Guilty Verdict

Judgement was given in Steve Gough's case by the District Court judge in Southampton (England) on Saturday. He was convicted of a minor offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress) for being nude in public and was given a 12-month conditional discharge. That means if he repeats the offence again in the next 12 months he will receive a substantive sentence. You can read about it here:

http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/eastleigh/news/EASTLEIGH_NEWS_NEWS3.html

Hopefully this now makes the legal position clear with regard to public nudity. I have no doubt that had Vincent Bethell been charged with the same offence the outcome of that case would have been the same as in Mr Gough's case.

Stu

Judgement was given in Steve Gough's case by the District Court judge in Southampton (England) on Saturday. He was convicted of a minor offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress) for being nude in public and was given a 12-month conditional discharge. That means if he repeats the offence again in the next 12 months he will receive a substantive sentence. You can read about it here:

http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/eastleigh/news/EASTLEIGH_NEWS_NEWS3.html

Hopefully this now makes the legal position clear with regard to public nudity. I have no doubt that had Vincent Bethell been charged with the same offence the outcome of that case would have been the same as in Mr Gough's case.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Hopefully this now makes the legal position clear with regard to public nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all: he's planning to appeal.

Rik

[Suntied]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Hopefully this now makes the legal position clear with regard to public nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all: he's planning to appeal.

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Rik,
I just started reading all of these interesting topics and some_one always says something negitive about or nudism. I was wondering if the "ignore this user" works when you click it, cause I clicked it on that stu#%$* user... why don't we all.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SuntiedinOhio:
I just started reading all of these interesting topics and some_one always says something negitive about or nudism. I was wondering if the "ignore this user" works when you click it, cause I clicked it on that stu#%$* user... why don't we all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Suntied,
What a wonderful world it would be if no-one ever said anything negative about nudism but the fact is that they do and if we have integrity in ourselves then we have to deal with them. Dealing with them here helps us to understand how to deal with them in the "real world".

However, Stu can rest assured that he will be ignored if he repeats tired old arguments. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Rik,

"Not at all: he's planning to appeal."

If I had a pound in my pocket for every time I've heard someone say that whilst walking out of a courtroom I'd be a wealthy man /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ! In all honesty I can't see the Queens Bench Divisional Court giving leave to appeal on a point of law because there is no "case stated". That would mean it would have to go to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, and I can't see their Lordships interfering with the judgement of the lower court on a matter such as this where the facts are largely undisputed. In my opinion, his only real hope would be an appeal under the Human Rights Act.

I'm not sure whether he would be granted Legal Aid for this, and so if I were his lawyer I would be advising him that to take the matter further would incur for him a huge amount of expense with an extremely slim chance of success.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we didn't hear of Mr Gough again.

Stu

[Suntied]

What a wonderful world it would be if no-one ever said anything negative about nudism but the fact is that they do and if we have integrity in ourselves then we have to deal with them. Dealing with them here helps us to understand how to deal with them in the "real world".

However, Stu can rest assured that he will be ignored if he repeats tired old arguments. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik[/QB][/QUOTE]

Thanks Rik, That is what I like about this Forum. We can say what is on our minds in a nice, cooperative manner with the same type of feedback. Like I said I just got back on-line after a year or so and the whole sight has improved tremendously. I was just trying to feel my way around when Stu said... Oh well you know what I mean.

Suntied,

Exactly what have I said that is negative about nudism?

My argument is with people being nude in non-naturist public places. I'm actually a firm supporter of naturists being given more and better places to practice.

I wish some people here would stop seeing me as public enemy number 1. There are naturists who post here that actually agree with most of what I say but nobody pillories them or threatens to ignore them. But it's OK to be nasty to Stu because he's not one of us.

Stu

[Suntied]

I wish some people here would stop seeing me as public enemy number 1... But it's OK to be nasty to Stu because he's not one of us.

Stu[/QB][/QUOTE]

Stu,
I guess I owe you an apology. I wasn't the only one viewing you as not one of us. I guess I thought I was joining the crowd??? Isn't that what I feel is the wrong thing for me since I am a nudist... not fitting in with the crowded society. As was saying to Rik, and every other user I have tried to comunicate with... I'm new. I haven't done this much before. I apologize if have offended or seemed nasty to you even though you like to wear clothes. That what I don't understand about society. No hard feelings /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SuntiedinOhio:
I wasn't the only one viewing you as not one of us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, you weren't. Stu likes to come here to argue against nudism. Since this board doesn't let you ignore a poster, it's something that the rest of us are learning to deal with.

BB,
Vin

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Hopefully this now makes the legal position clear with regard to public nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whatever makes you think that?

It makes clear this one judge's interpretation of English law in his courtroom in England. It clarifies nothing in other parts of England, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Spain, France, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Italy, Greece, Brazil, Costa Rica.... You get the picture. It certainly doesn't supply any hint of what a higher court will rule in the appeal.

Geez!

Vin

"No, you weren't. Stu likes to come here to argue against nudism."

I have NEVER argued against nudism - only nudism practiced in non-naturist public places. How many times must I repeat this?

"Since this board doesn't let you ignore a poster, it's something that the rest of us are learning to deal with."

This is a thread I started, so if you wanted to ignore me you haven't tried very hard!

"It makes clear this one judge's interpretation of English law in his courtroom in England..."

And it's English law that I have been arguing with Rik about! I fully understand that different laws apply in different countries.

"It certainly doesn't supply any hint of what a higher court will rule in the appeal."

I disagree. And my disagreement comes an assement made from being in the business of (English) law for the last 25 years. Having said that I know that a higher court could yet surprise me.

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, as Vin already pointed out, this is one judge's ruling, in abstentia, in one case. It means that the judge might get a bit upset if you try to come to court naked, which is what you were brought into court for. There may be another case where someone could successfully argue, in front of another judge, that their behaviour was not likely to cause alarm or distress. And someone may eventually succeed in arguing that being naked is not a behaviour. When that happens, that'll be a major turning point in nude rights.

Suntied, don't ignore stu. When you see someone who is arguing a counterpoint, the best thing to do is to argu your point. Ignoring them can sometimes be like conceding to their point.

And one more thing for you stu, you are going to be seen as Public Enemy #1 for a couple of reasons: You are the most outspoken non-nudist on this forum; you have a major anxiety towards nudism and see no reason to change; and in that vein, you refuse to change your opinion on public nudity toward a more favorable approach; and you have the tendency to see (at least IMO) only your side of the issue especially when it comes to polls.

But rest assured, I don't consider you to be an enemy.

