Brattleboro unveils its proposed nudity emergency ordinance

[simonsebs]

Brattleboro unveils its proposed nudity emergency ordinance (http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_6373889)

I hope this doesn't pass, but if it does it was nice while it lasted. Hopeful one day we can all learn to live together peacefully. Some without clothes, others with them.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by simonsebs:
Brattleboro unveils its proposed nudity emergency ordinance (http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_6373889)

I hope this doesn't pass, but if it does it was nice while it lasted. Hopeful one day we can all learn to live together peacefully. Some without clothes, others with them.


So many uptight people are terrified of the notion that somebody, somewhere, might actually be enjoying their life.

Many small towns spend a lot of promotion money trying to find a niche to promote something unique about their otherwise unknown town. Batterborough has people coming all the way from Arizona to visit and shop. Given half a brain they could double or tripple sales and sales tax collections while greatly increasing the income of local merchants. Its the goose laying golden eggs, but like the usual nominds, they are rushing headlong to get the hatchet.

The only explanation is to remember that half of all people are either totally stupid or of below average intelligence.

Blessings

Bob

[james m]

I to hope it does not pass. It is ashame that a few "uptight" people can destroy ones freedom.

[MJ_KC]

Why is that the most prudish of people gets to determine what should be acceptable for everyone else?

Why can't they learn to just look the other way and mind their own business instead of trying to force their narrow minded views on everyone else?

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Why is that the most prudish of people gets to determine what should be acceptable for everyone else?

Why can't they learn to just look the other way and mind their own business instead of trying to force their narrow minded views on everyone else?

They probably have people like Stu. He believes that he has a "right" never to see a human body, no matter who else he has to force to conform.

Blessings

Bob

[Evernude]

"The proposed ordinance wouldn't ban public nudity completely from Brattleboro, only along the Route 5 and Route 9 corridors. Outside of the boundaries defined in the ordinance, walking on a public street naked would still be legal as long as it's not within 250 feet of any school, church or place of worship. Living Memorial Park and the village of West Brattleboro were also mentioned as no-nudity zones."

It actually sounds rather reasonable to me. Like everything else, nudity does have it's place. We can't seek to offend people. At least they're not attempting a ban on all nudity everywhere, like most places have done.

[Arnabas]

My first reaction was "Boo!"

But as I read the article and say that they were only naming certain areas as non-nude zones, I started to think it was not too bad. They specifically mention other areas where walking down the street is perfectly acceptable. Can't do that anywhere where I live. They also say being naked in your own yard is no problem. Again, not where I live.

While I think it is unfortunate that they feel the need to put any restrictions on nudity, I accept that we live in a world where compromise is necessary and think that this is actually quite reasonable. I'd LOVE to be able to be (legally) nude in my yard or on my balcony.

[Stu2630]

The article says:

Sondag said Friday she has received an overwhelming number of phone calls complaining about nudity in Brattleboro since a 68-year-old Arizona man wearing only a fanny pack and sandals took a stroll around town during the monthly Gallery Walk July 6. Most of those who have contacted her office, she said, have indicated they would like to see the Selectboard pass a local ordinance banning nudity in town.

This is democracy in action, surely. It's the people's representatives listening to, and acting upon, the will of the people who live in this town.

And they have even compromised:

..but an allowance has been made for homeowners who want to get naked in the privacy of their own backyards, said DeGray

Stu

[tinner666]

When places are defined for or against certain activities, there is less likelyhood of someone being offended. Unless they wander into an area they didn't mean to go to.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem too unreasonable.
Of course, that is how the anti-gunners, as they like to be known, also work. A step at a time until all nudity, or guns are banned.

[WNYjoe17]

It does sound like they are actually taking a reasonable attempt at satisfying both sides, and NOT outlawing all nudity.
One thing we will never know, though is "the town has received numerous complaints." How many is "numerous" 2? 5? 50? 500? What about the fact that those who don't care won't complain? There does come a time when we need to decide if we are "protecting us from ourselves" because of the complaints of a few.
SO, I guess the final part of making it "Democracy in Action" (to quote Stu) is to have meetings, etc and let the town's residents make the final vote.

It is an intersting change from the state of Michigan. Their penalty for simple nudity is quite different.

http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=6787824&nav=0RbQ


http://www.nac.oshkosh.net/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Fram...y_michigan_laws.html (http://www.nac.oshkosh.net/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Frames/Michigan_Laws/body_michigan_laws.html)


I also just spotted this in a link from the e-mail about the newest Nudes in the News:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1763606.php

...She said he seemed friendly but was bothered by his nudity. She was so disturbed by the man the neighborhoods had labeled as "Naked Man," she was embarrassed to have visitors over for dinner.

"You don't want to be spending a couple million on your house and find you have a neighbor that's naked," she said.

Interesting quote from another town. But that town's reply: "Generally speaking, we don't want to create an ordinance for one individual," said Councilman Keith Bohr. "That's not something we do if we can help it."
However, if you read the full article, this town is still considering a ban on nudidy.

(sigh)

Joe

[Mosquito_Bait]

As I read this, I am about to go outside to mow my lawn. If my town had a law similar to that proposed for Brattleboro, I would be allowed to mow my lawn nude. I would also be allowed to go on an evening jog nude as long as I stayed off certain streets. After my jog, I would only need to pause long enough to kick off my shoes before jumping into my backyard swimming pool. The elimination of the struggle out of clothes saturated with sweat would be a major improvement. I would also be allowed to ride the local mountain bike trails nude. It sounds pretty good to me! The only other things that I might want are a designated nude section at a local beach and nude swim times at the community pool. Not being allowed to walk through the main business district nude seems like a small loss in comparison to the freedoms that are being preserved.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by tinner666:
When places are defined for or against certain activities, there is less likelyhood of someone being offended. Unless they wander into an area they didn't mean to go to.
On the face of it, it doesn't seem too unreasonable.
Of course, that is how the anti-gunners, as they like to be known, also work. A step at a time until all nudity, or guns are banned.
That is my take on it as well. You get the first law on the books that doesn't have a lot of resistance and you let people get used to it. Then you start the small incremental extensions that barely get noticed as well. After awhile, the law becomes a serious restriction.

[Caipora]

"You don't want to be spending a couple million on your house and find you have a neighbor that's naked," she said.
So many people seem to allow their "property values" to overwhelm all their other values. Such as tolerance and compassion, as can best be seen when an issue like a halfway house comes up.

There's a saying in this part of the world that morality is like a rope strung at chest height - the rich go over it, the poor go under it, and the middle class strike it and bounce back.

The Victorian model was "Mrs. Grundy", an embodiment of narrow minded "values". One need merely look at the restrictions of any closed condominium - the horror of bright colors, of clotheslines, of vehicles that suggest a resident performs useful labor for a living instead of shuffling paper - to see how people will willingly stifle their freedom in an attempt to pretend to be something they are not.

That people will tie themselves up is merely sad, while the attempt to stifle the freedom of others, especially those less well off, or less bound by convention, goes beyond sad to tragic.

A few weeks back I took advantage of some historic newspaper archives newly being online to look at the history of some of this. Around the turn of the last century, a bit before, a bit after, I ran across a whole slew of articles objecting to men and boys swimming nude in rivers and other open water. The basis of the objection was always that the sight was an offense to the viewer - and it always seemed that the viewer was someone who could afford indoor plumbing and bathing costumes, while those bathing in the open could not. It was no so much the sight of flesh as the sight of poverty that seemed to be the problem.

- Caipora

[Nude in the North]

The Seat Belt laws are a good example of how that works.

