concerned.It is true however that naturists tend to use the official beaches rather than the main textile ones, which they are entitled to do..
To find out more look up the
Federation Espanola de Naturismo web site at
www.naturism.org (http://www.naturismo.org).

[Stu2630]

If someone wants to see sex shows, hire a prostitute, view pornography, get high, or go nude, that is their business.

If they do it in public, they are making it everyone’s business. I don’t want to live in a society like that, thanks, and I don’t believe most other people do.

Thailand makes HUGE amounts of money from tourists who come from afar for the local sex shows and prostitutes.

If money is so important to you, and if that’s how you want to live, there’s your place! But I don’t want myself or my family to be surrounded by such sleaze and degradation, thanks.

Authoritarian prudes like yourself are a vanishing breed. Good riddance.

You live in the US – with President George W Bush in the White House – and you tell me I’m one of a dying breed? You’re funny!

So if we are offended by your religion or your politics, we get to drag you into court and throw you in prison?

My religion and my politics are private: you’ll never know what they are unless you choose to ask me. People are dragged into court and thrown into prison for what they do, not what they believe.

You say:

No no no. WRONG! You have no concept whatsoever of what liberty is. Liberty means being able to do what you want, whether or not other people approve of it…

And then you put a limit on it:

…so long as you do not threaten other's lives or property, or ability to do what they want to do.

So liberty is always conditional upon something - and you have decided it should be "threatening lives and property" only. I don't agree, and nor does any government in the developed world that I know of - yours included. We all have to do things we may not want to do, like pay our taxes or get a driving licence before we drive or refrain from making excessive noise in the street at night. Laws exist to make life bearable, or preferably comfortable, for as many people as possible and I want to live like that and among like minded people. I don’t want to live among people who go around naked, nor do a heck of a lot of other people I know, and we should have that choice. Why should you, a tiny minority, spoil our lives?

You have the reciprocal choice to wear whatever clothes you want. Don't demand that everyone wear what you want them to wear.

There are even limits to what clothes I can wear. How do you think the authorities would react if I wore a tee-shirt bearing a large, high-resolution photograph of somebody engaging in oral sex, while standing outside a nursery school? You have failed to understand one basic ideal enshrined within most western philosophy and that is that one man’s “liberty” can be another man’s torment. That’s why we have laws.

Eaglepeakpete

You have a dedicated naturist complex. You have many nudist and C/O beaches in Spain. Great! So you won’t be getting naked on the beaches that we non-naturists would like to use, then.

Stu

[Skinview]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If someone wants to see sex shows, hire a prostitute, view pornography, get high, or go nude, that is their business.
If they do it in public, they are making it everyone’s business. I don’t want to live in a society like that, thanks, and I don’t believe most other people do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My point is: whether you or they like it or not is irrelevant.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Thailand makes HUGE amounts of money from tourists who come from afar for the local sex shows and prostitutes. If money is so important to you, and if that’s how you want to live, there’s your place! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
YOU were using an economic argument for Spain to become more authoritarian.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Authoritarian prudes like yourself are a vanishing breed. Good riddance.
You live in the US – with President George W Bush in the White House – and you tell me I’m one of a dying breed? You’re funny! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>America is vastly more libertine than it was, and half of us are now more so than Bush. We used to literally be Puritans. Prudery is disappering.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if we are offended by your religion or your politics, we get to drag you into court and throw you in prison?
My religion and my politics are private: you’ll never know what they are unless you choose to ask me. People are dragged into court and thrown into prison for what they do, not what they believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats the way it is now. Not the way it used to be here, and its not the way it is now in much of the rest of the world. Go to Saudi Arabia and stand on a street corner and try to expouse your religious and political views. Belief manifests itself in the action of speach or worship.
So liberty is always conditional upon something - and you have decided it should be "threatening lives and property" only. I don't agree, and nor does any government in the developed world that I know of - yours included. And its still evil. But you left out violating other's "ability to do what they want to do". Freedom is also conditional on not taking away other people's freedom to run their own lives - the very point you seem not to fathom here.
I don’t want to live among people who go around naked, nor do a heck of a lot of other people I know, and we should have that choice. Why should you, a tiny minority, spoil our lives? You'll live. Get over it, or move to Saudi Arabia.
You have failed to understand one basic ideal enshrined within most western philosophy and that is that one man’s “liberty” can be another man’s torment. That’s why we have laws.

Laws exist to make life bearable, or preferably comfortable, for as many people as possible...
Here in America we have a different concept of what law and government are for:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
-Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence

[Stu2630]

My point is: whether you or they like it or not is irrelevant.

Of course it’s relevant. We have a right to fashion our society in such a way that we can be comfortable living in it.

YOU were using an economic argument for Spain to become more authoritarian.

I don’t regard the regulation of nudity as any more “authoritarian” than the regulation of the use of obscene language, or restrictions on where people can indulge in sex acts.

America is vastly more libertine than it was, and half of us are now more so than Bush. We used to literally be Puritans. Prudery is disappering.

I’m old enough to remember the 1960s and we heard the same things said then. Yet public nudity is hardly more acceptable now than it was 40 years ago in the time of flower power.

Thats the way it is now. Not the way it used to be here, and its not the way it is now in much of the rest of the world. Go to Saudi Arabia and stand on a street corner and try to expouse your religious and political views.

I’m all for progress – and I believe in freedom of belief, religious or political. I am pleased to live in a relatively free society in that respect, but I want behaviour in public to be regulated to take account of people’s sensibilities. That’s how it is now and I see no signs of that changing.

But you left out violating other's "ability to do what they want to do". Freedom is also conditional on not taking away other people's freedom to run their own lives - the very point you seem not to fathom here.

What you do on your own property is largely your own business, but the way you behave in public is the business of everyone else who uses, and sometimes have to use, those public places – and also pay for their maintenance. So I have a say in how such places are regulated, as does everyone else, and it is incumbent upon the authorities to have regard to our views and to legislate accordingly. Nudists are a tiny minority and if your activities upset other people, it is only right and proper that you should either do them in private, or in public in circumstances where the risk of causing that upset is minimal.

You'll live. Get over it, or move to Saudi Arabia

No. I’m happy with the status quo here in the UK and I’ll do all in my power to keep things as they are. If you want to live in a place where public nudity is permitted, perhaps you are the one who should consider emigrating.

Here in America we have a different concept of what law and government are for:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Yes, I know that, but they are words of a man who owned 187 slaves. What about them being "created equal"? What about their rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? I'm not criticizing Mr Jefferson - he was a man of his time and he had many admirable qualities, but I'm a man of my time, too, and I don't see the restriction of nudity in public to be anywhere near as inequitable or inhumane as the keeping of slaves.

Stu

[luvnaturism]

Originally posted by Skinview:

Thailand makes HUGE amounts of money from tourists who come from afar for the local sex shows and prostitutes.

I doubt that you want to hold up Thailand's sex industry as a positive example. Most of the "sex workers" are slaves. Young girls from the hill tribes, where girls are seen as a liability rather than an asset, are sold by their fathers to recruiters from the cities. Often the fathers are told that they girls will be working in offices, etc., but when they get to the city they are forced to work as prostitutes.

Escape is nearly impossible. They have no education or training that would allow them to support themselves at a decent job. If they return home, their fathers will simply sell them again. That's the way things are among the hill tribes.

[Skinview]

Originally posted by luvnaturism:

I doubt that you want to hold up Thailand's sex industry as a positive example. Most of the "sex workers" are slaves.

I know that this sort of thing happens, but I doubt "most" sex workers are slaves. I can't cite any statistics, but they make so much more than a farmer that I expect there is a big supply of willing workers. Prostitution flourishes where relatively rich men and widespread poverty are in the same place. Whatever the case, my point wasn't that Thailand is a utopia, just that they are making loads of money selling sex.

[Skinview]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
We have a right to fashion our society in such a way that we can be comfortable living in it.
Reread what I wrote about the difference between "right" and "power". We have the right to do what we want, regardless of whether it makes you uncomfortable.

I don’t regard the regulation of nudity as any more “authoritarian” than the regulation of the use of obscene language, or restrictions on where people can indulge in sex acts.
I agree. They are equally authoritarian.

...public nudity is hardly more acceptable now than it was 40 years ago in the time of flower power. Compare a "Brazil cut" bikini to the neck to knee coverage suits of 100 years ago. Now some people wear thongs. We are more nude than we were. What's the next step? Nudity used to prohibited in the movies, and now few think anything of it.

I have a say in how such places are regulated, as does everyone else, and it is incumbent upon the authorities to have regard to our views and to legislate accordingly. Nudists are a tiny minority and if your activities upset other people, it is only right and proper that you should either do them in private...
Question: For the sake of argument, just suppose that textiles are a minority, and nudists thought wearing clothes was rude, perhaps sinister. What are those textiles concealing? Weapons? So would we have the "right" (to misuse the term as you do) to require you to always be nude in public?