Bob S.

[gamblefish]

I could be wrong, but I think that the majority of times a naturist is nude in a "public" place (beach, park, hiking trail, etc.) is because there is a major shortage of CO venues. I think most of us try to find "out of the way" places to strip off so as not to offend. If we are approached, we cover up. If you by chance get a glimpse, it is not the end of the world, is it? I think most people have seen what a nude person looks like. There are some trashy houses around my neighborhood that I feel are more offensive to look at than a nude body. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[fns]

Some of us here would like to see simple nudity more accepted in everyday life. Even if that means being nude in what is now a non-naturist place. Stu isn't against naturism, I think he just wants it practiced in places set aside specifically for that purpose. That is where some disagreement lies. In my opinion, if someone wants to mow their lawn, or garden, or get the mail, among other things, nude, what is the harm? Even sunbathing in a local park that is not strictly naturist. Why can't naturists and non naturists co-exist? I think mainly because some non naturists, and I think Stu is in this category, have a phobia about simple nudity.

[Bob S.]

fns, one of the major disagreements that has arisen was that stu wanted areas set aside with some kind of physical barrier whereas we were arguing that only creates more segregation. We also, for the most part, disagreed on where these places should be. I also agree that we should be able to be naked anywhere on our property without fear of the law so long as our "BEHAVIOUR" is not such that warrants indecency. stu believes, at least the last time I checked, that being naked is a behaviour, and unfortuantely, so does the law.

He is on our side when it comes to setting aside more CO areas and for that, I commend him. But realize that stu is the one with gymnophobia. Society, as a whole does not suffer from this ailment. They just simply blindly agree with the law that outlaws nudity and throughout their childhood and past, are told to keep the clothes on, sometimes to the point of being reprimanded when they don't. They eventually understand to the point that when they see a naked person, they are shocked by it. They may not know why, but they are shocked nonetheless.

And gamblefish, great posting.

Bob S.

Gamblefish,

You are right, there is a major shortage of CO venues. From what I know of naturists they are usually extremely considerate about causing offence to the rest of us. And I agree that if we get a fleeting glimpse before the naturist is able to cover up, then that's not a problem for even the most prudish among us.

fns

You have summed up our point of disagreement very well. The problem is that, even on our own property, what we do affects others. If I want to build a garage I must get permission from my local council. If my hedge is so high that my neighbours complain then I can be required to have it reduced. If I leave rubbish in my front garden, or even (in some places) replace wooden windows with plastic ones, I can be prosecuted. Similarly, if you go into your garden naked and in full view of others, whether they be neighbours or passers-by, then the law can step in to prevent you doing the same thing again. I think that's reasonable.

Most non-naturists that I know feel uncomfortable in the presence of naked people unless in certain circumstances (e.g. members of the same sex in a changing room). You may call it a phobia - and you may be right - but nevertheless for most people it is a reality, and it is something about themselves they don't see as a problem or wish to change.

Bob,

It's not just me that wants to create segregation for naturists. Most existing designated naturist areas are already segregated. You make it sound as though I was advocating some sort of apartheit but I'm not. The segregation aspect is concerned with behaviour, not some sort of innate characteristic such as being black. I would liken it to going to a restaurant. I can visit my local burger bar wearing a tee-shirt or collar and tie or even a purple basque and divers flippers and nobody would really care too much. But if I went to a five-star London restaurant for lunch I could not be expected to be admitted unless I was 'properly' attired. The fact that you like to dine wearing jeans but there aren't enough McDonalds doesn't mean you should upset the head waiter or the other diners at The Savoy. The fact is that there aren't enough 'burger bars' for nudists.

I do regard being naked as a 'behaviour' probably because I think like a lawyer. Behaviour in law is not only constituted by actions, but also by omissions - that's why it's illegal not to insure your car or to fail to pay your taxes. The act of entering a public place is a behaviour. The act of taking all your clothes off is a behaviour. Entering a public place naked, or taking your clothes off in a public place is a without any doubt a behaviour - particularly when you do so in the full knowledge that others might well find what you are doing is offensive.

Society as a whole may not suffer with gymnophobia, but I actually think people ENJOY the fact that nudity isn't commonplace because if it were to be it might lose its mystique - the thing that makes it exotic, sexy and even funny. And as you say in your final sentence, people ARE shocked by seeing nudity. And shock is a form of stress and therefore an unpleasant experience. Not something people should be exposed to unwillingly or unexpectedly when going about their business in public places.

Stu

[Rik]

Stu has said before that nudists aren't offended at the sight of naked bodies because they're used to it and, by implication, non-nudists are offended (or whatever today's word is) because they are not used to it.

Steve Gough, the subject of this thread, and others including nude anti-war protesters are therefore doing a great public service by helping non-nudists get used to the sight of simple, non-sexy, non-mystical but sometimes funny nudity. The more they get used to it the less they'll get upset by it, and the less they get upset by it the more people will be able to practise their human rights without being persecuted: surely the case for [i]more[i] rather than less public nudity.

Makes sense to me.

Rik

[Snoboy]

STU -- I just have one question for Stu. If you are a male why do you use a female icon? Just curious. I wish you would stop all the negative crap in the forum. I am so tired of reading your negative stuff and many others are as well. Sorry, I try to be nice all the time, but I am so tired of reading your junk...and just speed past it. Go to a message board that enjoys your negative attitude. It certainly is not appreciated here. Thanks. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoboy:
STU -- I just have one question for Stu. If you are a male why do you use a female icon? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That has caused some confusion for me, too. I seem to recall scanning past a complaint about one of my posts where I acknowledged the ambiguity by using an inclusive pronoun (him/her/it) in reference to Stu. Stu, if I noticed correctly, took exception for some reason.

Oh well. You can't win them all.

Rik,

"Steve Gough etc... are doing a great public service by helping non-nudists get used to the sight of simple, non-sexy, non-mystical but sometimes funny nudity..."

I don't think they've got the right to do that if people don't want to get used to it. And I don't think they do want to get used to it, because if they did all they'd have to do is go in droves to naturist events, beaches etc.

Snoboy

"If you are a male why do you use a female icon?"

The day I was looking for an icon my 7 year-old daughter walked into my study and asked what I was doing. When she saw the 'pictures' I suggested she found one that she thought looked the most like daddy (I kept her away from the nude ones). She picked the one I'm using now. It probably sounds stupid but it wasn't until I'd used it a couple of times that I realised it was a female! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"I wish you would stop all the negative crap in the forum. I am so tired of reading your negative stuff and many others are as well."