First it's just a warning as long as you are stopped for another violation.
Then it's a small fine, gradually increasing with every session of the legislature.

Now police can pull you over if they notice your not wearing your shoulder strap, and write you a $100 + ticket.

We had a news story about a cow (steer actually) that mooed too much. The Sherrif recieved 21 complaints and finally wrote the owner a summons and charged her with a crime that held a $1000 fine and jail time.

All 21 complaints came from the same disgruntled neighbor. News crews and deputies reported that after hours of observation , the steer rarely mooed at all.

Charges were dropped.

Now exactly how many people complained about the nude man??? 1 person 500 times?

Why can't nudists write and call to complain that they can't be nude when they want to be. Why can't nudists get city counsels motivated to pass laws allowing nudity and banning Prudity.

Vent over

[Stu2630]

banning Prudity

How can you ban "prudity"?

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

Stu

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Nude in the North:
The Seat Belt laws are a good example of how that works.

First it's just a warning as long as you are stopped for another violation.
Then it's a small fine, gradually increasing with every session of the legislature.

Now police can pull you over if they notice your not wearing your shoulder strap, and write you a $100 + ticket.

We had a news story about a cow (steer actually) that mooed too much. The Sherrif recieved 21 complaints and finally wrote the owner a summons and charged her with a crime that held a $1000 fine and jail time.

All 21 complaints came from the same disgruntled neighbor. News crews and deputies reported that after hours of observation , the steer rarely mooed at all.

Charges were dropped.

Now exactly how many people complained about the nude man??? 1 person 500 times?

Why can't nudists write and call to complain that they can't be nude when they want to be. Why can't nudists get city counsels motivated to pass laws allowing nudity and banning Prudity.
Vent over


You are right on about how law enforcemtn works. Its not about protecting people, its about power and domination.

I haven't looked at a map of the little town, but banning nudity on the two main cross streets, plus within 250 feet of every kind of public place they could think of could block out most of the town. It also gives them an excuse to arrest people if they are unfammiliar with the location of eveyr church, school, etc. that they might be on the next block away from.

Little towns generally try to be "special" in some manner. The "Largest Hand Dug Well" in Kansas The biggest twine ball in Minnisota. Truth or Consequences, NM. "Bavarian" Levenworth, WA. Most little towns try to have an angle to attract tourist money.

This burg already has tourists coming all the way from Arizona laying money on their merchants. Some peope are soooooo sttttuuupppiiiiddd!

Blessings

Bob

[soundman]

Originally posted by Stu2630:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">banning Prudity

How can you ban "prudity"?

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

Stu </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By not giving so much "power against others" to the prudish.

[Bushnud2]

Nudists force town to revert to modesty
The Telegraph Group
Published: July 17, 2007, 00:18


New York: A town in Vermont is planning to ban public nudity today amid concern it is attracting unwelcome attention and offending local people.

Brattleboro's infamous strip-and-let-strip philosophy may soon come to an end as its council intends to introduce an emergency ordinance to ban nudity in certain parts of the town.

Local feeling hardened a few days ago after a 68-year-old visitor strolled naked through the centre of town during Gallery Walk, a monthly social event in which people visit the town's art venues.

The man told residents he was from Arizona and had decided to have a holiday in Brattleboro after reading about its public nudity freedom on the internet.

Vermont - famous for its liberal views - has no state laws against public nudity, although a handful of cities and towns have banned it.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/U.S.A/10139713.html

[MJ_KC]

I am a bit unsure about how to really take this kind of ordinance. This really isn't an unreasonable thing for them to do, but I wonder if it will stop here.

On the other hand, if this particular ordinance is objected to too much by nudists, the city council could decide to pass something even more strict in retaliation for outside interference.

[simonsebs]

Brattleboro outlaws public nudity (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6804833&nav=4QcS)

This has been a bad week so far. The vote was alot closer than I thought it would be.

[simonsebs]

This report (http://www.ibrattleboro.com/article.php/20070718002559972) goes into more detail about what happened at the meeting. Some of those people's reasoning was lame at best.

[Daveinct]

This is very sad news. Reading through the article and the reporter's notes, you can find the usual ignorant fears, as well as a few enlightened opinions.

Most troubling is the reaction of the young girl who broke into tears and couldn't continue when she tried to describe seeing a naked man on the street. The damage that has been done to this child's mind by her parents is shameful. Hopefully, she'll be able to recover in time.

One person, apparently a council member, states that he has heard from people who would not visit Brattleboro if they didn't ban nudity, but hasn't heard from one person who would not visit Brattleboro if they did ban nudity. Perhaps we should find out how to contact the city council and let them know who among us will not visit Brattleboro with the ban in place.

Dave

[Pete Knight]

Originally posted by Daveinct:
Most troubling is the reaction of the young girl who broke into tears and couldn't continue when she tried to describe seeing a naked man on the street

IMHO that young girl was more upset about speaking in public (It has that effect on me too!) than about the nude guy, her parents shouldn't have put her through that, amazing what some people will stoop to in order to get their point across.

Pete Knight

[Daveinct]

Originally posted by Pete Knight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daveinct:
Most troubling is the reaction of the young girl who broke into tears and couldn't continue when she tried to describe seeing a naked man on the street

IMHO that young girl was more upset about speaking in public (It has that effect on me too!) than about the nude guy, her parents shouldn't have put her through that, amazing what some people will stoop to in order to get their point across.

Pete Knight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That could be true, without being there and asking the girl, I'll pass on forming an opinion as to which upset her more. The notes did mention that the girl had the same reaction upon seeing the naked man.

Dave

[Walt Iliff]

Folks,

I'm going to weigh in on this one knowing that many of you may disagree. We are are own worst enemy. It seems as though, no matter where the line is drawn, there are those who want to cross it. Here we had a town who was accepting of public nudity and someone just HAD to push the envelope. The same thing has happened at many other places where nudity had been tolerated. There are many more people who think we are a fringe group of perverts and/or nuts than there are of those who have adopted a live and let live attitude. And yet, when we make progress, there is always some individual or group who want to see just how far they can get, thereby putting in jeopardy the progress we've made. We ask for tolerance of our point of view, and practice intolerance of others who may disagree. That may be fine if the ones who disagree aren't already the vast vast majority of our citizenry, but the political reality is that unlike the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, there is no groundswell of support for our social agenda. There is in fact no comparison at all. We have come a long long way over the past several years, with many non nudists willing to accept the fact that there are those of us who would like to have areas where we can practice social nudism, but that support vanishes when the interaction becomes confrontational. I remember fighting hard during the Virginia youth camp problems a few years ago. When we lobbied our Richmond legislators, we had many of them who privately believed that the law which was eventually passed was unnecessary, but to a person told us that regardless of what they may believe privately, there was no way that they were going to commit political hara-kiri by openly voting for us. The bill passed 99-1 with the one person voting against the bill because he didn't think it was strong enough. What is possible is for us to have places set aside for nude recreation in APPROPRIATE settings. Where we violate the appropriateness of the setting and make no mistake, the meaning of "appropriate" is not ours to define, we are setting ourselves up for ultimate failure and the potential to lose much if not all we have gained to date.

Walt Iliff

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Walt Iliff:
It seems as though, no matter where the line is drawn, there are those who want to cross it. Here we had a town who was accepting of public nudity and someone just HAD to push the envelope. The same thing has happened at many other places where nudity had been tolerated.
Walt Iliff

I appreciate your view, Walt, but I'm left wondering what you mean by "nudity had been tolerated."