...they are words of a man who owned 187 slaves. What about them being "created equal"? What about their rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? I'm not criticizing Mr Jefferson - he was a man of his time and he had many admirable qualities, but I'm a man of my time, too, and I don't see the restriction of nudity in public to be anywhere near as inequitable or inhumane as the keeping of slaves.
Jefferson may deserve his lumps on this one, although he was an abolitionist. But that doesn't make the ideas in the Declaration any less valid.

[Stu2630]

Reread what I wrote about the difference between "right" and "power". We have the right to do what we want, regardless of whether it makes you uncomfortable.

I don’t know where you get the belief from that people can just do whatever they like regardless of the comfort of others. I know of no philosophical system or actual society where that is the case. Freedoms inevitably come with obligations to others: the issue is not whether these obligations exist, but the precisely what they are.

Compare a "Brazil cut" bikini to the neck to knee coverage suits of 100 years ago. Now some people wear thongs. We are more nude than we were. What's the next step?

If you are going back to Victorian/Edwardian times, they had some pretty extreme notions about what was “decent”, and we have rightly moved away from them, but we have now reached a natural limit at the exposure of the genitals and excretory organs. I have a picture of my dad on a beach in 1946 – 61 years ago – and he’s wearing the briefest swimming trunks. Bikinis came along in the late 1950s – half a century ago. These fashions are still pretty much what most people wear on beaches today. I recall complete nudity was de rigueur on the beaches of St Tropez in the late 60s/early 70s, but it’s not now. The amount of skin we expose is subject to the ebb-and-flow of fashion, but we have changed little in that respect over the past five decades and I see little sign of that changing.

Nudity used to prohibited in the movies, and now few think anything of it.

Nudity, and I mean SEXUAL nudity which is what the vast majority of film nudity is, was used for a while to market films because it drew audiences for reasons of prurience. It was no different to inserting soft porn into mainstream films for titillation. Now the novelty is wearing off, we’re actually seeing less of it in movies.

just suppose that textiles are a minority, and nudists thought wearing clothes was rude, perhaps sinister… So would we have the "right"…to require you to always be nude in public?

Yes, of course. If you have a “society”, whether that happens to be a nudist club, a nudist town or even a whole country where practically everyone goes around naked and causes offence or alarm to wear clothes, you would have every right to require some level of conformity in public and to insist on nakedness. In fact, don’t you already have some nudist clubs where nudity is mandatory?

Jefferson may deserve his lumps on this one, although he was an abolitionist. But that doesn't make the ideas in the Declaration any less valid.

You quoted Jefferson and my point was that even he put an interpretation his notion of freedom that certainly wouldn’t sit well on our modern society. If he can do that, then I too can put an interpretation on what he says while accepting his general principles, and my interpretation is far more liberal and egalitarian than his.

Stu

[Skinview]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
I don’t know where you get the belief from that people can just do whatever they like regardless of the comfort of others. I know of no philosophical system or actual society where that is the case.
On Liberty (1859), by John Stuart Mill, is the most well known argument for personal liberty. There is a political party in the US, the Libertarian Party, that holds to everything that I have written here. (I don't give much notice to third parties in the US, as they are an ineffective political tactic.) The US Constitution is libertarian in theory, but it has always been a struggle to put it into practice. James Madison, its main author, warned of "the tyranny of the majority". There are all sorts of things that we put up with here and in Europe because we have some respect for other people's freedoms. Often public nudity is one of them. There have been many tropical societies where nudity is the norm, but I don't think they have political philosophies.
...we have now reached a natural limit at the exposure of the genitals and excretory organs. All those nude beaches have busted those "natural limits".
...film nudity.. Now the novelty is wearing off, we’re actually seeing less of it in movies. Maybe you are seeing less of it. I haven't noticed a difference. I have seen more male nudity than there used to be, and its turning up on TV over here now.
In fact, don’t you already have some nudist clubs where nudity is mandatory?
Someone else here will have to answer that. I think it would be very unusual if there are any.
You quoted Jefferson and my point was that even he put an interpretation his notion of freedom that certainly wouldn’t sit well on our modern society.
What was that interpretation? Are you taking about slavery? His hypocracy aside, he was a vocal abolitionist. He thought slavery was wrong. BTW, the ideas that he put into the preamble to The Declaration of Independence come straight from John Locke.

[Stu2630]

You support the Libertarian Party? OK. People should be free to buy and sell hard drugs on the open market, complete removal of all gun control laws and so on. Radical stuff! What proportion of the electorate are likely to vote for the Libertarian Party? I suspect not many because to me it smacks of anarchy - and I reckon a lot of nudists here wouldn't vote for your party. I really wouldn’t want to live in the sort of society they are trying to create and neither, I suspect, would most Americans. You talk of the “tyranny of the majority”, but that’s what we mean by “majority rule”, or “democracy”. It may not be a perfect system, but the alternatives are infinitely worse.

There have been many tropical societies where nudity is the norm, but I don't think they have political philosophies.

That’s fine – but I don’t live in that sort of society and I don’t want to.

All those nude beaches have busted those "natural limits"

Nudism has been around for the best part of a century yet it is still very much a specialist interest: the great majority of beaches are not nudist.

Maybe you are seeing less of it. I haven't noticed a difference. I have seen more male nudity than there used to be, and its turning up on TV over here now.

You may not have noticed it, but I have and so have others, notably even some critics over here have commented that there is now less nudity in films than there ever was in the 70s or 80s. US commentators have noted it, too, like Stephanie Zacharek who said: “If anything, there's less sex (and less nudity) in American movies today than there was 30 years ago” http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/movies/review/2003/11/26/cooler/

And need I remind you about the massive public outrage when Janet Jackson had a mere part of her breast exposed by Justin Timberlake in the so-called "costume malfunction"?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In fact, don’t you already have some nudist clubs where nudity is mandatory?

Someone else here will have to answer that. I think it would be very unusual if there are any. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They certainly do exist – I’ve seen them discussed here!

What was that interpretation? Are you taking about slavery? His hypocracy aside, he was a vocal abolitionist.

Sorry, you can’t expect to be able to quote someone espousing lofty ideals who doesn’t live those ideals themselves. He may have voiced abolitionist views, but that didn’t cause him to release all his slaves or urge his fellow slave owners to do the same. He either believes all men are born equal or he doesn’t. Yes, freeing his valuable slaves would have cost him and so Mr Jefferson proves the old maxim that talk is cheap!

My interpretation of "freedom" is that I should be free to enjoy living in a society where my values and sensibilities are respected, and also reflected in the laws governing public behaviour. So long as there are more people who share my sensibilities about nudity than there are people who want to be naked in public, the latter behaviour should be prohibited.

Stu

[Skinview]

You support the Libertarian Party? OK.
No. I wrote that "I do not give much notice to third parties". I do agree with most of what the Libertarian Party espouses.
People should be free to buy and sell hard drugs on the open market, complete removal of all gun control laws and so on. Radical stuff!
A large minority favors legalizing drugs. The Republican Party opposes gun control. The state of Vermont has no gun control because its Supreme Court upholds the right to bear arms that is in its state constitution. Many states have very little gun control.
What proportion of the electorate are likely to vote for the Libertarian Party?
About 20% of Americans are libertarian. About 1-3% are Libertarian. A few Libertarians have won a plurality of the vote in minor elections. A Republican US Congressman from Texas (Ron Paul) is very libertarian, and has run as a Libertarian Party member. Some other politicians, like US Senator Arlen Specter (R) Pennsylvania, call themselves libertarian.
I suspect not many because to me it smacks of anarchy
Liberty and anarchy are not the same thing, although the Libertarian Party does attract anarchist leaning people.
You talk of the “tyranny of the majority”, but that’s what we mean by “majority rule”, or “democracy”.
Strictly speaking, neither you nor I live in a "democracy." The US is a constitutional republic. The US Constitution has strict limits on what the government is permitted to do. Most of these limits are in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution). Loosely speaking, the US is a "liberal democracy", as opposed to a "democracy". The majority is prohibited from violating the rights of the individual. James Madison, who wrote the "tyranny of the majority" quote, was the principal author of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Sorry, you can’t expect to be able to quote someone [Thomas Jefferson] espousing lofty ideals who doesn’t live those ideals themselves.
The Declaration of Independence was unanimously ratified by the Continental Congress, and the American people fought for it in the American Revolution. (I seem to remember that we prevailed in that conflict). The ideas in the Declaration are the core political philosophy of the United States, and that text is regarded as sacred scripture by more Americans than any other document, the Bible included.