Hang on a minute. I get criticized when I "hijack" other peoples threads so I start one of my own and now you are having a go at me for that. That's unfair! It tells you clearly who started the threads so, if you don't like what I say, why don't you simply ignore my stuff? There are plenty of others who are willing to enter into dialog with me so why are you trying to spoil our debate? And I thought naturists believed in a "live and let live" philosophy.

Vin,

"I seem to recall scanning past a complaint about one of my posts where I acknowledged the ambiguity by using an inclusive pronoun (him/her/it) in reference to Stu. Stu, if I noticed correctly, took exception for some reason."

Why do you say "scanning past"? You must have read it or you couldn't have remembered it for all this time and now taken the trouble to respond to it To answer your question - I have said clearly that I am male (married and father of three) so there is no need for ANY confusion. As a baby and very small child there was some uncertainty as to my sex and I was referred to as "she" in my first years of life. To refer to a human being as "it" is both hurtful and offensive. But then again you knew that and that's why you did it, isn't it?

Stu

[fns]

Bob S., not sure why you addressed your comments to me, it looks to me like you said basically the same thing I did. I realize Stu has gymnophobia, I said so. And there are others, though probably not the majority. I don't agree with stu that naturists should be segregated. Simply nudity should be more mainstream, I really don't care about his phobia. I hope I've been more clear this time.

[fns]

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

You have summed up our point of disagreement very well. The problem is that, even on our own property, what we do affects others. If I want to build a garage I must get permission from my local council. If my hedge is so high that my neighbours complain then I can be required to have it reduced. If I leave rubbish in my front garden, or even (in some places) replace wooden windows with plastic ones, I can be prosecuted. Similarly, if you go into your garden naked and in full view of others, whether they be neighbours or passers-by, then the law can step in to prevent you doing the same thing again. I think that's reasonable.

Most non-naturists that I know feel uncomfortable in the presence of naked people unless in certain circumstances (e.g. members of the same sex in a changing room). You may call it a phobia - and you may be right - but nevertheless for most people it is a reality, and it is something about themselves they don't see as a problem or wish to change.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I know you don't want to change, I don't expect you to. I am merely stating my position on the issue, and along with others, perhaps someday we can change the current climate.
I would not live in a place with some of the restrictions that you are willing to live with. Where I live, I have more freedom. I still cannot do anything I want of course, there are laws against certain behaviours. My point is that I don't believe that simple nudity should be illegal. Yes, I know it is, and yes I know you agree it should be, I am just going on the record to say that I don't agree that it should be. Everything we do affects others in this life. But, we should not have to have a law that addresses every little aspect of life that someone finds offensive. But that is the way it seems to be going.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fns:
Bob S., not sure why you addressed your comments to me, it looks to me like you said basically the same thing I did. I realize Stu has gymnophobia, I said so. And there are others, though probably not the majority. I don't agree with stu that naturists should be segregated. Simply nudity should be more mainstream, I really don't care about his phobia. I hope I've been more clear this time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, let's stop judging Stu! He has his opinions, I have mine, others have theirs. I don't see how anyone can know a person's phobias from words on a page, unless that person chooses to tell us. After all, it's not as if we were physically present and could read facial expressions, vocal tone, body language, and any indefinable spiritual cues.

[MaxUK]

Rik,
You posted'

The more they get used to it the less they'll get upset by it,

Oh really?? Says who?? You?? Do you know this for a fact - no. Perhaps they will be more upset the more they see nudity??

You are surmising again Rik - dangerous. I prefer to structure my arguments on what I actually see, not some fancy 'If this or If that' argument that always seems to be brought up here. We are dealing with the here and now - what matters is how public nudity is perceived now, by Law and by the general public.

I know we are going round in circles again but surely it's not too hard to understand - a small number of people think nudity should be allowed anywhere. A far far larger amount of people think it should not - therefore, in a democratic society, the minority should take what they have, be grateful and campaign for more rights where they can.

Life is tough - deal with it!!

Max

[MaxUK]

Hey Snoboy,

You don't like Stu's post's?? Then go away and don't read them. This is a forum for reasoned debate, not playground whinging - if you can't stand up and speak for waht you believe then you are quite frankly a waste of time here. If you can - great. Lets talk...

Max

[randomnude]

I agree. Stu is entitled to his opinion. Although I am still somewhat new to the forum, I have yet to read anything Stu has written that would justify this verbal attack. He is expressing his views and he is entitled to do just that. And as far as whether this is the proper venue? I say absolutely. Sure most of what he submits is contrary to the majority opinion. But in the same breath that we cry out for more tolerance on the part of non-nudists, we attack Stu, demonstrating that we don't always practice what we preach.

[Suntied]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
But if I went to a five-star London restaurant for lunch I could not be expected to be admitted unless I was 'properly' attired.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Who has made these disisions on what is proper, common place or even acceptable. I don't know, that is the only reason I request an answer to your exemplarary display of what society desearves, expects, and should be forced to wittness. We do not become shocked by nudity, and the only reason every one who hasn't enjoyed nudity... including you... is shocked is because it has only been a sexual thing for them since puberty or birth as far as we know. I have showered with, slept with, and dressed with many non- nudist mates and didn't shock them. It was just common place.

The problem isn't with the nudity, it is with the norm. You have been trained without the training bra.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
The more they get used to it the less they'll get upset by it, and the less they get upset by it the more people will be able to practise their human rights without being persecuted: surely the case for [i]more[i] rather than less public nudity.

Makes sense to me.

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately I have to agree with MaxUK on this one. If we were dealing with reasonable people your statement would be true, but how many people in the world are fully reasonable? Perhaps many, even the majority, would get accustomed to it, but many would continue to get offended and even harden their minds and spirits against nudity. I shudder at the thought of a possible Al Qaeda against nudists!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MaxUK:
Rik,
You posted'

The more they get used to it the less they'll get upset by it,

Oh really?? Says who?? You?? Do you know this for a fact - no. Perhaps they will be more upset the more they see nudity??

You are surmising again Rik - dangerous. I prefer to structure my arguments on what I actually see, not some fancy 'If this or If that' argument that always seems to be brought up here. We are dealing with the here and now - what matters is how public nudity is perceived now, by Law and by the general public.

I know we are going round in circles again but surely it's not too hard to understand - a small number of people think nudity should be allowed anywhere. A far far larger amount of people think it should not - therefore, in a democratic society, the minority should take what they have, be grateful and campaign for more rights where they can.

Life is tough - deal with it!!