In Bratleboro and Huntington Beach, and other places nudity was "tolerated" only as long as nobody was naked. By "pushing the envelope" you seem to mean that someone was actually seen naked. I'm not sure how "tolerant" the communities were if they "tolerated" nudity only when there wasn't any nudity.

By "APPROPRIATE settings" I presume that you mean hidden away behind fences and gates out of sight of the "tolerant" communities. And I disagree that "appropriate is not our to define." I'm not ready to conceede my civil rights to others, to let some amorphous "them" tell me what I can and can't do.

I guess we will have to disagree on this Walt. I believe that pushing the envelope as hard as possible will have positive results, and hiding away out of sight and out of mind will have negative results in the long term.

Blessings
Bob

[Michjoe]

"Here we had a town who was accepting of public nudity and someone just HAD to push the envelope. The same thing has happened at many other places where nudity had been tolerated."

In my opinion media exposure is more likely the reason for loss of nude places. Public officials who propose limits or elimination are reacting to the massive media coverage. It is literally impossible to control those who would push the envelope. Again media overexposure is usually the reason they are there.

"We have come a long long way over the past several years..."

I would guess as far as places to be nude legally, we have lost more than we have gained over the past several years. Also it seems the trend in resorts is they are becoming more adult and the rustic mom and pop sites are disappearing. Some would not consider that progress.

"...the meaning of 'appropriate' (setting for nude recreation) is not ours to define..."

Unfortunately 'appropriate' to many is in the bathroom with the door locked.

In my opinion we must reduce the influence of those who want to impose their own misguided morality on all of us. Too many naturist support these people.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Bobx23456:
In Bratleboro and Huntington Beach, and other places nudity was "tolerated" only as long as nobody was naked. By "pushing the envelope" you seem to mean that someone was actually seen naked. I'm not sure how "tolerant" the communities were if they "tolerated" nudity only when there wasn't any nudity.
Well said. This is not my idea of tolerance when all it really means is that you might as well pretend that there is a restrictive anti-nudity law in effect or you will get one for real.

The net effect is the same in either instance. You can't go nude in public because they are only pretending to be tolerant.

[Mosquito_Bait]

There is a difference between a right and a hole in the law. There never was a right to walk naked through downtown Brattleboro. It was simply a hole in the law that was closed as soon as people who weren't young and fit tried to exploit it. Through the new ordinance, Brattleboro may actually be creating a right to be nude in public areas away from downtown and certain other locations.

[Skinview]

There is a big difference between what people have a right to do and what is appropriate or wise. Being naked harms no one. We have a right to be naked, yet there are many places that I wouldn't go without a shirt on. I agree with Walt. I would defend someone's right to walk down the sidewalk naked in the middle of town, but that nudist invites the wrath of the intolerant. Its politically stupid to push people that far that fast. Things should be different, but that is reality. Now there is another bad law in part because of the naked guy from Arizona.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Skinview:
There is a big difference between what people have a right to do and what is appropriate or wise. Being naked harms no one. We have a right to be naked, yet there are many places that I wouldn't go without a shirt on. I agree with Walt. I would defend someone's right to walk down the sidewalk naked in the middle of town, but that nudist invites the wrath of the intolerant. Its politically stupid to push people that far that fast. Things should be different, but that is reality. Now there is another bad law in part because of the naked guy from Arizona.

I'm not sure that it's wrong to push the limits. The ruckus in Brattleboro has gotten huge publicity for nudism. You can't buy that kind of massive publicity. As some Hollywood wag once said, "It doesn't matter what they call you, as long as they spell your name right." Publicity for public nudity is good. It puts us in the public eye. It gives all the thinking people a moment to reflect on the possibilty of being naked, to question the need for forced clothing.

Instead of retreating, we need to push more public events. We need to relate forced shorts with forced burkas -- as a continuum of intolerance of human bodies and religous oppression. The more we confront the established unthinking requirement for clothing the more it becomes an option in the minds of the public. We need to keep doing similar public confrontation. The only way we can lose is to stop.

[Naturist Mark]

I think Bob is on to something here.

I heard about the new ordinance on a national radio program (The Rachel Maddow Show) where the host zeroed in on the fact that it was a senior citizen who outraged the locals, not the naked teens in the center of downtown. She immediately identified the problem as a tolerance of only attractive nudes. Dr. Maddow, who as far as I know isn't a nudist, or even knows any nudists, nonetheless got the point that body acceptance was issue - not sex or nudity.

It wasn't so long ago that we were hearing the very same arguments about not pushing the envelope by exercising a freedom when 4 women took a stroll through Moravia, New York topfree - which is perfectly 100% legal. We were lectured that they jeopardized topfree rights in New York by daring to exercise that right.

Sorry folks. A right or freedom that you dare not use is an illusion.

I say keep exercising that freedom. Push the limits. Educate at every opportunity. Show the skeptics that non-sexual nudity isn't harmful - it doesn't cause mental illness, crime, or biblical plagues. Point out that the 68 year old man in Brattleboro didn't cause any fear or mayhem, no one was injured, no one was assaulted, no one was even forced to look. A naked pensioner strolled through town and NO ONE DIED! How about that.

-Mark

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Sorry folks. A right or freedom that you dare not use is an illusion.
The fact is that it isn't a right or freedom until someone actually takes advantage of exercising this right. Until then, it really doesn't exist.

For someone in a position of power to suggest that people not utilize their rights is just wrong. The idea that a fellow nudist would suggest this is even worse because it sends the message to authorities that it is OK to harass people for exercising rights that the majority may not like.

[Bobx23456]

Public nudism in Brattleboro is getting a huge play on FOX TV today. O'Really and Hanity both did big film pieces showing naked teens. Both panned the new ordinance as "allowing nudity" in "liberal" Vermont. Both came off as jerks for their intolerance of bodies, and both gave public nakedness a HUGE publicity boost that could not be bought at any price.

Keep pushing the envelope. Keep posting on blogs. Keep arguing with the textile prudes. We can only lose by giving up.

Blessings
Bob

[riptidenj]

I will play the Devil's Advocate on this one.
I freely and cheerfully confess to being one of those fudds who thinks there is a time and a place for everything and often the best way to
ensure that you can enjoy an activity that has
great potential to infringe on the sensibilities
of others is to practice in ways that take other
people's feelings into consideration, and make them recognize that they have to respect yours.
One analogy I like to use is with drag racing.
If you do it down Main St at 2AM you are being
very inconsiderate of others, if you do it at the drag strip those who disapprove have no grounds for complaint. Here in NJ we have Gunnison Beach where the signs clearly state that after this point you may (read:will)encounter nude bathers, those who disapprove have their choice of several other beaches. Regarding the little girl who was upset at the sight of a naked man, I firmly believe that parents have primary responsibilty for raising their children and shaping their moral sensibilities, one of which is how they view
nudity.
As to to the "beautiful bodies only are tolerated", perhaps if this individual had a
buffed body like a Greek God he might not have caused such a fuss. But I really think it was
a matter of someone pushing the envelope too
far, and other people decided that limits had to
be set.

[walter05]

Riptendj;

I think you make some good points.

I think someone sunbathing in a backyard would not have been a problem in Brattleboro. Perhaps even without a fence. This is something people would be more open to accept.

There is a difference between demonstrating that there is no danger and shoving the nudity in peoples' faces. You may not want to hear that but it is true. When attempting to convince people to be more accepting of nudism, gentle, responsible behavior and persuasion will work best.