My interpretation of "freedom" is that I should be free to enjoy living in a society where my values and sensibilities are respected, and also reflected in the laws governing public behaviour. So long as there are more people who share my sensibilities about nudity than there are people who want to be naked in public, the latter behaviour should be prohibited.
You don't want freedom, you want the power to dominate the minority.
Your use of the word "freedom" is positively Orwellian.

[jon71]

Saying that we should do what ever 50% plus one says we should do is called majoritarianism. It is a form of dictatorship, sometimes called the tyrany of the majority. Let me illustrate this using an extreme example. In a majoritarian govt. if 50.1% said lets bring back slavery it would happen. In a democracy it wouldn't matter if 99.9% wanted it back the will of the majority would be flatly rejected to respect the basic rights of the minority. Basically in democracy basic freedoms (like the religion, speech, press, voting, etc.) are "off the table" when it comes to restrictive legislation. Even in other things there simply needs to be more of a reason to outlaw anything than "I don't like it". I detest cole slaw but I'm not going to try and get it made illegal. People need to return to the famous quote (Thomas Payne?) "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[Stu2630]

Both our nations claim to be democracies. Creating a society which is entirely democratic is close to impossible and would probably not function very well if we managed it. The fact that they don’t always achieve absolute democracy doesn’t mean governments shouldn’t aspire to govern by democratic principles. In the UK, we have some historic principles upon which many of our laws are founded. They include that the state should minimal interference with what happens in the private domain while the public domain should be regulated in such a way as to make it as free from behaviour which causes fear, alarm or distress as possible – the only exception applies where there is a demonstrable necessity. Of course you can’t please all the people all the time. Some people are afraid of dogs and some of them may wish to see dogs banned from public places. But they are in such a minority as compared with those who actually want to take their dogs out in public that the greater interest must prevail. A similar principle was applied to the possession of firearms in public – it is clear that most people in this country don’t believe they should be carried so we have laws which prevent that. In the case of public nudity (other than nudist events, venues etc where it is expressly permitted), first we establish that being naked in public is necessary. If someone is naked in the street because their house caught fire while they were in the bath – that would be an exception – but most nudity is easily avoidable. Then we compare the number of people who actually want to be naked in public to the extent of the public’s revulsion to it. If the latter is greater than the former, then the behaviour is prohibited.

The laws which are used against nudists are not aimed at a “minority” – they are aimed at a “behaviour”. Proof of that is that they don’t affect nudists who are wearing clothing or swimwear at the time whereas they do affect non-nudists who are naked. There is a small organisation who are campaigning to make public sex a lawful activity. They claim it is wholly natural (just as naturists claim that nudity is natural). They claim it is harmless and that the state has no business interfering with their basic right to indulge in a natural act in public. I don’t think most nudists would agree with that! But if you consider nudists to be a “minority” whose rights should be protected, then these people could make the same claim. And so could people who want to play loud music in the street, or advertise on billboards using pornographic images and so on.

The suggestion that nudists are some sort of minority group which is being oppressed by a selfish, intolerant majority is patently false. Nudists are treated exactly the same as non-nudists: whether you are a nudist or a textile, you know there are places where you can be naked and places where you can’t. That’s fair.

Stu

[Bryan48]

I Have Lived In Spain And Enjoyed The Liberal Attitude To Nudity .'stu' Obviously Has Never Been There The Spain He Describes Must Be A Product Of His Imagination.spain Is A Very Moral And Respectfull Country,i Have Never Felt Unsafe On The Streets Nor Seen Conduct He Describes ,unless By Foriegn Visitors From More Repressed Countries.

[Skinview]

A similar principle was applied to the possession of firearms in public – it is clear that most people in this country don’t believe they should be carried so we have laws which prevent that.
More tyranny, but lets not go off on that tangent.
In the case of public nudity... we compare the number of people who actually want to be naked in public to the extent of the public’s revulsion to it. If the latter is greater than the former, then the behaviour is prohibited.
Nudity is cole slaw. The proper limit to freedom is when it violates other's rights to life, liberty and property (Locke, Jefferson, Declaration of Independence).

The laws which are used against nudists are not aimed at a “minority” – they are aimed at a “behaviour”.Pardon me, I was not clear. I should have written "the minority", rather than "a minority". You are right, there is a difference, but I stand by what I ment. (I'll edit that - and add one more comment.)
There is a small organisation who are campaigning to make public sex a lawful activity. They claim it is wholly natural (just as naturists claim that nudity is natural). They claim it is harmless and that the state has no business interfering with their basic right to indulge in a natural act in public.They are right. But this doesn't mean that we have to approve of public sex. We have the right to jeer, not incarcerate. There is a huge gulf between what is appropriate and what should be illegal.
nudists... whose rights should be protected [and] people who want to play loud music in the street, or advertise on billboards using pornographic images and so on.
You should be able to do all of those, up to a point. If the music is so loud that it causes hearing loss, or prevents people from sleeping at night, then it has crossed a legitimate line. If someone's loud music is interfering with someone else's ability to enjoy their music, or quiet, on their own property, then things become more dicey. That is a situation where there is a conflict of rights. One could go to court to force a resolution - perhaps a schedule.
The suggestion that nudists are some sort of minority group which is being oppressed by a selfish, intolerant majority is patently false. Nudists are treated exactly the same as non-nudists: whether you are a nudist or a textile, you know there are places where you can be naked and places where you can’t. That’s fair.Thats ridiculous. You know perfectly well that wearing clothes is legal everywhere, and being nude is legal almost nowhere. You may have a different political philosophy, but if you think nudists are treated exactly the same as textiles, then you have come unhinged.

[Stu2630]

"More tyranny, but lets not go off on that tangent."

You think that laws you don’t like are “tyranny”.

"The proper limit to freedom is when it violates other's rights to life, liberty and property"

You want to infringe my right to enjoy property i.e. the public property that is public places, the places I sometimes have no choice but to use and also to pay for in my taxes. And you want to do that in spite of being given specific public places for you to use where you would not prevent me from enjoying those places.

"Nudity is not coleslaw."

Correct. I don’t care what other people are eating but I do care if they are naked around me.

"Pardon me, I was not clear. I should have written "the minority", rather than "a minority"."

Whether it is “a minority” or “the minority”, it doesn’t change the fundamental point I was making which is that the laws regulate a “behaviour” and not a defined group of people.

"They are right. But this doesn't mean that we have to approve of public sex. We have the right to jeer, not incarcerate. There is a huge gulf between what is appropriate and what should be legal."

That’s ridiculous. You are saying that we should expect people who may be elderly or disabled or women with children should have to deal with offensive behaviour in public by jeering at them? You can’t be serious. I’m glad I don’t live in your world!

"If the music is so loud that it causes hearing loss, or prevents people from sleeping at night, then it has crossed a legitimate line."

So now you are putting the same kinds of limits on your precious freedoms that I am advocating because someone has to decide where that “legitimate line” is - our legislators and our courts. Noise doesn’t have to be so loud it causes hearing problems to be offensive or problematic. If my young daughter is studying her homework in her own bedroom, we don’t expect 120 decibels of Islamic prayer music to be blaring out from speakers, or to hear some of Eminem’s obscene lyrics or even me from enjoying a quiet read in my own back garden. So we set arbitrary decibel limits over here so that everyone knows how far they can go and is treated the same way, but there are places and events where those limits are relaxed. It’s the same with nakedness – there are places arbitrarily determined where you can do it and places where you can’t and that’s so everyone can be comfortable.

"You know perfectly well that wearing clothes is legal everywhere, and being nude is legal almost nowhere."

I don’t know any such thing. You can be naked absolutely anywhere in private so long as the owner or manager of that place does not object. You can be naked at nudist beaches (and yes, there should be more of them). And you can even get away with being naked at out-of-the-way places, so long as you are as careful as you can be to avoid being seen.

"if you think nudists are treated exactly the same as textiles, then you have come unhinged."

Nudists are as free to use any public place as anyone else – they just have to obey the same rules that we all have to obey in those places and that’s to keep certain small areas of their bodies out of sight. It’s not an onerous requirement – they aren’t being required to wear the full burqua or a suit of armour – a pair of light cotton shorts or a sarong etc will suffice. The same rule applies to me as it does to you. Besides, why are we even having this conversation? Having regard to the fact that you ARE provided with opportunities to be naked, and knowing that nakedness DOES have the potential to offend, why would any nudist even think of getting naked in a place where it might upset people? Do nudists have such contempt for the textile majority’s sensibilities that they believe they can ride roughshod over them and then appeal to the law to protect their “rights”?

Stu

[walter05]

Stu;

Today, at 12:32 P.M., You posted: “Both our nations claim to be democracies.”

You are not correct. The United States of America is a Constitutional Representative Republic.

The U.S. Constitution grants authority to the government and powers not granted to the government remain with the people.

In addition, the Constitution, including its amendments specifically makes sure that the government can’t do certain things. For instance, the government may not recognize a religion or prohibit the free exercise of a religion.