Max <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All you need to do is look at history Max. It wasn't that long ago that a bikini was seen as cutting edge, just a few decades. And before that men could not go without a shirt but they sure can now and nobody thinks twice about it. Go back further to when seeing a woman's ankle was considered improper. History does show you the facts Max.

Things change over time. Rik is very right in what he said. For instance shaving the pubic hair off wasn't done much when I started in nudism in 1985 but over time that has changed so much that seeing a full bush on a woman will make me turn my head for a second.

Oh, and by the way, your attitude still sucks Max. Can you not post without seeming angry and condescending and not talk down to people? You remind me of the Grouch on Sesame Street... the little hairy guy that lives in a trash can.

[Snoboy]

I humbly apologize for my grouchiness today. I guess I got up on the wrong side of the bed. Thanks for setting me straight on the post you set up. I thought I was in a different one and acted dumb. Hey, I think its cool your daughter picked out your icon. Was merely confused...must be college overload. Enjoy the debate. I often like your stuff its just too long for me. I have so much reading to do as is. Take care and perhaps one day...you'll go bare. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I don't think they've got the right to do that if people don't want to get used to it. And I don't think they do want to get used to it, because if they did all they'd have to do is go in droves to naturist events, beaches etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, no, no! You don't understand human behaviour. You once said "humans are allowed to be illogical" and indeed they're certainly irrational at times but, as a group (rather than as individuals), they almost always behave in ways which are entirely predictable if apparently illogical. The deciding factor is that they always do what is easiest or most beneficial.

I have spent many years involved with change in a business context (IT systems etc). One of the most significant lessons I have learnt about human behaviour is that people are nearly always resistant to change. They find all sorts of reasons why they shouldn't have a new computer system, why they don't think their job should be redefined, why they don't want to move to new offices, why they shouldn't change their working hours and so on. BUT when the change actually happens they rarely want to go back to the old way of working because they are now comfortable with the new way of doing things. What is happening, in my opinion, is that it is not 'change' which causes distress but the 'fear of change'. This is not intended to imply however that all change is good or even necessary, only that it is natural to resist change.

By way of example consider the impact of mobile phones. A few short years ago many people were resistant to the whole idea of them. Today no-one can do without them. Consider ATMs. In the early 1980's the Chairman of Lloyds Bank said words to the effect of "Do we really need the sort of customer that wants to draw out cash at midnight?" and many people agreed, insisting that they would rather talk to a real person inside the bank than queue up at a machine. Today ATMs are completely accepted as the most efficient method of drawing cash from your bank, not because people have no option, as some might surmize, but funadmentally because it's easier.

And so it is with many things. Few people openly embrace the prospect of change where they can't see an immediate benefit but most people get very comfortable with change very quickly. There will always be a few who don't.

My comment about Steve Gough and others performing a public service was intended to be tongue-in-cheek but in essense I was echoing your own view that when people get used to things they wonder why it ever bothered them in the first place.

Rik

[Gary Naturist]

Rik: Excellent post on resistance to change and reluctance to go back once change has happened.

Gary

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MaxUK:
We are dealing with the here and now - what matters is how public nudity is perceived now, by Law and by the general public. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I fear Max that you have no vision, no dreams, no hope. You seem to be stuck in the "here and now" and see no possibility of change. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A far far larger amount of people think it should not - therefore, in a democratic society, the minority should take what they have, be grateful and campaign for more rights where they can. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is exactly what I am proposing. But maybe our concept of 'campaign' differs. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Life is tough - deal with it!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would prefer to say "Life is a challenge - deal with it!!"

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
If we were dealing with reasonable people your statement would be true, but how many people in the world are fully reasonable? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>By definition I would have thought that the majority of people are reasonable.

Rik

[EricNY]

Rik
You sure have a way with words!!

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I don't think they've got the right to do that if people don't want to get used to it. And I don't think they do want to get used to it, because if they did all they'd have to do is go in droves to naturist events, beaches etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, no, no! You don't understand human behaviour. You once said "humans are allowed to be illogical" and indeed they're certainly irrational at times but, as a group (rather than as individuals), they almost always behave in ways which are entirely predictable if apparently illogical. The deciding factor is that they always do what is easiest or most beneficial.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very well put!

Another example of technological change that initially met with resistance is the desktop computer. They were too complicated, expensive, scary, useless, unreliable,... the excuses were endless. But they made life easier, people learned to type for themselves, and they became necessary. The few old office types I know who still refuse to learn to use them are being ushered (in some cases not gently) toward early retirement or positions more in line with their skills and inclinations.

The point, as you say, is that people adapt and move on. There will always be those who simply, for whatever reason, cannot or will not change. They generally get left behind to carry on as best they can.

Vin

[Trailscout]

Do nudists visiting semi-public nudist venues need visual barriers from the worst sort of textile? The gawkers and "Nude Beach Cam Webmasters"?

Stu's argument that we should throw up a Berlin Wall may also be tempting to nudists who want to wall off the rude outside world. It sounds like an appealing argument, but I do believe that non-nudists of good will need real platonic nudism in action in plain view on the beaches of the world.

Nudist organizations working in tandem with law enforcement personnel can serve as a "living wall" to stop the masturbators, drunks, the "let's have sex on the nude beach" crowd, the spy cameras, and all the gawking.

A human solution may be harder to achieve, but in the end we are better off if we don't become the secret society behind the high walls.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vin:
They [computers] were too complicated, expensive, scary, useless, unreliable,... the excuses were endless. But they made life easier, people learned to type for themselves, and they became necessary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Vin,

LOL. Although I've been involved with computers since their infancy I've never been convinced they made life easier, if anything they made life more complex: so complex in fact that the only way we can cope with life's complexities is by using computers. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
...in the end we are better off if we don't become the secret society behind the high walls. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think this is exactly right. I sense that a growing number of naturists are no longer content to consider nudism purely as a segregated recreational activity but want to see everyday nakedness accepted as a genuine expression of being human.

Have a look at http://bodyfreedom.org which looks as some of the more political aspects of nudity.

Rik

[MaxUK]

Cyndiann,

I make no apologies for seeming 'brusque' in my posts - I am what I am so if you don't like it I suggest you ignore what I write. The world is full of all sorts of people Cyndiann and I mean no offence by what I put. It's just how it comes out. I am one of a very few 'alternative' voices here and say what I think - it is a debate forum after all, so if my attitude 'sucks' in your words, it's only because you don't like what I say. And you know what - I can deal with that.