My wife and I are raising six children. We have boys and girls from five years old to fourteen years old. I don't believe any child would really cry and be terrified by seeing a naked man. If this naked man spoke to her or made a gesture towards her, then there could have been a terror. We are in an age when people are afraid of pedophilia. A naked man attempting to strike up a conversation with a clothed girl on Main Street could be a scary situation for most textile people. If the people are paranoid, even a "Hi" and a glance from a naked man may be threatening to a textile girl and her mother.

Nudists are not ignorant of the threat. Nudist resorts go to great lengths to protect children, as they should. I am sure that nudists at least watch closely if a nude or clothed adult attempts to his or her child. If a nudist is in a usually textile situation and this happens, a nudist would parent would probably be concerned.

Having said that, I believe that this little girl's reaction is staged. Children see siblings nude at bath time, etc. Children at cousins' houses may see others nude. I find it unlikely that this girl did not know what a naked man looks like. If her mother over reacted, the little girl could have reflected this reaction. However, if this was true, a responsible parent would not have the truly terrified girl stand up in public and testify at a town council meeting.

She was testifying to a town council. She was the public poster child seeing a naked man. She then cried so much that her loving mother publicly comforted her. This seems staged to me.

If the girl's mother would exploit her for political gains or for the fifteen minutes of fame, this is a form of child abuse. If my child saw something like that, I would handle it privately at home. This parent's exploitation of the child is a real threat.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by walter05:
My wife and I are raising six children. We have boys and girls from five years old to fourteen years old. I don't believe any child would really cry and be terrified by seeing a naked man. If this naked man spoke to her or made a gesture towards her, then there could have been a terror. We are in an age when people are afraid of pedophilia. A naked man attempting to strike up a conversation with a clothed girl on Main Street could be a scary situation for most textile people. If the people are paranoid, even a "Hi" and a glance from a naked man may be threatening to a textile girl and her mother.

Having said that, I believe that this little girl's reaction is staged. Children see siblings nude at bath time, etc. Children at cousins' houses may see others nude. I find it unlikely that this girl did not know what a naked man looks like. If her mother over reacted, the little girl could have reflected this reaction. However, if this was true, a responsible parent would not have the truly terrified girl stand up in public and testify at a town council meeting.


Over the past century there has been a large and well organized hate and fear campaign against men. It is true that today many fear men and the sight of a man behaving in an unusual manner is often suddenly fearful. Girls, women, (and boys) are taught that all men are potential "pedophiles," "rapists," and people to fear.

Some articulate people are speaking out against the pervasive misandry seen in this instance and so common in our culture. On FOX last night an articulate woman talking head demanded from Hannity and the other female an explanaiton for how the sight of a naked man is going to harm a girl. They could not provide any explanation.

I am a man who objects strongly to the misandrist character of the female bookstore owner and the setup girl and mother in the news reports. Much of this story is strongly misandrist, and even much of the reaction from nudists. We are told than older MEN should be shunned, we are "creepy," etc. That kind of anti-men prejudice is offensive to me.

There are several issues in this situation that need to be re-thought.

Blessings

Bob

[WacoTX]

Public officials are highly subject to financial conditions. The national publicity and the financial consequences have not been fully brought to bear on these officials.

A number of national polls concerning the publics acceptance of nudity have been done. The results of these polls need to be put in the hands of every public official and/or candidate for public office.

In addition, each state needs to have a state wide poll done. The results of these polls (provided they are naturist positive) made available to every public official, state and local.

I like to choose my battles rather than react to outside influence. A state convention of naturists could assess their states position and determine a positive approach to expanding naturist activities in their state.

[Boreas]

The sad fact is that many people are offended by nudity. Another fact is that some folks who appear to be nudists are really exhibitionists. I do not whether the man who walked naked down the street in Brattleboro was a nudist or an exhibitionist. He clearly offended some folks in town.

The town has passed this ordinance. It is not permanent. As the article in the WCAX-TV story says: But nudists can still push their agenda. Next month, Brattleboro will hold a public hearing on whether the ordinance should become permanent. Why don't you folks who live near enough to travel to Brattleboro go to the hearing to help add the nudist voice to the agenda? If the folks can see that nudists are everyday people and not necessarily wierdos, then it will more likely be accepted. As long as everyone is closetted away, it will be suspect. A certain amount of reason could go a long way.

bob said: Over the past century there has been a large and well organized hate and fear campaign against men. It is true that today many fear men and the sight of a man behaving in an unusual manner is often suddenly fearful. Girls, women, (and boys) are taught that all men are potential "pedophiles," "rapists," and people to fear.

I'd still like to see evidence that there has been such a large and organized hate campaign against men. As a female, I was not taught that all men are potential pedophiles, rapists, and people to fear. As a professional who has worked with sex abuse victims (male AND female for the record) I would NEVER teach anyone to fear all men. You will find that most people are advocating teaching what signs to look for in a potential abuser, who can be either male or female.

[simonsebs]

Reading these letters to the editor made me feel a little better.

Brattleboro, July 16

'Nudity license' could offset taxes

Editor of the Reformer:

Today we received a call from my nephew Scott in Cincinnati asking about the nudity controversy here.

He said "It's all over the country and even international."

After thinking a bit when he hung up, and reading the article in the July 18 Reformer, I have a suggestion: the temporary anti-nudist ordinance seems reasonable, but Brattleboro needs another ordinance that licenses temporary nudity.

It should be similar to a state fishing or hunting license: You can't fish or hunt everywhere, nor all of the time, nor for the same type of fish or game. And, a license costs money.

Brattleboro definitely needs cash to fill its coffers, and with a bit more, we could pay "nudity wardens" to enforce the laws. Nudists would have to follow the town ordinance, but could check their clothes at the door of an establishment that encourages nudist shoppers, as long as they have a current "nudist" wrist band.

Establishments that like the idea of nude patrons would have a symbol prominently displayed in the window. Parents who don't want their kids to see nude people would not allow their children to enter. Possibly Brattleboro could capitalize on what some perceive as negative publicity.

Ken Heile

Guilford, July 19

Ordinance is going to cost town

Editor of the Reformer:

Many seem to want nudity banned because of their personal preference, hangups or inabilities. In that, they mirror many levels of government removing rights supposedly in the "public interest."

All they're saying is "do something to make me feel better." I thought southern Vermont had more maturity than that.

Those trying so hard to prevent their kids from seeing unclothed bodies doing more or less nothing are contributing to the massive U.S. epidemics of body phobia and related socio-sexual problems unseen to such an extent elsewhere in the Western world.

Brattleboro could have dealt with the problem differently, focusing on truly harmful behavior. If the new ordinance becomes permanent, I will spend no money there in my trips through southern Vermont.

Paul Rapoport

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
I'd still like to see evidence that there has been such a large and organized hate campaign against men. As a female, I was not taught that all men are potential pedophiles, rapists, and people to fear. As a professional who has worked with sex abuse victims (male AND female for the record) I would NEVER teach anyone to fear all men. You will find that most people are advocating teaching what signs to look for in a potential abuser, who can be either male or female.

Hmmmmm? And Denial is a river in Egypt?

What was it Nixon said, just "stonewall" the situation and it doesn't exist.

As long as denial and stonewalling is the categoric response we will never be able to begin to address the very serious gender animosity that has become pervasive in our nations over the past century and a half.

Blessings

Bob

[Boreas]

As long as denial and stonewalling is the categoric response we will never be able to begin to address the very serious gender animosity that has become pervasive in our nations over the past century and a half.

Gender animosity is often in the eye of the beholder. I am quite sure you do see many women who appear to hate men. Poor you.

[Stu2630]

Gender animosity is often in the eye of the beholder. I am quite sure you do see many women who appear to hate men. Poor you.