Despite the fact that many Americans also say we are a democracy, this is not correct. In the Federalist papers, many of the authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution stated their views and goals. They feared democracy and referred to it derisively as mob rule.

Andrew Jackson was the first popular leader in the United States to openly speak about democracy. He renamed his political party, the Jeffersonian Republicans as the Democratic Party. Until Andrew Jackson “Democracy” was an unflattering word in the United States.

[Skinview]

You think that laws you don’t like are “tyranny”.
No. Laws which violate people's rights are tyrannical. When the Federal government spends money on education, rather than leaving it to the states, its just unconstitutional, but not tyrannical. When New Hampshire taxes property, rather than income, its bad, but not tyrannical.

You want to infringe my right to enjoy property i.e. the public property that is public placesYou have a right to use YOUR property as you like. Locke's "property" rights is about private property.
But go ahead, play frisbee, swim, wear whatever you want, leave me the hell alone.

"Nudity is not coleslaw."

Correct.I did NOT write that. You misquote me. I was refering to something jon71 wrote.

"They are right. But this doesn't mean that we have to approve of public sex. We have the right to jeer, not incarcerate. There is a huge gulf between what is appropriate and what should be illegal."

That’s ridiculous. You are saying that we should expect people who may be elderly or disabled or women with children should have to deal with offensive behaviour in public by jeering at them? Not at all. They can tolerate it, or enjoy it, or leave, or leave it to others to comment on. Not all people feel as compelled to be busybodies.

So now you are putting the same kinds of limits on your precious freedoms that I am advocating because someone has to decide where that “legitimate line” is - our legislators and our courts.Neither of us wants to allow people to harm others. You want restrictions way beyond that, without regard for the freedom of people.

Nudists are as free to use any public place as anyone else – they just have to obey the same rules that we all have to obey... The same rule applies to me as it does to you.Cole slaw. A world where we are all forced to dress the same, listen to the same music, paint our houses the same color, so forth and so on, would be hell for the majority of people, even if the majority decided what the dress would be, the tunes played, the paint color, and everthing else. Every choice that is made by the majority, rather than the individual, is a loss of freedom for everyone. The more choices made by the majority, the more likely it is that the majority will require that which you do not want, or prohibit that which you do.

Besides, why are we even having this conversation? Having regard to the fact that you ARE provided with opportunities to be naked, and knowing that nakedness DOES have the potential to offend, why would any nudist even think of getting naked in a place where it might upset people?
Comfort and convienience. I may not want to annoy the people around me. But on some things, I'd actually enjoy it if someone would. Changes in the culture often leave a wake of annoyed people. I hope that someday we have a clothing optional society, where few people care what someone wears at the beach. I expect almost all would still choose to wear clothes on the bus.
Do nudists have such contempt for the textile majority’s sensibilities that they believe they can ride roughshod over them and then appeal to the law to protect their “rights”?Some do, some don't.

[Stu2630]

walter

I have heard the claim before that the United States is not a "democracy" but some sort of republic. This is a very odd thing to say and it really is a semantic non-starter. In the English language, the definition of a democracy is "a system of government by the whole population or all of the eligible members of the state through elected representatives" (Oxford Dictionary of English). France could be described as a "constitutional representative republic", so could Germany and even Russia could fit that description, but nobody would ever try to claim that they weren't democracies. I have heard your president refer to the US as a democracy and extolling the virtues of democratic principles and how they should be applied to the rest of the world. The US has been fighting wars to promote democracy for many decades.

I could say that the UK is not a "democracy": we have a "constitutional monarchy". After all, we don't even elect our head of state, and our Prime Minister is (technically) appointed by the Queen! But putting historical perspectives aside, the reality of our situation in 2007 is that both our nations are democracies, albeit operating different TYPES of democracy. That's because they fit the definition I gave you, namely that our respective governments consist of representatives elected by all the people.

Stu

[Stu2630]

Skinview

Quote:
Laws which violate people's rights are tyrannical. When the Federal government spends money on education, rather than leaving it to the states, its just unconstitutional, but not tyrannical. When New Hampshire taxes property, rather than income, its bad, but not tyrannical

OK, some laws are tyrannical, some unconstitutional and some are just bad. And who decides which is which? I might want to set up a business selling beer to 15 and 16 year olds, but I can’t. Hmm. That violates my right to behave as I wish so it must be tyrannical. Or is it unconstitutional? Or just plain bad? Sorry, but you are not adhering to a coherent set of principles but arbitrarily putting the goalposts where you think they should be. Well, I happen to think you are putting them where it suits you and you are not having any care about people like me.

Quote:
But go ahead, play frisbee, swim, wear whatever you want, leave me the hell alone.

Yup. And if you want to play Frisbee naked, or play loud music while you are playing it, or ritually slaughter a lamb, go and do it some place well away from me and my wife and kids. And we’ll even provide you some nice places where you can do these things.

Quote:
Not at all. They can leave it to others to comment on, or tolerate it, or leave. Not all people feel as compelled to be busybodies.

And if there aren’t any other people about? Sorry, I don’t want to live in a world like that. I want to be able to use public places with a degree of confidence that people will behave in a way that is generally acceptable to virtually everyone and if people don’t, the authorities will act against them.

Quote:
Neither of us wants to allow people to harm others. You want restrictions way beyond that, without regard for the freedom of people.

You mean freedom to upset other people and to make their lives less comfortable.

Quote:
A world where we are all forced to dress the same, listen to the same music, paint our houses the same color, so forth and so on, would be hell for the majority of people, even if the majority decided what the dress would be, the tunes played, the paint color, and everything else. Every choice that is made by the majority, rather than the individual, is a loss of freedom for everyone.

That’s not how the real world is – not my world anyway. People have a vast range of choices about what to wear, where to live, what colour to paint their houses and so on. They even have a choice to move into specialist interests and preferences if they don’t like the mainstream world: they can be Buddhist monks, or gypsies, or hippies, or go and move to Greenland and live as an Inuit. Or they can enjoy naturism at naturist places and, if they are keen enough, even move into a wholly naturist community. I’m not seeking to deny people the choices they currently enjoy – but you are. You are trying to deny people like me the right to live free from the sight of nakedness – a sight which we are not comfortable with.

Quote:
Comfort and convenience. I may not want to annoy the people around me. But on some things, I'd actually enjoy it if someone would. Changes in the culture often leave a wake of annoyed people. I hope that someday we have a clothing optional society, where few people care what someone wears at the beach. I expect almost all would still choose to wear clothes on the bus.

Comfort? What about MY comfort? You may want to change the culture, but I don’t want my culture changing, thanks. Do you think it’s OK to try to force people who have different values to you to change their culture to suit your preferences? Do you think it would be OK for me to go to a naked tribe in Borneo and try to force them to wear clothes?

Quote:
Do nudists have such contempt for the textile majority’s sensibilities that they believe they can ride roughshod over them and then appeal to the law to protect their “rights”?

"Some do, some don't."

Well they shouldn’t. That shows an appalling lack of respect by a minority towards the majority. If nudists want respect from the textile majority, they’re not going to get it by being contemptuous of their values and sensibilities.

Stu

[Skinview]

I have heard the claim before that the United States is not a "democracy" but some sort of republic. This is a very odd thing to say and it really is a semantic non-starter.

True, your definition is the most common use of the term, but it is a loose meaning of the word. It is used when contrasting our governments with dictatorships. But a true democracy is where each citizen votes on the laws. Classical Athens (I think) was a true democracy at some point. In some states in the US, towns have a democratic government. The town citizens meet on one or more nights a year and vote on town laws and the town budget and so forth. I actually wrote a law that was enacted by the citizens at the town meeting in the town where I lived. It changed the time at which the poles closed. Some states have referendums, where everyone votes to enact a law. I think that these referendums are unconstitutional, but that is true democracy. It is a very different process than electing someone else to make the laws for you.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."
Article. IV., Section. 4, US Constitution.

The words "republic" and "democracy" are different words, and they have different specific meanings.

[Naturist Mark]

The United States is organized as a Representative Democratic Republic.

It is a Republic because the source of sovereignty is from the people as a whole, not from an individual as in a Monarchy.

It has a representative democratic government because the leaders of government (representatives of the people) are periodically selected by the people (although some claim that the US is now in a different catagory, see the last paragraph below).

In a direct democracy the people themselves act as their own representatives. Direct democracy is common on the local level, but essentially non existent on the national level.

There can also be other combinations, such as Representative Democratic Monarchy - as in Britain, Japan and several European nations. There are also plenty of Republics and Monarchies which are not democratic.