And I'm quite bored now with hearing your frankly ridiculous arguments about how years ago it was taboo for certain parts of the body to be seen (ankle etc.) but now it's commonplace, so it's only a matter of time before full nudity becomes 'de riguer'. The genitals are a completely different ballgame for just about everybody out there, only you can't seem to realise this because you are a long time nudist and the differentiation has become very blurred.

Rik
I am a realist Rik, although I do want certain things to change (more beaches etc.) - I thought I had made that very clear. Just because I don't happen to agree with your utopian dream does not mean I am not in my own way 'progressive'.
More power to you guys I guess - I just think you'd be better concentrating on what you can have an influence on, not on some dream that is in the realms of fantasy really.

Believe what you want to believe. I still take comfort from the fact that most people in the world seem to believe what I do, not what you seem to think they all should do!

Max

"Cyndiann,

I make no apologies for seeming 'brusque' in my posts - I am what I am so if you don't like it I suggest you ignore what I write. The world is full of all sorts of people Cyndiann and I mean no offence by what I put. It's just how it comes out. I am one of a very few 'alternative' voices here and say what I think - it is a debate forum after all, so if my attitude 'sucks' in your words, it's only because you don't like what I say. And you know what - I can deal with that."

What I am suggesting to you is attack the words and not the person. Surely even you can see the difference. I don't care what position you want to state but I do care that you have to resort to personal attacks. It just isn't necessary.

"And I'm quite bored now with hearing your frankly ridiculous arguments about how years ago it was taboo for certain parts of the body to be seen (ankle etc.) but now it's commonplace, so it's only a matter of time before full nudity becomes 'de riguer'. The genitals are a completely different ballgame for just about everybody out there, only you can't seem to realise this because you are a long time nudist and the differentiation has become very blurred."

Be bored all you want... what I wrote is true and very on topic and won't necessarily stop at the genitals just because you think it will. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Trailscout]

Cyndiann,

I stand with you on this one.
Max says that genitals are different, well duh yeah!

It does not follow that society will never accept their exposure in public.

Nude_in_Tennessee played nude outdoors with a lot of other kids in his neighborhood.

Nude beaches are common in some parts of Europe.

There are tribal groups in warm parts of the earth where total nudity, including genitals, is part of everyday life.

There is no reason why Western society might come to the point that people will go totally nude on public streets, city parks, tennis courts, riding bikes, mowing lawns, you name it. Mind you it might take a generation or two, but when and if it does, we'll look back at the clothing cult and say, "good riddance!".

Trailscout

I don't think society will tolerate exposure of the genitals in public during my lifetime. What happens after that I'm not too concerned about.

Nude beaches are indeed common in some parts of Europe and that's fine because they are usually segregated from other beaches.

The tribal groups you talk about are primitive. We don't usually regress back to primitive behaviour, most of us strive to move forward to civilised and refined behaviour. I have no desire to revery back to some of the barbaric habits of my ancestors (e.g. cannibalism, ritual sacrifice, dancing around a bonfire).

What happens with most things in what anthropologists, sociologists, discourse analysts etc would call "social practice" is that behaviour swings from one extreme to the other before settling somewhere in the middle. Certainly during the Middle Ages nobody worried too much at the sight of a naked person of either sex. Then things began to change markedly. My own grandparents spend a good portion of their lives as Victorian gentlefolk here in England where it was most improper for a lady to expose even an ankle. Over the course of the twentieth century it has become acceptable to expose more and more of the human body in public BUT this movement seemed to slow down after the 1960s. I can recall predictions in the mid 1970s that within a year or two all British beaches would have followed the example of St Tropez, topless at first but then hardly anyone of either sex would bother with swimwear at all. It didn't happen. Most beaches here rarely see a bare breast, let alone pubic hair. And you don't see naked people or even topless ladies in public parks anywhere here or in most other parts of Europe. People have reached the point at which they are exposing as much as they are going to expose and don't intend to go any further. Naturists should (and generally do) respect that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

And to call the wearing of clothing a "cult" is truly bizarre! How can you have a cult that encompasses 99%+ of mankind? If there is a cult, then it's naturists.

Stu

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Max says that genitals are different, well duh yeah!

It does not follow that society will never accept their exposure in public. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A tangent to the idea that a society can change: just because a given society behaves in a certain way doesn't make it right. Taliban Afghanistan outlawed seeing women at all, Nazi Germany found it perfectly acceptable to persecute Jews, WWII US locked up Japanese-Americans as "security threats".... None of these were right, but they were the way these societies behaved.

The day may well come when simple non-sexual nudity is acceptable in the US and UK, as it currently is in other places. Not only does it not follow that society will never accept such nudity, we may have a moral obligation to set things to rights in our societies.

Just a thought.

[Bob S.]

fns, I was merely expanding on what you were saying. There was no intention to contradict anything you said. Can't I agree with you? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jochanaan, I fuly respect stu's as well as everyone else's opinions here. I have my opinions as well and will share them if I agree or disagree with someone else. As for stu's unofficial diagnosis of gymnophobia, that was made in one of the other l-e-n-g-t-h-y debates. He stated that when he was younger, he had an extreme reaction upon seeing a naked woman at a beach where he went completely white and had to be physically helped back to a car. He has described other times where he has had unusual anxiety upon seeing the naked body. We are not just lableing him a gymnophobe for being a textile.

stu, I did not say that you were the only one who was championing keeping nudists and non-nudists apart. Since you were the only one who was being talked about, your name was the only one that came to mind. I understand that there is a good portion of society that would prefer to keep us separate. Also understand that back in the beginning of the 20th century, men were not allowed to go topless. Now, they are not given a second look. Bathing suits were full body suits made of haevy material, especailly when wet. Today, they are made of about a tenth of the material.

If you can think like a lawyer, then surely you could see that someone could argue that being naked is not a behaviour. Is standing a behaviour? Is breathing a behaviour? Arguing minutia like that, you could argue that being alive is a behaviour as well as being dead.

Society has learned to be shocked at nudity. Should they be? Which is more healthy, to look at the naked body and have a neutral reaction or to look at the naked body and become alarmed at it, or shocked that you are seeing it? The human body is an object. It would like someone being shocked and uncomfortable upon seeing a turban on a man's head or a yamaka. Or someone being offended by seeing a crucifix pendant on a woman. These people all chose to wear these things, which is a behaviour (they put them on). The only difference is most people see the latter as the problem of the viewer whereas the former as the problem of the one being viewed.

Bob S.

If wearing clothes makes us civilized, and not wearing them makes us uncivilized, I vote for being uncivilized.