I do think Bob has a point. We are moving towards a very female-centric society here in the UK that protects and even cossets women and girls at the expense of men and boys. Here, women win out big time in things such as pension rights, divorce settlements, child custody and various forms of insurance. Our schools have moved towards female-friendly methods of teaching and examination which mean that girls are flourishing while boys are failing. Employers have massive responsibilities with regard to female employees which they don't have towards men, such as having to pay them full pay for months while on maternity and then offer them their jobs back when they want to return, and they are now in some circumstances required to offer all kinds of child-care assistance. Many men are afraid to be seen talking to a child and any man who seeks employment working with small children is often seen as somewhat suspect. This is wrong.

This is NOT women's fault - it is the fault of ideologically motivated politicians and those self-serving ones hoping to curry favour with voters.

Stu

[Boreas]

Thanks Stu, that is a much better way of presenting the "other side". I have seen that type of thing. Some of it relates to things like learning styles of boys vs girls. Sadly our school systems seem to be set up in such a way that makes it difficult for wiggly, kinesthetic male learners to learn. Of course not all boys fit under that category. (I guess I have said the same thing you did in different words http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif )

I think we still have a long way to go to achieve proper gender equality. In my mind, that means an environment that allows both genders to flourish and to be able to work together in a way that makes the best use of their talents. The day they elect a female president in the US will be a sign that women can truly rise to the top.

So, now that we are totally and completely off topic, how are things in Brattleboro? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[MrTruth]

Our schools have moved towards female-friendly methods of teaching and examination which mean that girls are flourishing while boys are failing.

I think the reason that girls are advancing beyond boys is based upon my own personal observations. High School and College aged girls and young women are, in so many cases that I have personally observed, much more mature and serious then boys.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
I think we still have a long way to go to achieve proper gender equality. In my mind, that means an environment that allows both genders to flourish and to be able to work together in a way that makes the best use of their talents. The day they elect a female president in the US will be a sign that women can truly rise to the top.

Since you're a Canadian, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to focus on the time when Canada will elect a female PM?

As long as feminists demand a sex based (female) election, we will have a long way to go. When it becomes irrelevenat whether or not there is a female President or PM, we will have acheived gender peace, and man can quit worrying about the organized long term feminist assault on our society.

Blessings

Bob

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by MrTruth:
I think the reason that girls are advancing beyond boys is based upon my own personal observations. High School and College aged girls and young women are, in so many cases that I have personally observed, much more mature and serious then boys.

"more mature" ==> like girls.

Our schools have systematically driven off men teachers, employed feminist teachers who teach that men/boys are bad, rewritten reading and text books to be prejudiced against boys, restructured classes to favor girls, and drugged millions of boys with cocaine based mind numbing addictive drugs. Our colleges and Universities all have "wome's centers" and "Women's Stucies" departmetns that teach feminist misandry. The English Departments teach "feminist theory" along with literature.

Most of the real leaders of the world didn't become mind numbed followers in colleges. Millions of boys and young men are finding out that attendance at feminized schools and colleges is often worse than useless, espeicaly when vast educational resources are available at everyone's desktop. When it's complete the feminist who are working to dominate "education" will find they hold an empty case.

Blessings
Bob

[Boreas]

Since you're a Canadian, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to focus on the time when Canada will elect a female PM?

It has already happened. See this site http://www.collectionscanada.ca/primeministers/h4-3475-e.html

And this one http://www.collectionscanada.ca/women/002026-822-e.html

Of course, we could elect another one. Right now it is a male bastion in Ottawa as in Washington.

[Cigol Edun]

Although I would try to support the rights of others to walk around freely without clothes, and believe there are times when we should assert our rights, and although I believe that publicity of any sort can often help rational people to think about the rights of a nudist minority, I still also believe that ideally speaking one shouldn't just "push the limits" for the sake of publicity any more than one should just make a move in the game of chess. People should think through the consequences of their actions in terms of the end result.

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since you're a Canadian, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to focus on the time when Canada will elect a female PM?

It has already happened. See this site http://www.collectionscanada.ca/primeministers/h4-3475-e.html

And this one http://www.collectionscanada.ca/women/002026-822-e.html

Of course, we could elect another one. Right now it is a male bastion in Ottawa as in Washington. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, she didn't last long, now, did she? <g>

[Naturist Mark]

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/h4/f1/17-v3.jpg Well, she didn't last long, now, did she?
Nope. Probably because she was also the first nudist PM

LOL ... well probably not.

[Boreas]

No she did not last long. I believe she took over when Brian Mulroney announced his retirement. Due to the Canadian political system, there was an election soon after she stepped into the position. She had not been elected into it. She assumed the role when Mulroney left.

Wickpedia explains the situation quite well. I am not a fan of Wickipedia, but it works for this venue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
No she did not last long. I believe she took over when Brian Mulroney announced his retirement. Due to the Canadian political system, there was an election soon after she stepped into the position. She had not been elected into it. She assumed the role when Mulroney left.


IOW, my previous comment still holds, "Since you're a Canadian, wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to focus on the time when Canada will elect a female PM?"

But wouldn't it be even better if we could stop worrying about the sex of the candidates running for office. Electing a President or PM based on her sex is not the best way to run a government in my opinion.

[MoonShadow]

No one should be elected based on gender but here in the US of A, it has been a fact since the founding of our country that only men were elected. So, bobx, yes, our country DID elect its presidents based on gender. So, bobx, was it okay that all these years, only men were elected president?

If you go back in time and even among some today, one would get a huge list of why a woman would not make a good leader, manager, or President. The list was extensive and used by our own society to discourage women from numerous opportunities. Don't you think that was wrong, bobx?

Now you sit on this forum spouting off your disdain for women. Women are taking over...education, health, etc. Men use to rule all of this just a couple of decades ago, but you saw nothing wrong with that, bobx? And look how long it took for women to get the right to vote? You saw nothing wrong with that bobx?

Tell me something.....just how do you perceive women in society, bobx?

[nimrod]

No wonder we as nudist can acomplish nothing, and lose more than we gain, we cannot stay on topic to truly discuss the issues that effect nudism. There is a continuous break down, and polarization of issues that do not matter to our rights as nudist.

How does having a female pres., or PM, effect us as nudist? It does not at all, unless she is nudist friendly.

We cannot even agree to where nudity should be legal. Some are O.K. with the status quo, "I am happy as long as I have my club, resort, beach, etc.". Some want nudity to be legal everywhere. I think that is what we should all fight for, and compromise, for now, then fight for it again, and so on. All we have to do is agree on where we draw the line. What is a good middle ground?

Brattleboro is a glass half full/empty situation. Yes they banned nudity, which is a blow to nudist rights. On the other side, at least it was not banned for the whole town, like a certain California beach city.

[Cigol Edun]

Originally posted by nimrod:
What is a good middle ground?


I think we just need to find as much common ground as we can and make a point to channel our efforts into that. But the above is a good question. I'm sure we can all agree that it would be better to maintain what we have then to lose everything.

Another relevant question to ask I think is what is the best strategy for helping to effect positively the long term consequences of this potentially long-term law? Is it to do nothing? Perhaps it should depend on how close one lives to Brattleboro. I'm personally more concerned about the arrests and beach closing in CA though. I don't live in either place, but it seems reasonable to believe that those who do live close have the best chance of making a positive difference.

So what SHOULD we do?
I would say in places where the threat of losing everything is strong, we should work to maintain what we still have, in places where there seems a good opportunity to stand up for our rights with impunity or otherwise further are cause in a receptive environment we should do that. In places where an exceptionally irrational standard exists such as in Arkansas, we should work to improve it---perhaps by demonstrating how other states have successfully dealt with similar issues. Of course timing is important. It might not be the best time to do this immediately after a "bad PR" event etc.