And then there are the Fascist states which are commonly organized as Democracies, but where the consent of the governed has been replaced by corporate, military and authoritarian rule. This is the true form of government of many formerly Communist states, such as Russia, China and Vietnam. Also common in many capitalist states like Spain under Franco and Indonesia under Sukarno and Suharto. (The prototypical Fascist state is Mussolini's Italy - Nazi Germany is not a very good example of Fascism, and some political scientists classify its system as Nazism). There are many people today who sound the alarm (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html) that the modern US government is becoming appallingly similar to a fascist state of the Italian sort.

-Mark

[Skinview]

OK, some laws are tyrannical, some unconstitutional and some are just bad. And who decides which is which?
I can see which is which. Hopefully the legislature knows the difference, and the courts have the power strike down laws that they deem to be unconstitutional. The constitution protects individual rights.
I might want to set up a business selling beer to 15 and 16 year olds, but I can’t. Hmm. That violates my right to behave as I wish so it must be tyrannical. Or is it unconstitutional? Or just plain bad?None of the above. Alcohol is harmful to minors (and often adults). Minors are immature, and don't have all the rights of choice that adults do.

Sorry, but you are not adhering to a coherent set of principles but arbitrarily putting the goalposts where you think they should be. Well, I happen to think you are putting them where it suits you and you are not having any care about people like me.I am not overly concerned about your sensibilities, but the goalposts are exactly where Locke, Jefferson, Madison, and the Continental Congress put them.

And if you want to play Frisbee naked, or play loud music while you are playing it, or ritually slaughter a lamb, go and do it some place well away from me and my wife and kids.You want to violate religious liberty now? That one is enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

You mean freedom to upset other people and to make their lives less comfortable.Yes, that is exactly what I mean.


A world where we are all forced to dress the same, listen to the same music, paint our houses the same color, so forth and so on, would be hell for the majority of people, even if the majority decided what the dress would be, the tunes played, the paint color, and everything else. Every choice that is made by the majority, rather than the individual, is a loss of freedom for everyone.

That’s not how the real world is – not my world anyway. People have a vast range of choices about what to wear, where to live, what colour to paint their houses and so on.
There are actually places here where the town wants to restrict what colors you can paint your house, or mandate that you mow your lawn. Its common to require inoperable vehicals to be store out of sight. There is someplace that is considering a require ment that your underwear not be visable, and of course most places require that you wear clothes. ***France prohibits women from wearing moslem head scarves.***

You are trying to deny people like me the right to live free from the sight of nakednessNot at all. I will absolutely defend your right to build a fence around your property so that you won't chance to see a naked person.

What about MY comfort? You may want to change the culture, but I don’t want my culture changing, thanks. Do you think it’s OK to try to force people who have different values to you to change their culture to suit your preferences?Culture is not something that you or any individual owns. And you can wear whatever makes you comfortable.

Do you think it would be OK for me to go to a naked tribe in Borneo and try to force them to wear clothes?You really are not comprehending what I am writing, are you?

[jon71]

Everybody has the right to their own opinions and views but nobody has the right to live a life free from being offended. It's been suggested that social nudism should be restricted or outlawed because it "offends" people. So what. Offense is completely subjective and not remotely a reason for something to be illegal. Perhaps my earlier example of "cole slaw" lacked gravitas. Let's use the example so someone walking in public with a t-shirt with an offense message on it. Perhaps racist, homophobic, or simply crude. I may be offended but I'm not going to call the police because I'm offended. If my daughter is with me (she's 7 close to 8) and she says something about it I'll use that as a teaching opportunity. I won't say "he has no right to say that" but I'll disagree with it and have a solid reason why I disagree. With all due respect if the only reason someone can come up with for something being restricted/outlawed is "it's offensive" that's laughably insufficient.

[luvnaturism]

What does any of this have to do with the original thread? This started out to be an interesting discussion, but it has long since been hijacked into endless, tedious debate that goes nowhere and informs no one.

[Stu2630]

I have some sympathy with Luvnaturism's complaint that we have moved away from the topic of the thread. I also think that we're going to have to agree to disagree - amicably of course. One major difference between us is perhaps to do with our different cultural values and the expectations we place on our government and law enforcement. In the UK, there are two standards of behaviour which the law addresses, one which concerns what we can do in private and one which governs how we behave in public. In the UK we DO have the right not to be offended: behaviour which is deemed offensive is that which a significant number of people would find offensive and is against the law. If you wear a t-shirt IN PUBLIC bearing a slogan which is obscene (either in terms of language or graphically) or overtly racist, you can be prosecuted.

It is clear that there are laws in the US, or at least in some parts of the US, which take the same view as our law. Are you allowed to sing obscene songs in public? Are you allowed to display hard-core pornographic images? Or indeed, are you allowed to be naked in most US parks, beaches, towns and cities? I think not. So the US is applying, at least in parts, my principle that there is no right behave in a way that offends. You may think it is contrary to your constitution or you may call it tyrannical, but I call it making your public places accessible and nice for everyone. And I bet most people would agree - in the US as much as in the UK.

Stu

[walter05]

Stu;

It is my understanding that the Parliament in the U.K. is the highest authority on what is legal and not. The Prime Minister is even a Member of Parliament. There is no written constitution on only traditions for limitations on Parliament’s rules. There is not the strict separation of powers that we have in the U.S.

In the United States, the Congress, President, and Supreme Courts have distinct authorities. They sometimes overlap and compete. When they do, usually, two branches must act to resolve the issue. When the Watergate scandal took place, it took Congress issuing subpoenas and the Supreme Court upholding them to get the evidence that forced President Nixon to resign. This tension between the branches helps protect the individual from tyranny of the government.

Congress is divided into two separate bodies. The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate must approve most matters. There are often times when both bodies have a hard time doing that. This is an intentional design feature to limit the ability of the legislative branch to pass laws that may impinge on the freedoms of individuals.

There are also powers reserved to the states. Admittedly, since the American Civil War, the Federal Government is superior and states have lessened powers. However, even the U.S. Supreme Court is inferior to states’ supreme courts when it comes to rules of evidence. Most of the rules of evidence, even in federal courts are governed by the rules of the state that federal circuit resides in.

Accused also have a right to trial by jury. Private citizens sit on grand juries that have the power to indict and on petit juries that can find someone guilty.

The U.S. Constitution also limits the powers of any or all of these bodies.

In the U.S., government is not supposed to be efficient. The U.S. Constitution is designed with the idea that governments can do more harm than good. All of the different branches and levels compete at times to limit the effectiveness. This helps protect individuals from abuse by the government.

The process is not perfect but generally effective. This balance of powers is different from in the U.K. For instance, in the U.S. a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In the U.K. it is the other way around.

You said, “I want to be able to use public places with a degree of confidence that people will behave in a way that is generally acceptable to virtually everyone and if people don’t, the authorities will act against them.”

I want to live in a place where people will not harm me. Loud music, offensive smoke, and violent behaviors all cause harm. Open sexual behaviors such as intercourse promote a lack of self-control that leads to a greater spread of disease. The real harm is what justifies some regulation or prohibition of these behaviors.

In the case of your example of selling alcoholic beverages to children, there is a simple refutation. The states have special responsibility to protect minors. Minors are not considered legally capable of making many decisions. This ability to regulate for minors does not exist for adults.

Foul language degrades the speaker and the listener and I should not suffer this if I don’t want. However, what is considered foul language changes. On American television and radio, we hear language that my mother would not have let me use. (When growing up, there was no balance to my parents’ powers.)

However, your standard of non-offense has been used in Europe to discriminate against Jews. In parts of Europe, such as France, there have been restrictions on wearing of Yarmulkes in school and public. There have been restrictions on kosher meat, etc. In the U.K. there has and is been open discrimination against Jewish and Israeli scholars performing research in academia. I therefore find the standard of non-offense has and is used to discriminate against Jews in Europe. As a result, I can’t support its use to restrict nudity either.

The next question is whether or not clothing style may be harmful. I believe that bathing suits such as thongs, brief male and female bikinis, and other styles of clothes that are degrading to the body are offensive. If it were up to me these would be banned. I understand from previous posts, that you have worn some swimwear that fits into this category. However, I don’t want any one to pass rules banning any style of clothes.

Nudity at a beach can be very wholesome and exhilarating. It is not as degrading as hip hugger pants. I agree with you that there should be beaches set aside for nudity and for use of swimwear. This way all can be respected and accommodated.

The original topic was for one day a year that would be bathing suit free. One day, you would know in advance that there would be nudity at beaches, etc. If you did not want to see the nudity, one day a year, you could avoid it. I don’t find any harm done to you that one day that would counter balance the rights of others to a demonstration of what they want society to adopt. One day a year, the harm done in restricting expression more than outweighs your offense.

[Stu2630]

Walter

“For instance, in the U.S. a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In the U.K. it is the other way around.”

Your understanding of the UK Constitution is more or less correct, but I’m afraid you’ve got the last bit wrong. In the UK, we have exactly the same rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty as you have. That rule goes right back to the year 1215.