What on earth does the wearing or not wearing of clothes have to do with being or not being civilized? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Bob,

"I understand that there is a good portion of society that would prefer to keep us separate."

I think most people feel the same way. I accept that I can't prove that but I don't think it would be difficult to demonstrate, and I think even many naturists would accept that.

You are right that the amount of clothing you can be seen wearing publicly has reduced over the years - our concept of what is "decent" has altered. I happen to think we've gone far enough and I suspect we won't go much further in my lifetime so I'm quite optimistic. Displaying the parts of the body that function for sex and elimination of bodily wastes were bound to be the last taboos and that won't change easily or quickly. I'm sure there were naturists (and also hippies) in the 1960s who thought the textile era was about to collapse. Forty years on and people are not showing any more of their bodies in public than they were then.

As far as what is and isn't behaviour - of course standing is behaviour, whereas being alive clearly is not. Behaviour is something you do consciously, whether intentionally or otherwise, and can include omissions as well as actions. As I said in a previous posting, failing to pay tax is a behaviour. Where behaviour is intentional then one is responsible and possibly culpable.

Being shocked at seeing something is the result of both inherent and cultural conditioning. For some people the sight of dead people is shocking, for others it is not. But isn't a dead body an object too? Even most meat eaters don't want to see the animal they are about to consume slaughtered and would find the sight of it shocking. Yet these are natural parts of our lives. The fact is that our legislators have a duty to make PUBLIC places as comfortable as possible for the people who have to use them. Mr Gough and Mr Bethell aren't interested in other people's comfort - they are just concerned with making a point.

Jon-Marc,

I never said that nudity made us uncivilised. I was responding to another post in which it was suggested that some tribes think nothing of walking about naked. I was merely pointing out that the fact that some primitive people do this doesn't necessarily mean to say that it's a good thing for modern people to do.

Stu

[fns]

Bob S.
"fns, I was merely expanding on what you were saying. There was no intention to contradict anything you said. Can't I agree with you? "

I'm not used to seeing agreement. Sorry I misinterpreted your post. Thanks. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Regarding change, we either resist it, accept it or push for it, depending on the topic. Here is a quote I found interesting.

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." - Albert Einstein

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
What on earth does the wearing or not wearing of clothes have to do with being or not being civilized? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>EXACTLY!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

fns, Yes, it is possible for people here to agree with others. And let me say, nice quote!

stu, As has been my underlying statement throughout, as of now, most people do think that nudism should at least be segregated. Given, they are usually thinking that based on ignorance or cultual teachings, but they do think that. Otherwise, nudism wouldn't be so segregated.

I agree with your pendulum idea but I see the middle of the swing (I know that has a physics term) as public nudity being blase. The extremes are a nudity filled world and clothed world.

Now for the behaviour aspect. Is being naked behaviour? Is being clothed behaviour? If no, then why should that aspect be treated so importantly? Do not argue about public nudity, argue about why a non-behaviour can be treated as illegal. Undressing is a behaviour. Being naked is not. Not getting dressed is a conscious decision, yes, but being naked is not a decision nor a behaviour.

Gough and Bethell are trying to make a point, that the law is wrong. I won't presume to know what their thoughts or opinions are for other's comfort level, but they are attacking the law.

Bob S.

[fns]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Now for the behaviour aspect. Is being naked behaviour? Is being clothed behaviour? If no, then why should that aspect be treated so importantly? Do not argue about public nudity, argue about why a non-behaviour can be treated as illegal. Undressing is a behaviour. Being naked is not. Not getting dressed is a conscious decision, yes, but being naked is not a decision nor a behaviour.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm in agreement. Being naked or clothed is a result of either an action or inaction. I failed to put on clothes, inaction, therefore I am naked, my natural state of being. For, which state existed first, naked, or clothed? I say it must be naked, clothing was invented by man. It is only in peoples minds that the idea of being naked is in some way bad, or unacceptable. Granted, it will take a long time to change those minds.

On civilization, has all so called progress and civilization been a good thing? Someone suggests that nudity is a return to uncivilized behaviour. But I think we could find several examples where an activity previously thought of as uncivilized may be better than it's civilized replacement.

I would accept that for a newborn baby who has never worn clothing, then being naked is not a behaviour. Similarly, it is not a behaviour for a tribesman who has never worn clothing and whilst he is wandering about in his own habitat. Nudity would not be a behaviour when someone was deprived of all cothing - e.g. stripped naked against their will.

But to suggest that for a person in modern, western society to go outside of their house and walk into a public place whilst nude is not a behaviour is preposterous. Of course entering a public place is behaviour, but doing so whilst in a state that is unacceptable to others is equally a behaviour. An argument that being in a public place nude is just a 'state of being' cannot be sustained when carried further. For instance, the naked person goes into a church. "Behaviour" or "state of being"? The naked person inside the church finds himself (unintentionally) sexually aroused by one of the worshippers. Again, is this a "Behaviour" or "state of being"? He remains standing in the central aisle showing his erection whilst a wedding is taking place. "Behaviour" or "state of being"? Or are you suggesting that the only "behaviour" is standing in the aisle?

You simply can't take the nudity out of the equation. Nudity is a behaviour when the person CHOOSES to be naked in circumstances where he knows full well that nudity is regarded as unacceptable.

"It is only in peoples minds that the idea of being naked is in some way bad, or unacceptable."

Nobody is suggesting that simply being naked is bad. Even I don't take a shower in a collar and tie.

"Granted, it will take a long time to change those minds."

Aren't thinking adults entitled to hold views without others seeking to alter them? How do you feel about religious zealouts trying to change YOUR mind, to 'enlighten' you about the 'evils' of naked flesh? Don't get me wrong - I'm all for reasoned debate. But I think it's a bit dangerous to start from a position thinking you've got it right and you have to convert the ignorant masses.

I don't think that anyone said that nudity was uncivilised, did they? I certainly didn't. If you think I did, take another look at EXACTLY what I did say.

"But I think we could find several examples where an activity previously thought of as uncivilized may be better than it's civilized replacement."

Me too. And vice-versa. So to cite what happens in primitive societies adds nothing to this argument.

Stu

[fns]

Stu, since you referenced statements I made, you may think my statements were directed toward you personally. I assure you, they were not. Trailscout had mentioned the primitive tribes, and you replied about not reverting to primitive behaviour, which I assumed you meant nudity. Other than that, I did not have you in mind, that is why I didn't direct it to you as an individual. Anyway, I merely stated an opinion, and I'm not trying to change anyones mind.