[Boreas]

You are right nimrod, bob commented about how the fact the nude person was male was the whole reason for our diversion. I stupidly followed along.

bob, read Moon Shadow's post. Ditto what she said. Women have been excluded from politics, espcially the US presidency. It is only now that there are two women in such a position to be considered as presidential candidates. One is a woman of colour, which is cool, though I don't necessarily support her politics. I think that when the US can elect a female president, then things will have truly changed on some level. It is a male bastion. Also, US politics does affect me as a Canadian. You would never understand how, so I won't explain.

Nimrod, you asked how having a female pres or PM affect us as nudists. Perhaps it will mean we finally see women as more than sex objects and therefore, can possibly see nudism as more than a sexual thing. Plus a female brain brings some different skills which MIGHT improve things. Of course, I am stretching a bit here, and I know it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

[nimrod]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
Nimrod, you asked how having a female pres or PM affect us as nudists. Perhaps it will mean we finally see women as more than sex objects and therefore, can possibly see nudism as more than a sexual thing. Plus a female brain brings some different skills which MIGHT improve things. Of course, I am stretching a bit here, and I know it. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
I can see your point, but women have been in politics for some time now and the attitude is still out there. Call it the Paris Hilton effect, women can overcome being sex objects, but some one like Hilton comes around and screws it up.

I believe that it is the womens attitude towards nudity that we really should be focused on. From my experiance it is usually women that denounce nudity as morally wrong, and cry out, "What about the children?". The latest example is Huntington Beach, one woman that was interviewed said that nudity was wrong and she has children to protect. One station showed a clip from the procedings with a woman at the stand saying just about the same thing. It reminds me of the "joke", I am the head of my family, but my wife if the neck that turns the head.

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
bob, read Moon Shadow's post. Ditto what she said. Women have been excluded from politics, espcially the US presidency.

That's not really accurate. Over the past 80 years women who ran for office in the US have been elected more often, a higher percentage, than men who run for office. As for the office of President, one could argue that all of the women who ever ran have been elected. We won't have a woman elected until one is nominate and runs for the office. I've read interviews with women who turned down political office because it was "dirty" work that they felt was better left to men.

A century ago wome didn't run for office in most of the US, but the only lobby group to have its own stone building on the Capitol Mall is the DAR -- a women's lobby group that exercised a whole lot of political power.


It is only now that there are two women in such a position to be considered as presidential candidates. One is a woman of colour, which is cool, though I don't necessarily support her politics. I think that when the US can elect a female president, then things will have truly changed on some level.

Indeed, when women run for office in the US they get elected at a higher percentage rate, have a better chance of being elected than men over the past several decades.

It is a male bastion. Also, US politics does affect me as a Canadian. You would never understand how, so I won't explain.

With women having a higher chance of being elected in the US than men, how exactly is it a "male bastion"?


The point of this is that when a naked man is found in public he's arrested. I just posted an article on nudes in the news about a naked woman who was picked up by police high on illegal drugs while walking down a street. No charges will be filed. Some would think this is another example of female special priviledge, even walking naked down the street.


Blessings
Bob

[Boreas]

Well bob, you are entitled to your opinion. We will never agree so I am not even going to comment. You don't seem to "get it". I know I do not "get it" as far as you are concerned.

nimrod, I think you are right on some level. There are many young women now who feel they need breast implants and such in order to feel acceptable. I believe that is social learning of some sort. On the other side, men are needing to do more beauty routines than they did in the past. There seems to be more striving for perfection. Clearly people need to adjust their views of nudity. After all, not just pretty people can be nude for the titilation of others.

There is also your comment about protecting children from nudity. Like others have said, there is no need to protect. It is what folks do with nudity that is or is not an issue. If there is PROPER education about sex offenders and such, as opposed to fear mongering, then people theoretically anyway, will be more able to separate sex abuse from nudity.

I think this is an ongoing process. Again, if people live near Brattleboro, then they can go to the public forums and speak out. That is one form of education and advocacy.

[MrTruth]

There are many young women now who feel they need breast implants and such in order to feel acceptable. I believe that is social learning of some sort.

While at the gym running on the treadmill yesterday, I was watching a show on either MTV or VH1 called "Parental Control". This is one of those cheap, so called reality shows. This particular show focused upon a young man's father and mother who interviewed a bunch of young women and then each parent selected one woman for their son to date. The son presently had a g/f and in the end, after going out on a date with each of the two selected women, the son had to select which one of the three that he would keep. Well, after the dates, the son rejected one of the girls and said that it was because her breasts were too small ie she was 'flat chested'. His present g/f had C or D size. In the end he selected the girl that his mother selected and ditched his old g/f because his old g/f treated him like a slave ie demanded that he do everything for her.

This show is typical of what is being presented on tv. The message is repeated over and over again: In order for a girl to attract a guy, she needs big breasts (ie Playboy style) and if she doesn't have them, then she had better get implants. This kind of message is garbage and really sends the wrong message to young girls and that message is that what is inside of a gilr is not important. Only her breast size and waist size matter and so again we reduce women to a walking pair of breasts with no waist to boot! How sad and what a sick society we live in when this is what tv promotes!

[simonsebs]

Brattleboro Extends Public Nudity Ban (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6901545&nav=4QcS)

Here's an update to the story.

[Cigol Edun]

It will be interesting to see how things develop. I'm sorry they extended it but I suppose I'm more glad they haven't made the temporary measure final.

[DenitaLC]

Go Ahead, Drop Those Drawers
By Associated Press
49 minutes ago

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - Vermont's clothing-optional capital is stripping off its temporary ban on public nudity.

A month after passing the temporary ban, the Brattleboro Selectboard voted 3-2 on Tuesday to reject a proposed ordinance that would have made it permanent. When the emergency temporary ordinance expires next month, public nudity will no longer be illegal.

It's all about tolerance, one board member said.

"We in this country are going down a slippery slope these days," said Dora Bouboulis, noting a national newspaper recently published an article about the emergency ordinance under the headline "Tolerant town gets intolerant."

She said it wasn't up to the town to restrict anyone's right to dress or undress.

Before the vote, residents weighed in on both sides of the debate.

Michael Gauthier gave the Selectboard a petition with signatures of 967 people who support a nudity ban.

"What is the point, other than shock and awe, that the nudists are trying to make?" he asked.

[Pete Knight]

A victory for common sense, I just hope that all nudist can apply some too!

Pete Knight

[simonsebs]

Let's just hope nobody messes it up for us all this time.

[walter05]

This just shows how allowing things to calm down can make a big difference.

People want to be tolerant and respectful as long as others are tolerant and respectful of them.

[rone]

I'm really surprised at this vote outcome, but encouraged.

[Croydon]

Now PLEASE PEOPLE, do NOT go walking around Brattleboro naked. We don't want this happening again.

[Odie]

As a former Vermont resident, I'm not too suprised at the recent news. VT is an unusually open state. Hopefully, folks who want to enjoy nudity will try to be a little more respectful though. Maybe they will start a club or find a better area in Vermont's beautiful Green Mountains (weather permitting - summer in VT is short). When I lived there, about an hour north of Brattleboro, I had 7 wooded acres and regularly spent time outdoors on my property nude. It was heaven.

[Michjoe]

"Michael Gauthier gave the Selectboard a petition with signatures of 967 people who support a nudity ban."

The question is will these people back off?