“Loud music, offensive smoke, and violent behaviors all cause harm. Open sexual behaviors such as intercourse promote a lack of self-control that leads to a greater spread of disease. The real harm is what justifies some regulation or prohibition of these behaviors.”

Sorry, Walter, that doesn’t wash. People having intercourse in public are no more likely to spread disease than those doing so in private. That’s not the reason why public sex is prohibited and I’m sure you know that. It’s prohibited because people find it offensive.

“The states have special responsibility to protect minors. Minors are not considered legally capable of making many decisions. This ability to regulate for minors does not exist for adults.”

Somebody somewhere has to decide – arbitrarily – who is and is not a “minor” for the purpose of selling beer. I believe the age is 21 in the US – that’s odd because you send much younger people into battle in your armed forces well before that age. In Denmark, for example, a young person aged 15 can legally buy beer, and that is one of the safest countries in the world with a very low rate of alcoholism! What I’m saying is that all these things are relative.

“Foul language degrades the speaker and the listener and I should not suffer this if I don’t want.”

Does it? Are you telling me in all honesty that when you hear Clint Eastwood use the “F” word in Dirty Harry that he’s degrading you? The use of such language in our streets and shopping malls isn’t prohibited because it “degrades” the hearer, but because it offends them. I’m sure you know that really.

“However, what is considered foul language changes. On American television and radio, we hear language that my mother would not have let me use. (When growing up, there was no balance to my parents’ powers.)”

That’s absolutely true – just as what behaviour is considered indecent is also subject to change. It would not be justifiable to promote the use of the “F” word in public to desensitize you against it and similarly it is wrong to promote public nudity in the hope it will inoculate people from the shock of seeing it. It is morally wrong to try to engineer people’s values and sensibilities to suit your own desires and iseology.

“In the U.K. there has and is been open discrimination against Jewish and Israeli scholars performing research in academia. I therefore find the standard of non-offense has and is used to discriminate against Jews in Europe.”

Where are you hearing this stuff, Walter? It’s just not true. I work with Jewish people in academia. There has been, in a few institutions, hostility to giving platforms to some political Israeli speakers, but I can guarantee you that very few Jewish people would ever claim that they suffered discrimination in the UK because of their religion.

“As a result, I can’t support its use to restrict nudity either.”

A Jewish person is ethnically Jewish – to discriminate against them because they belong to an ethnic group can never be justified. But nudists aren’t like that; they’re more akin to golfers. Like golf, nudism is predominantly a recreational activity which can spill over into the general lifestyle of those who choose to practice it. It is therefore reasonable to allow them to do so by providing facilities for that purpose – but not necessarily allow it anywhere and everywhere.

“The next question is whether or not clothing style may be harmful. I believe that bathing suits such as thongs, brief male and female bikinis, and other styles of clothes that are degrading to the body are offensive. If it were up to me these would be banned. I understand from previous posts, that you have worn some swimwear that fits into this category. However, I don’t want any one to pass rules banning any style of clothes.”

Your finding swimwear “offensive” puts you into an extremely tiny proportion of the population – probably smaller than the proportion who thinks all dogs should be banned in public. We can’t be expected to accommodate all such exceptional sensibilities, so we have to regard them as insignificant.

“I agree with you that there should be beaches set aside for nudity and for use of swimwear. This way all can be respected and accommodated.”

That’s all I’m asking for – and for the relevant rules to be respected by all parties. I promise you I will never go to a nudist beach wearing swimwear; all I ask is that the same consideration is shown for me when using a textile beach.

“The original topic was for one day a year that would be bathing suit free.”

But that’s wrong. Even though textiles outnumber nudists by around 20 to 1, we don’t have one day a year when it’s illegal to be nude on nudist beaches. Let nudists use their beaches and we textiles use ours – 365 days per year. What’s wrong with that?

Stu

[Skinview]

Gosh Stu, I couldn't find anything in your last post to disagree with. Are you trying to confuse me? ;-) I think the descrimination against jews in the UK that Walter was referring to is a historical thing, not the current situation.
Walter, that was a good description of the US government, but I think you are a bigger prude than Stu is!

It is clear that there are laws in the US, or at least in some parts of the US, which take the same view as our law. Are you allowed to sing obscene songs in public? Are you allowed to display hard-core pornographic images?You are allowed to sing obcene songs in public, but not on TV or radio. Porno images are legal depending on location, but not on TV or radio. The whole obcenity issue has been a bone of contention over here for a long time. A great many people think obcenity laws are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a wishy washy community standards position. Attitudes have changed drastically over time. Old laws are ignored, interpreted differently, or not enforced. It all depends on the inclinations of prosecters and judges, so you never really know what will fly and what won't.

[tomkojohn]

It turns out you can't view hard-core pornographic images in public in the US. There have been several cases where someone was watching porn in their van on those built-in DVD players, and police ticketed them as children could see the images from outside the van. All it took is a complaint, and the police will enforce this rule.

Also, I believe that there have also been cases where a person on an airplane was watching porn on his laptop which offended their seatmate, and they had to turn it off at the request of the flight attendant. Not obeying a flight attendant while flying I believe is a federal offense.

And as a comment, Stu you really did a great job in your last response. I don't always agree with your opinions, but they are well-thought-out.

-- tomkojohn

[walter05]

Stu;

I am including links to a few of the stories on the growing anti-Semitism issue in the U.K. and E.U. Unfortunately, it is a very current phenomenon. I wish it were not.

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has a report on the U.K. and it is at:

http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents_Report_06.pdf


There is a link for a report on Anti-Semitism in the EU that is dated from July 2007 and the like is as follows:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/5099_13.htm


The link below is to information on the British Academic boycotts of Israeli Universities:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122613

The link below is to a positive story where the EU has not participated in the U.K.’s academic boycotts of Israel:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/130855

Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is a modern serious problem in the Europe.

My point is simple if making the majority uncomfortable or offending the majority justifies persecution of minorities then Jews in Europe, African Americans in the U.S., Aboriginal Australians, Indigenous Americans in Latin America and Brazil, etc. can be discriminated against. Head coverings, styles of dress, and foods eaten per cultural and religious tradition can be outlawed on the basis of offense and this leads to serious discrimination. Unfortunately, this discrimination leads to worse.

There must be a higher standard used for disallowing something. It is easy for you not to see that. You are a white male living in Europe whose basic cultural perspective is that of the majority. If you were in a minority group, your view may be different.

In the U.S. only the states have the legal authority to regulate the minimum drinking age. Congress did tell the states that if the minimum drinking age were not at least 21, then federal highway funds would be cut off. The states, under duress, passed the higher minimum age.

I agree with you in principle however that the age should not be higher than the age for sending soldiers off to war. Nonetheless, thousands of lives in the U.S. have been saved because of the higher minimum drinking age. It is a tough question, but in the U.S. it is a decision left up to the fifty states. I opposed raising the minimum drinking age at the time, but I don’t support reducing it at this time because I don’t want to condemn thousands to death. Logically, this is inconsistent, but the value of human life is so important that it out weighs logic to me.

Protection of the rights of the minority for tyranny of the majority is a basic American belief. In practice, we have not always lived up to this goal. However, most Americans cherish the goal and strive towards it.

I can’t believe that one day a year to allow nudists to use all beaches is such a significant impairment on your rights.

Skinview;

You probably do think I am a prude. I believe that we human beings are created in our creator’s image. I believe human beings are holy and sacred. Anything that increases the dignity of human beings, I am in favor of.

At times total nudity does raise the dignity of human beings. While bathing or having sex with one’s spouse, it raises the dignity to actually be nude.

At times when swimming, nudity also raises the dignity of a human being. Enabling the entire human body to touch nature, our creator’s world without our intervention can be ennobling.

When clothing raises the dignity of a human being, I am in favor of that. I probably believe it is appropriate to be clothed in more circumstances than most on this forum.

If someone wants to degrade the human being, then I am against it. Clothing out of a sense of shame is degrading to the human being. Clothing that is sexually provocative by highlighting genitals or anal cleft is degrading to the human being. Foul language from the same mouth that can praise fellow human beings, creation, or our creator degrades the human being. It also degrades the ears that can hear beautiful music, sounds of creation, or the words of our creator.

However, Stu and I disagree on one fundamental point. I would like to persuade others in the arena of ideas to my viewpoint. Stu wants to use the police power of government to silence those he finds offensive.