[Bob S.]

stu, when you are wearing a suit and tie, is that behaviour? Just wearing it? Is it behaviour for a woman to wear earrings? Just wearing them? No. Behaviour requires an action. Nudity is not an action. Undressing/dressing is an action, being naked is not. Being alive is not an action, living is.

And I agree that walking into a public place is an action, naked or not. Using your church analogy, you described all actions that could occur whether naked or clothed. Whether he was wearing a suit and tie or jeans and tshirt would not constitute behaviour for you, so why would wearing nothing? You can do things clothed or naked, but being clothed or naked is not, in itself, an action or behaviour.

And when a person chooses to be naked in a place where clothes are mandatory, he is breaking the dress code. Legally, his nudity is a behaviour as he is supposedly doing something to "cause affront, alarm, or shock." But his actions are not "being" naked, but violating the dress code.

Now, for the idea that "we got it right", stu, this is a nudist forum. This is not a place where we expect an equal representation of nudists and non-nudists. Excuse us for believing we "got it right." And yes, some of us here are trying to "convert the ...masses." We are a vocal minority and want to get our message out.

When activists try to alter public perception, the number one thing they do is believe that they are right. If they don't, their cause is hopeless. Next, they try to figure out the best way to change opinions. Some here work to help write or fight laws, others are spokesmen who dole out PR. There are the occasional ones who actively challenge laws by breaking them while others just give money.

"So to cite what happens in primitive societies adds nothing to this argument."

Except to say that nudity can be a normal part of a society with no ill effects befalling anyone in the community, including the children.

Bob S.

[RIVERRAT]

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

Exactly what have I said that is negative about nudism?

My argument is with people being nude in non-naturist public places. I'm actually a firm supporter of naturists being given more and better places to practice.

I wish some people here would stop seeing me as public enemy number 1. There are naturists who post here that actually agree with most of what I say but nobody pillories them or threatens to ignore them. But it's OK to be nasty to Stu because he's not one of us.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hay Stu, It'a me the rat, I really don't know why you are here except to play devils advocat, you know that GOD who you don't believe in says in his own book that the profits and others did there thing nude, also if not for the serpant in the garden of EDAN we all would be nude even you, but you don't believe in GOD or creation, so for you this never happened, just explain yourself to us so that believe, later

[RIVERRAT]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fns:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Now for the behaviour aspect. Is being naked behaviour? Is being clothed behaviour? If no, then why should that aspect be treated so importantly? Do not argue about public nudity, argue about why a non-behaviour can be treated as illegal. Undressing is a behaviour. Being naked is not. Not getting dressed is a conscious decision, yes, but being naked is not a decision nor a behaviour.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm in agreement. Being naked or clothed is a result of either an action or inaction. I failed to put on clothes, inaction, therefore I am naked, my natural state of being. For, which state existed first, naked, or clothed? I say it must be naked, clothing was invented by man. It is only in peoples minds that the idea of being naked is in some way bad, or unacceptable. Granted, it will take a long time to change those minds.

On civilization, has all so called progress and civilization been a good thing? Someone suggests that nudity is a return to uncivilized behaviour. But I think we could find several examples where an activity previously thought of as uncivilized may be better than it's civilized replacement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Jochanaan, I fuly respect stu's as well as everyone else's opinions here. I have my opinions as well and will share them if I agree or disagree with someone else. As for stu's unofficial diagnosis of gymnophobia, that was made in one of the other l-e-n-g-t-h-y debates. He stated that when he was younger, he had an extreme reaction upon seeing a naked woman at a beach where he went completely white and had to be physically helped back to a car. He has described other times where he has had unusual anxiety upon seeing the naked body. We are not just lableing him a gymnophobe for being a textile.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hadn't seen the earlier post. Sorry for shooting from the lip.

[RIVERRAT]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RIVERRAT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fns:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Now for the behaviour aspect. Is being naked behaviour? Is being clothed behaviour? If no, then why should that aspect be treated so importantly? Do not argue about public nudity, argue about why a non-behaviour can be treated as illegal. Undressing is a behaviour. Being naked is not. Not getting dressed is a conscious decision, yes, but being naked is not a decision nor a behaviour.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm in agreement. Being naked or clothed is a result of either an action or inaction. I failed to put on clothes, inaction, therefore I am naked, my natural state of being. For, which state existed first, naked, or clothed? I say it must be naked, clothing was invented by man. It is only in peoples minds that the idea of being naked is in some way bad, or unacceptable. Granted, it will take a long time to change those minds.

On civilization, has all so called progress and civilization been a good thing? Someone suggests that nudity is a return to uncivilized behaviour. But I think we could find several examples where an activity previously thought of as uncivilized may be better than it's civilized replacement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey Stu nothing personnal , I'm actually getting to like you, you have your veiws and so on but can I ask you as one of your advisaries "what brought you here in the first place" was it your cuiosity about nudists or just a perverse plan to attack us, and again it's not like you are usama or something, (notice I use lower case for usama, I use the same for you) who are you and why are you here?????if you want to destroy nudism, you will have as much luck as usama, even usama gets NAKED, boy is that a discusting thought.

[Cookie Monster]

I read all the posts and I see all the negativity against stu and I am reminded of one of my favorite sayings "Cant we all just get along"? What has stu done that is so malicious? If memory serves correct were there not some folks that were removed from not only posting but from this site as a result of their posts? They deserved to get the boot, from what I understand they were mean spirited, anti-nude, and down right mean. They attacked individuals did they not? I am just going from earlier posts where they were brought up, so no I dont have the actual facts, just what people have said, heresay if you will. Again I must ask what has stu done? He admits that he is ok with nudity. He agrees that nudists need more places. So what he comes to the table from a textile world and that means he is a threat? You attacked him and it was as he points out HE started this thread. His name was on it. You knocked on the door, and he let you in, and then you attacked him. Undoubtably you will attack me now for jumping to his defense, but oh well. I see INAY as a place for everyone to come to (otherwise it would not be on the net) be it from a textile arena or a nudist arena, this is supposed to be a place where we can all come together and learn what being a nudist is all about. Therefore if someone from a textile venue enters and states his or her opinion should we then kick them out or attack them? Are people not allowed to express their opinion? Why Cant We all just get Along? Be nice accept one another for who we are, and not be judgemental.
Sorry about the length of this post but I wanted to get it off my chest.

Bob, we could have this debate about what does and does not constitute behaviour until Christmas and I still don't think we would agree.