[Naturist Mark]

Well, the way I see it is ... so long as no one dares to go nude in public in Brattleboro, the right to go nude in public in Brattleboro will be preserved.

Cool.

I guess.

What is the point again?

[Cigol Edun]

Awesome!
I'm very glad that the ban didn't become permanent.

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
What is the point again?

Prudish sentiments may pass with time maybe just by having sufficient numbers of free-thinking people moving into the area; But laws often outlive their original motivation.

At this point I'm sure it would be foolish to march downtown naked in Brattleboro and perhaps it always will be, but at least there is a president now for continued "freedom" in the future, and at some point it might more easily be made acceptable which I would be happy about even though I've never had the urge to run through town naked. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[John P]

It seems to me that the so-called emergency anti-nudity measure that they passed was very interesting, and might be the kind of thing that naturists ought to be in favor of. As the NAC announcement described it:

..."emergency" temporary ordinance that prohibits nudity in the downtown area, in the town park, in the village of West Brattleboro, and also within 250 feet of a school or place of worship...

I don't recall ever hearing of a law that allowed public nudity under certain circumstances. It's normally either prohibited, or ignored, which may leave it legal, until someone gets annoyed, and then they ban it. (Think of our late friend "The Naked Guy" in Berkeley CA, and the legacy he left.) At least the Brattleboro selectboard thought about the matter and came up with some idea of where people should be prohibited from going nude and where they could be left alone. We could quibble over which areas ought to be "in" or "out" but at least there's some recognition that even if they want people to stay dressed "Downtown at noon", they're not out to take everyone's rights away everywhere and all the time.

We might say that we're against any laws regulating nudity. But then again, it's so novel to see laws that regulate nudity without totally prohibiting it that I believe we should give some careful thought to what kind of laws would be acceptable to us, if there could ever be any. Once we "come in from the cold" so to speak, and let ourselves be governed by ordinary laws, we become much more respectable than if we weren't regulated at all. People who are outside the law are called "outlaws" and aren't considered as having any rights.

Imagine signs saying, "No nudity 8AM to 6PM Mon-Fri" or even "Nudity by permit only". It would change things, that's for sure.

[simonsebs]

Town to consider nudity ban again (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7224885&nav=menu183_2)

They're at it again. :disappointed: Only one person requested they do this. What can we do about this?

[John P]

Maybe you don't know about this letter to the editor in the Brattleboro Reformer last month. Now that the word has got out that it's legal to be naked, it's attracting the worst naked people--and I haven't heard of any "best" ones at all, just people like us far away on Internet discussion groups saying it would be a good thing. Oh, and we're all male. Somehow I don't think that this gentleman would want to show us anything, so we might think it's never a problem.

Maybe in some liberal areas people would be tolerant about nudity, if they weren't provoked. But this kind of stuff will get nudity banned anywhere. What's our answer?


Public nudity nuisance: Who are we protecting?

Editor of the Reformer:

On Sept. 20, around 11:30 a.m., I parked in Harmony Parking Lot, so that I could walk around town with my 21/2-year-old daughter on a beautiful sunny day. As I opened the trunk of my car for my daughter's stroller, a man pulled up next to me and my vehicle. He was clean cut, with a buttoned short-sleeve shirt on. He smiled casually and asked me for directions to a street in town which I hadn't heard of. I smiled back and told him I wasn't sure where the street he was looking for was. At this point he kept me engaged with more conversation, talking expressively with his hands. Having a hard time understanding him, I walked closer to his vehicle asking him for a landmark or another street closer to the one he was looking for.

It was then that the man, with his very expressive hands moved them both closer to his lap. Despite the fact that this man had found time to put his shirt on, he clearly felt no obligation in dressing the lower half of himself.

My reaction was immediate. I felt scared and I yelled at him to get away from me. I also told him that I was calling the police and very smugly he smiled at me and told me to go ahead, as it was legal to be naked here in Brattleboro. He than pulled his Hyundai into a parking space directly across from where I stood next to my car with my little
daughter and stared at me.

Many people in the parking lot came to me and offered their support by just standing with me and talking to me while waiting for the police to arrive.

The man, who had exposed himself to me, decided to put some shorts on while we all waited for the police to arrive. The police came quickly and the officer that responded was very empathetic and helpful with the situation.

There has been controversy going on for months about public nudity and the ordinances which have been imposed for the benefit of the public at large. And then not imposed -- or rather, imposed within limits. Although there are places where nudists can freely express themselves, the downtown area has become an arena for some very desperate people who thrive on negative attention. The attention that these people have acquired is bringing more people into town who do not care about the personal boundaries of others or themselves. The man who targeted me in Harmony Parking Lot was a clearly disturbed man, who after offending me and frightening me, taunted me. He found arousal in my state of helplessness and fear, and legally, because he did not personally touch his penis while in front of me in a public place, was allowed to leave happily, because his perverted and disturbed act of gratification was legally permitted.

I asked the officer who responded to my call about this man and if he had been in trouble for these acts in this town before. I was told this is his third incident and that he is continually pushing the envelope of the law further every time. To me, this sounds an alarm, and this type of escalation should be alarming to everyone in Brattleboro who has a
daughter, sister or mother who feels safe walking in downtown Brattleboro. His rights were protected. Mine however, were not.

Leslie Albano

[walter05]

I have taken some relevant excerpts from John P.'s post. His post included a letter to the editor of the Brattleboro paper.

It appears that one man, who does get a thrill out of exhibiting himself has a history of problems involving nudity in Brattleboro. Since there is no anti-nudity ordinance, the town's police can't stop him. He may be a real threat.

We have met the enemy and it is not prudes like Stu. It is is perverts like this guy. We should join Stu in attempting to find mutually acceptable, respectable and safe ways to enjoy public nudity.



My reaction was immediate. I felt scared and I yelled at him to get away from me. I also told him that I was calling the police and very smugly he smiled at me and told me to go ahead, as it was legal to be naked here in Brattleboro. He than pulled his Hyundai into a parking space directly across from where I stood next to my car with my little
daughter and stared at me.

Although there are places where nudists can freely express themselves, the downtown area has become an arena for some very desperate people who thrive on negative attention. The attention that these people have acquired is bringing more people into town who do not care about the personal boundaries of others or themselves. The man who targeted me in Harmony Parking Lot was a clearly disturbed man, who after offending me and frightening me, taunted me. He found arousal in my state of helplessness and fear, and legally, because he did not personally touch his penis while in front of me in a public place, was allowed to leave happily, because his perverted and disturbed act of gratification was legally permitted.

I was told this is his third incident and that he is continually pushing the envelope of the law further every time.

[missouriboy]

The man's behavior to the lady and her little girl was unacceptable, clothes or no clothes. Why didn't they just ignore the nudity and address the other bad things? Harassment and stalking come to mind... surely there were other illicit circumstances the police could have pursued, without even mentioning the nudity!

[chuckincville]

Maybe you don't know about this letter to the editor in the Brattleboro Reformer last month. Now that the word has got out that it's legal to be naked, it's attracting the worst naked people--and I haven't heard of any "best" ones at all, just people like us far away on Internet discussion groups saying it would be a good thing. Oh, and we're all male. Somehow I don't think that this gentleman would want to show us anything, so we might think it's never a problem.

Maybe in some liberal areas people would be tolerant about nudity, if they weren't provoked. But this kind of stuff will get nudity banned anywhere. What's our answer?


Public nudity nuisance: Who are we protecting?

Editor of the Reformer:

On Sept. 20, around 11:30 a.m.,.......

There has been controversy going on for months about public nudity and the ordinances which have been imposed for the benefit of the public at large. And then not imposed -- or rather, imposed within limits. Although there are places where nudists can freely express themselves, the downtown area has become an arena for some very desperate people who thrive on negative attention. The attention that these people have acquired is bringing more people into town who do not care about the personal boundaries of others or themselves. The man who targeted me in Harmony Parking Lot was a clearly disturbed man, who after offending me and frightening me, taunted me. He found arousal in my state of helplessness and fear, and legally, because he did not personally touch his penis while in front of me in a public place, was allowed to leave happily, because his perverted and disturbed act of gratification was legally permitted.

I asked the officer who responded to my call about this man and if he had been in trouble for these acts in this town before. I was told this is his third incident and that he is continually pushing the envelope of the law further every time. To me, this sounds an alarm, and this type of escalation should be alarming to everyone in Brattleboro who has a
daughter, sister or mother who feels safe walking in downtown Brattleboro. His rights were protected. Mine however, were not.

Leslie Albano




THIS WAS HIS THIRD "incident"!! Seems to me the police are confused - the complaint was not against the man's nudity but against his actions. Just because the law allows nudity it doesn't condone inappropriate behavior. Guns are legal but you can't wave them in other folks faces.
Changing the law won't change his behavior -- strong action in response to his behavior may - it would certainly send a strong message to other nuts and perverts who want to make Battleboro their playground!

What's our answer?
Insist that the authoritites use some common sense in enforceing the law!?

Until you find a way to control the perverts and predators we'll never get anywhere. They contribute to the nudity = sex attitude.
And changing that attitude is a monumental task - I know that from personal experience!

[MichaelJB]

They could arrest the guy for his behavior, just because hes nude doesnt mean the law cannot touch him. I doubt the laws that allow nudity were meant so characters like this could go around and act like perverts.

[Skinview]

We have met the enemy and it is not prudes like Stu. It is is perverts like this guy.
So true. Although the two together would make a bad combination.

[John P]

Come on folks, be serious. There aren't any laws against "perverts" because it's a value judgment trying to define what a pervert is: believe it or not, there are many people who'd call a person who wanted to go around naked anywhere except in the shower a "pervert"! There are laws that penalize people for doing certain things, and some of those things are what "perverts" do. In most places the perverts who want to show their genitals to women are kept off the streets because showing your genitals is illegal. In Vermont that isn't true. He may well be a pervert, but this man isn't breaking the law. He knows it and the police know it. And there's an anti-nudity law being proposed.

[Bob S.]

walter:"We have met the enemy and it is not prudes like Stu. It is is perverts like this guy. We should join Stu in attempting to find mutually acceptable, respectable and safe ways to enjoy public nudity."

walter, we are trying to find mutually acceptable, respectable, and safe places and ways to enjoy public nudity. But why should a pervert change the laws? They can, as has been mentioned, bring him in for harassment, stalking behaviour, and other issues unrelated to the nudity. I think the police were in the wrong for not even trying to find another reason to bring the guy in.

Nudists are not for exposure such as what that guy was doing. We want laws against his actions while keeping laws for acceptable nudity.

Remember, the "protection from perverts" (aka--"for the children") has culminated in many bad laws and regulations that outlaw nudity. When perverts are the target, the net is cast very wide.

Bob S.

[walter05]

The problem is that a lot of District Attorneys want a high conviction record. If the charge is not clear, the district attorney may fear that the man will be let off.

There may be other laws that are not clear enough in Vermont. However, I suspect that a district attorney that is only concerned with a winning record may be the one behind the decisions not to charge this pervert.

I do agree however that pro-active law enforcement should be able to find a charge and make it stick. They have a victim willing to speak out so I would expect her to testify. If I were a resident of this town, I would be confronting my police chief, mayor, district attorney, etc. I would demand that they not wait for a law change and take decisive action immediately to protect the public from this pervert.

My point was that for the majority that might be open to more public nudity, one man like this is scary. In order to limit his ability to harass, that public is likely to support less nudity. Whether we want to admit it or not, this man is making it far less likely that there will be public nude opportunities for recreation.

[simonsebs]

Board closes in on nudity (http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_7530996)

Here's an update to the story.

[Daveinct]

Banning nudity would not solve the problem. Public nudity is banned in the vast majority of the U.S., but behavior such as that man's still occurs on a regular basis. All that an ordinance banning public nudity would accomplish in that situation is to add another charge to the list.

Dave

[Pete Knight]

walter:"

Nudists are not for exposure such as what that guy was doing. We want laws against his actions while keeping laws for acceptable nudity.

Remember, the "protection from perverts" (aka--"for the children") has culminated in many bad laws and regulations that outlaw nudity. When perverts are the target, the net is cast very wide.

Bob S.
This is why the 'Sexual Offences Act 2003' was introduced, it replaced or superseded many out dated laws and was meant to remove confusion, unfortunately it has added confusion, it is not illegal to be nude in the UK but in the minds of too many people, including the police, it still is! The reaction of the police to the announced charity walk was to mount an operation, do they do the same for clothed walkers, no they don't!!

Changing the laws has little effect, what is needed is a change of mindset and this can only be done gradually and with lots of public exposure (Forgive the pun.) to nudity in normal circumstances.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Pete

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was designed to reform and update antiquated sexual offences like "gross indecency" and "insulting a female", many of which were drafted nearly two centuries ago. It was never intended to catch public order offences.

it is not illegal to be nude in the UK but in the minds of too many people, including the police, it still is!No it's not illegal per se, but it would be illegal if it is either intended to cause, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. That's a judgment initially made by the police and they determine that on the balance of probabilities and then make an arrest. If they decide it warrants prosecution, they must present evidence to the CPS, who must, in turn, present it to a court, and prove the case to the much higher standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

You make the elementary mistake of many new law students by failing to realise that the fact that something is not expressly illegal does not mean that you have an absolute right to do it. In order to have an inalienable right to do something, you need a specific and explicit law to that effect. Where no such right is explicated, behaviour is judged according to broader principles - in the case of public nudity, the main principles are those to be found in public order legislation.

Stu

[RichNH]

... In order to have an inalienable right to do something, you need a specific and explicit law to that effect. Where no such right is explicated, behaviour is judged according to broader principles - in the case of public nudity, the main principles are those to be found in public order legislation. Stu

Hmmmm, Not to jump in the middle of a discussion by our cousins across the pond but... Must be the differences in culture or perhaps just choosing the wrong word.

According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1996) the word inalienable means "not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

Syn. inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent

Looking it up in "A dictionary of the English Language" by Samuel Johnson (first published in the 1700's and the first dictionary ever published of the English language) the word essentially means the same.

So the definition of the term "inalienable right" has remained unchanged for well over 200 years.

Laws to do not grant inalienable rights, they merely recognize them. Inalienable rights are obtained by an individual merely by fact of that individual's existence. So to say that before you have an "inalienable right" there must be a law that recognizes it is to ignore the basic definition of the term. Too, if you think about it, ANY law that is on the books can be repealed. Which further points out the inappropriateness of the term in your entry.

I think you perhaps meant to use another term, perhaps "legal privilege" instead of "inalienable right".

Rich

[simonsebs]

Nude Supporter Arrested in Brattleboro (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7407273&nav=4QcS)

Things like this don't help anything.:( It only takes one stupid person to ruin it for everyone.:mad:

[simonsebs]

Brattleboro Select Board Votes To Prohibit Public Nudity (http://www.wptz.com/news/14780481/detail.html)

It was nice while it lasted. Like I said it only takes one stupid person to ruin it for everyone.