[Stu2630]

Walter

You can show me all the news reports you like depicting things that are happening in the UK, just as I could show you stuff we read about America, but you take this with a very big pinch of salt. I live in the UK. I have some VERY close Jewish friends - one of whom is so close to us she is virtually a member of our family! If you ask most Jewish people what they think of living in the UK, they'll say it's a great place to live and they never, or almost never, encounter any kind of hostility or discrimination. Yes, we have a few lunatics, such as self-styled latter-day Nazis - people who daub swastikas on walls and are avowed racists and anti-Semites. Most of these are angry young men who are trying to look tough and will eventually grow out of such nonsense. We also have 3 million or so Muslims, many of whom have issues with the state of Israel, and a very small number of those are Jew haters. Lastly, we have left-wing groups, including some academics and trade union leaders who also have issues with Israel - but these are certainly not anti-Semetic by any stretch of the imagination. They have the view, misguided or otherwise, that they should not entertain Israelis because of the way Israel treats the Palestinians: they are making a political statement, not a religious one. Many top academics, union leaders and even politicians in the UK are Jewish.

I'm not denying that there has been a rise in anti-Semitism in the UK - I know there has been - but it has resulted in an extremely small problem becoming a very small problem. Most of the 300,000 Jewish people in the UK would not recognise what is portrayed in the articles you indicate. They convey a false impression by distorting and grossly overstating the significance of what are still relatively rare events. If you don't believe me, ask the other British people who post on here whether I'm right.

You say: "I would like to persuade others in the arena of ideas to my viewpoint. Stu wants to use the police power of government to silence those he finds offensive."

I'm astonished! How can you possibly accuse me of trying to "silence" anyone? Have I ever suggested that someone should not express a point of view? If I have a fault, it's the exact opposite, namely that I do everything I can to encourage debate and discussion, not suppress it. If you want to carry a banner advocating nudism, or any issue surrounding nudism, I will support your right to do so. All I want is to be able to go to a textile beach with my family confident in the knowledge that I won't encounter naked people - and, in return, I won't go to a nudist beach wearing clothing or swimwear. In the final analysis, I think the authorities should protect textiles from inappropriate nudity and at the same time protect nudists from nuisance gawkers and such like. I take you for a fair minded person, Walter, and so I hope you will reflect on your accusation and withdraw it.

Stu

[walter05]

First, I will agree that the issues in the U.K. are more related to the left wing academics and some fringe elements. However, the concept that offense is a justification for conduct that we both find disgusting is the problem.

The ADL has been considered the best at tracking anti-semitism. Their statements on the U.K. as well as the ones on the other website are not isolated. You are correct that a growing Moslem population in the U.K. is also a variable.

Growing anti-semitism has been a serious problem in France. It is a growing problem in the U.K. It is not a small problem.

Israeli political and academic arenas are very diverse. I am certain that all points of view can be found. Only someone who is narrow would blanketly boycott all academics from there.

One day a year, a group wants to have a protest. In order to have the protest, that group intends to be nude on beaches. You want to use the police power of the state to not allow them to make that statement. I would prefer to allow them the freedom to express themselves. If I offended by their conduct or speech, I can choose not to be there.

P.S. I apologize for not spell checking this but I am about to go to an appointment.

[EricNY]

Excuse the interuption....but the topic is about not wearing suites in Spain, not sure how we moved to anti-semitism and so forth....

[Stu2630]

"One day a year, a group wants to have a protest. In order to have the protest, that group intends to be nude on beaches."

I don't follow your logic, Walter. Firstly, what are they protesting about? What have the textiles who use their textile beaches done to nudists to deserve such protests? Secondly, if they want to protest, why do they have to be naked on textile beaches to make that protest?

"You want to use the police power of the state to not allow them to make that statement. I would prefer to allow them the freedom to express themselves."

You can express yourself without doing so naked in a place where you know your nakedness will offend others. If you want to come and distribute pro-nudist leaflets on a textile beach, Walter, I won't object. Just conform to the dress code, please, as I would conform to your dress code on a nudist beach.

"If I offended by their conduct or speech, I can choose not to be there."

I want to be able to enjoy my textile beaches EVERY day of the year, just as you want to be able to use nudist beaches every day of the year. How would you feel if there was a designated "Gawkers Day" where gawkers could come and have a good stare at nudists?

Surely nudists subscribe to a "live-and-let-live" philosophy. So let's keep things as they are - nudists can enjoy their beaches and we textiles can enjoy ours and we won't bother each other. And that means every day of the year.

Stu

[Vadik2]

I've known for a while that nudity is leagal in Spain. I want to know if there is ever going to be a day where everyone in a city, like Barcelona, is just going to go naked for a day.

[Ken Palmer]

Thanks for posting this with us, as it was indeed quite interesting to read. I would be happy to see this happen in Spain. More powers to them!

Ken Palmer

[walter05]

It is clear that there are those who want more places where nudity is legal. They want to demonstrate that nudity is harmless. In order to do this, they are going to be nude.

It is not for me to tell someone else what or how to express themselves.

I still find one day a year for such a protest to be a minimal infringement on anyone else.

I would agree with you if they want to have this protest in a major commercial district or in front of a school. However, they want to have it on a beach.

As an American, I support the idea of freedom of expression unless there is a compelling threat to safety. In the case of this protest, I can't see any.

[Stu2630]

"It is clear that there are those who want more places where nudity is legal."

I have been to Spain many times, Walter. There are many many nudist beaches in Spain. This was unnecessary and they know it.

"They want to demonstrate that nudity is harmless. In order to do this, they are going to be nude."

People already know it's physically harmless, but they prefer to be on a non-nudist beach. The ignorant people involved in this demonstration deprived them of that right and clearly couldn't have cared less if anyone was upset or offended. That was indefensible behaviour. In their own way, these people were every bit as bad as the gawkers who stalk nudist beaches.

"It is not for me to tell someone else what or how to express themselves."

I would have had no problem expressing myself if I had met them

"I still find one day a year for such a protest to be a minimal infringement on anyone else."

It was unnecessary. When it comes to Spain, they had nothing to protest about. People could be forgiven for wondering whether they had some pretty unpleasant motives for wanting to expose their nakedness in a place where it wasn't wanted.

"I would agree with you if they want to have this protest in a major commercial district or in front of a school. However, they want to have it on a beach."

Yes, it was on a textile beach in a country replete with nudist beaches.

Stu

[walter05]

I attempted to make the argument to Stu that his view that the minority should not offend the majority has been used to discriminate against and do worst to minorities.

I wanted to show that mere offense as a standard is slow it can lead to difficulty.

[Eric6420]

One of my dream would be that all beaches would be clothing optional. A true tolerant society should not care if you are nude or not at the beach or at the swimming pool. We are there to have fun, and textiles should not fear nudists and nudists should not fear textiles.

[Stu2630]

One of my dreams would be that all beaches would be clothing optional.

Eric - that just goes to show that one man's dream is another man's nightmare!

Stu

[PascoDoug]

One of my dreams would be that all beaches would be clothing optional.

Eric - that just goes to show that one man's dream is another man's nightmare!

Stu

And I'm sure Martin Luther King was well aware of that. ;-)

[walter05]

Stu;

You said, “This was unnecessary and they know it.” It is for the person attempting to speak to determine if their speech is unnecessary or not. If we allow censorship because we believe statements or the way they are made is unnecessary then we will not have freedom of speech.

People already know it's physically harmless, but they prefer to be on a non-nudist beach. You believe the sight of a naked human body will harm you. You don’t believe it is harmless and you are a person. You may be one of the people they were attempting to convince.

I find their tactic unlikely to be successful. I even think it is more likely to hurt their cause. However, I believe they have the right to choose it.

I would have had no problem expressing myself if I had met them. I believe they have problem with allowing you to express yourself however you want. However, if you are able to walk up to a naked person and express yourself well, then that naked person is really doing you no harm. Your experience might help change your attitude and this is the goal of the demonstration.

It was unnecessary. When it comes to Spain, they had nothing to protest about. People could be forgiven for wondering whether they had some pretty unpleasant motives for wanting to expose their nakedness in a place where it wasn't wanted.

We heard this about Blacks in the south during the civil rights movement. People should express what they want how they want. Inventing ulterior motives for them is dishonest and I expect better from you.

You said, "Yes, it was on a textile beach in a country replete with nudist beaches."

Most of the beaches I go to are places where swimsuits are required. Men in bathing suits come out of the water with anal clefts showing, and at times the wet swimsuits are essentially see through.

Women wearing brief tops and bottoms showing anal cleft and more, and at times in wet see through suits are also common.

Nudity on these beaches would probably not be that different and may even be more modest since it does not call attention to any body parts. I believe that is the point protesters may have been attempting to make. If so, the beach is a perfect place for this type of protest.

[Stu2630]

walter05 wrote:
“This was unnecessary and they know it.”


It is for the person attempting to speak to determine if their speech is unnecessary or not. If we allow censorship because we believe statements or the way they are made is unnecessary then we will not have freedom of speech.

Walter - I wasn't talking about what they were saying. They can espouse nudism all they like in any public place - that doesn't worry me. It is the fact that they did so NAKED on a non-nudist beach which I find deplorable, especially in Spain of all places, where there is an abundance of nudist beaches.


walter05 wrote:

You don’t believe it is harmless and you are a person. You may be one of the people they were attempting to convince.


I don't want them to try to convince me. If I am on holiday, I want them to keep away from me and leave me to enjoy myself, not spoil my pleasure in order to pursue their own selfish interest. I don't go to nudist beaches fully dressed and try to convince nudists that their preference is disgusting, do I?


walter05 wrote:
We heard this about Blacks in the south during the civil rights movement. People should express what they want how they want.


Black people don't choose to be black - they are perpetually black from the moment they are born until their skin rots away in their coffins, and there is nothing they can do about it. To blame them for being black is facile. Nude people choose to be nude - and they can choose when and where to be nude. These characters chose to be nude on a non-nudist beach in country full of nudist beaches and in full view of people who chose not to go to a nudist beach.


walter05 wrote:
Inventing ulterior motives for them is dishonest and I expect better from you.


Wilfully exposing your private parts to people you know have chosen not to see those parts is called "indecent exposure" in the UK. It is a sexual offence even if no explicit sexual intent is proved. These people were verging on such behaviour and, in England, they would have risked such a charge in those particular circumstances.


walter05 wrote:
Nudity on these beaches would probably not be that different and may even be more modest since it does not call attention to any body parts. I believe that is the point protesters may have been attempting to make. If so, the beach is a perfect place for this type of protest.


So that makes it alright, does it? It's rather like me saying that because lovers kiss each other passionately on a park bench, it's OK for me to protest about the fact that I can't have public sex by having sexual intercourse on that bench. You keep talking about these people "protesting" - but you still haven't told me what they have got to protest about. From what I have seen, they weren't protesting at all, they were just making some sort of "point" regardless of the feelings of anyone else. If they wanted to make a point, or a protest for that matter, they could have worn shorts and handed out leaflets inviting people to try out nudism at one of the many nudist beaches. But they didn't do that, did they Walter?

I will always support responsible nudism, but their behaviour was arrogant, inconsiderate and reprehensible.

Stu

[EricNY]

Hey guys pardon the interruption....

....If you would be so kind please surround quotes from others in a quote box as well as applying the users name of whom you are quoting. I appreciate that you all are trying to use itallics, but it gets confusing trying to figure who said what.....

If you need help please ask or post a thread under the help section and we can help..

Thanks so much!!

(we now return you to the thread)

[walter05]

It appears to me that the protesters wanted to be able to be nude on any beach. They wanted to demonstrate that nudity on a beach is harmless.

If the protesters had knocked on your door nude, I would object. I object the same way I do when missionaries knock on my door.

However, they were in a public place. One day a year if you know in advance so you can avoid it is okay particularly if there is no coercion. If the missionaries want to have a table with pamphlets and even a microphone with a speaker that is fine as long as the missionaries don’t approach me and attempt to force their views on me.

I don’t have to agree with a speech or the delivery of a speech to support the right of the speaker to say what he or she wants however he or she wants.

You raised a point about UK laws. The protesters were in Spain. Obviously, the laws are different in Spain. If you prefer things the UK way, the obvious answer is to stay in the UK.

[Stu2630]

It appears to me that the protesters wanted to be able to be nude on any beach.

I'm sure you're right, but that's unreasonable when they know that nudity offends some people.

They wanted to demonstrate that nudity on a beach is harmless.

People already know it's physically harmless - they neither need nor want that demonstrating to them. They must also know it can offend people, yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

One day a year if you know in advance so you can avoid it is okay particularly if there is no coercion.

OK, so it's OK for gawkers to come to nudist beaches so long as they give you notice in advance, is it? Maybe the gawkers want to demonstrate to you that gawking is harmless.

I don’t have to agree with a speech or the delivery of a speech to support the right of the speaker to say what he or she wants however he or she wants.

I have no objection to them saying whatever they want, but to come to a beach which is non-nudist, used by non-nudists and in an area where there are lots of nudist beaches has nothing to do with free-speech.

You raised a point about UK laws. The protesters were in Spain. Obviously, the laws are different in Spain. If you prefer things the UK way, the obvious answer is to stay in the UK.

Spain has some pretty weird laws, including permitting animal cruelty of a level that would never be accepted in any other western country. So does that make animal cruelty a morally acceptable way to behave in Spain?

I have not said what they were doing was unlawful in Spain, but that their behaviour was reprehensible and of a nature that, had they done it in the UK, they would have been at risk of prosecution for a sexual offence. These "protesters" would have known perfectly well that the beaches would contain people from all over Europe - people who would not know some of the more obscure aspects of Spanish law (which even Spanish police officers appear not to know!). What they did may have been lawful but, as with animal cruelty, it doesn't make it right.

Stu

[walter05]

I believe this is an exercise in futility.

I believe that in a free society, people have a right to free speech.

I believe they have a right to express themselves however they want.

I believe that in order to interfere with someone else's free speech, a high standard of harm must be crossed.

You disagree and I will not convince you. You believe that others should place offending you and inconveniencing you above their right to express themselves how they choose.

P.S. When did Spain have a fox hunt?

[Stu2630]

Walter

I believe this is an exercise in futility.You are probably right.

I believe that in a free society, people have a right to free speech. So do I.

I believe they have a right to express themselves however they want. However they want? Some people want to "express themselves" by rioting. That is not a sustainable argument: there has to be defined limits on how people can express themselves.

I believe that in order to interfere with someone else's free speech, a high standard of harm must be crossed.Are we talking speech or behaviour? Because in my book we can be far more liberal with the former than the latter. But you're not talking about speech, are you, Walter, you really mean behaviour. When it comes to behaviour, any standard of harm is too much, whether it is smashing windows, obstructing traffic or exposing their genitals and thus causing distress. There are plenty of ways to express oneself without harming others - or offending them.

You disagree and I will not convince you. You believe that others should place offending you and inconveniencing you above their right to express themselves how they choose.I most certainly do.

P.S. When did Spain have a fox hunt?Don't know. Foxhunting has been illegal in the UK since 2004. Some of us - like me - have been calling for its prohibition all our lives.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040037_en_1

Stu

<!-- / message --><!-- controls --> http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=171070)

[Mosquito_Bait]

Jon - the Catholicism practised in much of Spain is ultra-conservative. Many of the older women still wear garments in black and ankle-length somewhat reminiscent of what you see in Islamic states. For them, open nakedness would be something profoundly shocking.

Stu

There is a tacit assumption that because conservatives identify with the church, the church endorses conservative political positions. With regard to the Catholic church’s position on nudity, this is not necessarily the case. The following are some quotes from the late Pope John Paul II:

Pope John Paul II - Quoting from Genesis, "They were nude but they were not ashamed." Furthermore, because God created it, "The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve its splendor and its beauty."

Pope John Paul II - "The Metaphysics of Shame", "Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person."

John Paul II (while still Polish Cardinal) From “Love and Responsibility” 1981 – “Nakedness itself is not immodest... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person, when its aim is to arouse concupiscence, as a result of which the person is put in the position of an object for enjoyment."

I am not familiar with the particulars of the political relevancy of the church in Spain; however, I do have some familiarity with the situation in Greece. Greece also has many elderly women who dress in black. Last year, I visited Greece with a young cousin from America who wanted to experience a Greek Orthodox church service in Greece. We attended a church that was large enough to accommodate several hundred parishioners yet there were no more than about two dozen present for the liturgy. At least half of the parishioners were the aforementioned elderly women dressed in black. There were very few males. My American cousin and I might have been the only ones not past the age of retirement. My Greek cousins seem to regard the church as little more than a venue for baptisms, weddings, and funerals. While they might value the church as an important cultural asset, they don’t attend liturgy and they don’t look to the church for political guidance.

[walter05]

Nacktman;

You were right. I am sorry I doubted you.

Stu;

I give up.

[Stu2630]

MosquitoBait

Do you think the sort of old women who dressed in black will have read all the theological tracts of Pope John Paul II?

Walter

Stu;

I give up.

Well, I'll settle for a draw if you will. :rolleyes:

Stu

[walter05]

Only if I don't have to go to the drawing board.

[Mosquito_Bait]

MosquitoBait

Do you think the sort of old women who dressed in black will have read all the theological tracts of Pope John Paul II?

Stu

At least we agree that nudity is not immoral and that the little old ladies in question suffer from confusion between what is moral and what was the social convention when they were young.

In any population, it will always be possible to find those who are easily offended. In any North American or European city it is possible to find conservative Muslims who find it offensive to see young women in short skirts and tight fitting sweaters. The laws that define what is offensive cannot be based on the lowest common denominator but rather on an overall societal norm. Spain appears to have moved past the point where mere nudity is cause for offense for the typical person.