Even if I were to go along with your understanding of what constitutes behaviour, at the end of the day if a person steps beyond the boundary of their own home and enters a public place then that is behaviour. There are certain "states of being" to use your expression that will make entering a public place illegal because they are dangerous, antisocial or otherwise inappropriate. If I were to go out into the street whilst blind drunk, then that is a state of being. Being drunk isn't illegal, neither is walking down a street, but if you put the "state of being" (blind drunk) in combination with the behaviour (stepping out of my home and into the street), then I put myself at risk of legal sanction. Exactly the same applies to stepping out of your home naked, or, having already left the confines of a private place, you strip naked whilst in a public place. In my opinion, and in the law, what you wear can be a behaviour. If you don't believe me just try "being" in a public place whilst dressed as a police officer (if you aren't one!). I understand that in some US states it's even unlawful for a person to be dressed as a member of the opposite sex in public!

I don't have any problem with you trying to change opinions, Bob. Some opinions are ill-informed and you are perfectly right to try to address that by giving the facts (e.g. that naturists are nice, ordinary people and not wife-swappers or exhibitionists). But a great deal of thought should be given before trying to change deeply-held values of informed, thinking people. And that is particularly applicable when you are contemplating advocating behaviour (or states of being) that you KNOW are likely to offend.

"Except to say that nudity can be a normal part of a society with no ill effects befalling anyone in the community, including the children."

Public nudity isn't a normal part of OUR society at present. And I consider causing severe offence and even shock to people to people going about their normal business in public to be an "ill-effect".

Riverrat

You say you wonder why I am here. Well I enjoy a good debate - simple as that. I work in the law so it's good for me to keep my debating skills sharp. To suggest that I want to destroy nudist is just plain bonkers - what on earth have I said that would cause you to entertain such a thought?

As far as God, the Bible and talking serpents are concerned, I'm afraid that sort of talk is wasted on me because, as you rightly point out, I don't buy it. And I've got a fossilised dinosaur jawbone that agrees with me /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cookie,

You are right; we should all get along - naturists and textiles. I hope I don't get removed from here; I don't see why I should. I've never made any personal attacks on anyone. If the administrator emailed me and asked me not to come any more then I'd respect that. I would miss coming, though, because I've enjoyed the dialogue with intelligent people who I have never met (and will probably never meet). Even though some of the arguments have got a bit heated at times, I know people are passionate about their beliefs and their hearts are in the right places. And mine is too.

Anyway, thanks for your kind support! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, I agree that we are too steadfast in our views that out definitions of "behaviour" are not going to be compatable. I think we're close, but have minor differences in our ideas.

"But a great deal of thought should be given before trying to change deeply-held values of informed, thinking people."

Do you think we are just randomly shooting out ideas? Some of us have thought through this idea very thououghly and have come to the conclusion that these deeply-held beleifs of others do need to be updated. Just read through many of the topics on this forum. We also have deeply-held beliefs that nudism and nudity is inncocent and not anything to be ashamed of or shocked, alarmed, or offended about.

You have agreed that we need more places to be naked. In order to get that, we need to change those "deeply held values of informed, thinking people." These same people who want to get rid of such places or keep away from their neighborhood.

Bob S.

[Hokienudist]

Bob, dont waste your breath... your not going to change his opinion.

Maybe someday he'll see things our way.

[David77]

Thanks, Cookie Monster, for your post of 2-16-03 which expresses about what I think and feel regarding Stu. Speaking of behaviour, Stu's forum behaviour is very good and courteous, and I am certainly not "offended" because he has a different approach to the subject of nudity than I do.

I am rather in awe of his brilliant mind and his debating ability. If I ever needed a brilliant lawyer, I would regret that I could not have him to represent me. I certainly can see why they chose him to teach law. Bob does a good job at debating him. This debate, with all the contributors, has stimulated our thought, and I have also learned from Frank and from you all. We don't need to all agree.
Some others will embrace Naturism in all it's aspects.

[Bob S.]

There are a lot of people here who keep bad-mouthing stu, even wanting him booted off. I ask why? He has his opinions, we have ours. Max has come to his defense many times, yet no one is asking for his ousting. Is it because he is at least a nudist? David put it well when he gives stu credit for his debating acumen. He does a good job of that.

If it weren't for stu, I wouldn't be nearly as outspoken as I am here. I would venture to say that around half of my total messages are replies to stu or in topics that stu has been a part of. And I credit stu for forcing me out of my bubble and making me more outsopken of nudism and the future of nudity in society.

And Jon-Marc, I'm not wasting my breath. I don't need to talk, just type. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bob S.

[EricNY]

I want to be clear.
I hope no one mis-understood the post I started in the off topic forum. It was not meant to bash stu, I really was interested. I did receive some response that made me understand better, although I still am a little confused why he would come to a nudist site.

I enjoy reading the back and forth veiws between stu and others.(I usually do not get involved because most of those debates are out of my league.)

And, Stu I hope you stick around.I enjoy hearing your opinions.You have alot of knowledge, that makes interesting reading.

I just wanted to make sure I was not taken wrong.
ercNy

[Rik]

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

"Not at all: he's planning to appeal."

If I had a pound in my pocket for every time I've heard someone say that whilst walking out of a courtroom I'd be a wealthy man /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ! In all honesty I can't see the Queens Bench Divisional Court giving leave to appeal on a point of law because there is no "case stated". That would mean it would have to go to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, and I can't see their Lordships interfering with the judgement of the lower court on a matter such as this where the facts are largely undisputed. In my opinion, his only real hope would be an appeal under the Human Rights Act.

I'm not sure whether he would be granted Legal Aid for this, and so if I were his lawyer I would be advising him that to take the matter further would incur for him a huge amount of expense with an extremely slim chance of success.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we didn't hear of Mr Gough again.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The appeal date is set for the 29th April.

Rik

[RIVERRAT]

Hey STU, missed your non nudist commentary, we need the likes of you to help us keep on track as to why we enjoy being nude, let the battle begin. Welcome back, for those who hate you, we need the likes of you to give us a reason to go on, the negative accentuates the possative.(sp)
Have a great day, enjoy nude bashing, we will enjoy abusing you the same.

[FireProf]

I do not need Stu here to keep me focused on why my wife and I are nudists and why we enjoy being nude whenever possible. I do not feel I have to go over and over with him why I should be able to be nude. All Stu's done is irritated many people here. I don't read his posts or replies. What he has to say does not interest me.

Many still continue to say his views are needed to show the other side. We know the other side and don't need him to take up space here telling us that what we are doing is wrong, immoral or whatever his verbage is to BASH nudists. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif