Streakers - tiresome idiots or furthering the naturist cause??

[MaxUK]

Recently Mark Roberts, the prolific English streaker, appeared in a US court for streaking at the superbowl (apparently).

The radio reporters I heard discussing the matter (one male, one female) were a little amused by the story but mostly thought that Roberts was an idiot making a fool out of himself. In their words,

'Why would anyone want to go and run around showing their bits off on a football field?'

Do you think his high profile streaking efforts help or hinder the nudism cause??

Max

[MaxUK]

Recently Mark Roberts, the prolific English streaker, appeared in a US court for streaking at the superbowl (apparently).

The radio reporters I heard discussing the matter (one male, one female) were a little amused by the story but mostly thought that Roberts was an idiot making a fool out of himself. In their words,

'Why would anyone want to go and run around showing their bits off on a football field?'

Do you think his high profile streaking efforts help or hinder the nudism cause??

Max

[Naturist Mark]

Why the "or" in the title?

Streaking is one thing, disrupting sports events is quite another. The recent trend, such as at the superbowl, is for "streakers" to not actually be nude. But they are still just as disruptive.

On the other hand, the mild to approving reactions of the crowds toward streaker nudity does show that the public is much more accepting of non-sexual nudity than commonly credited. I don't think we can claim that streaking is causing this acceptance, but it does illustrate it. That can certainly turn around as more and more people become annoyed at the disruption sports streakers cause.

Summary:
Helps? -it shows acceptance, no evidence it creates acceptance.
Hinders? -It could as people become weary of disruptions.

-Mark

[Rik]

I'm not sure it affects naturism one way or the other. It often seems to me that nudity is more understandable (and hence more acceptable) if it's in a sexual or comedy context but nudity in a non-sexual or non-comedic context can be confusing for some people who might well ask "What's the point?". Streaking comes into the comedy context and the point is well understood by most people who are unlikely to link it with naturism.

As for the question "Why would anyone want to go and run around showing their bits off on a football field?" you could replace the words "showing their bits off" with almost any phrase (e.g. with a silly hat on, with their mother-in-law, eating spagetti) and the answer would be the same: "beats me!".

Rik

[Yukon1]

I don't think that streaking has anything to do with "nudism" or even with nudity particularly. It's about exhibitionism (or just plain goofing around) and being totally or mostly nude is merely a handy tool for that (unless you're Janet Jackson, of course! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Murray

[toofeelgood]

I agree with Yukon. Streaking isn't about nudism. It is about receiving attention the easiest way in public. In my perspective of it I believe it hinders the publics view of nudism. It illustrates to the average person that there is just another one of those weird people who like showing themselves off. Quite possibly the majority of viewers well gain a smile out of the event, but it is bcs it is a spectical.

[Bob S.]

Nobody streaked the Superbowl.

I like how Rik put it, nudism is more accepted when it is in a comedic or sexual tone. And streaking is definitely meant to be comedic.

Nudism puts a serious, non-sexual face on nudity. That is harder to react to than the streaking or media sex.

Maybe we need to take the lifestyle less seriously and joke about it some in the media (without denegrating it) in order for the public to take it more seriously. Look at the way homosexuals are seen in the popular media. Ellen Degeneres became the first actress to come out on her comedy show (as well as her character).

After that came "Will and Grace" and "***** Eye for the Straight Guy". Homosexuality became "in" regarding the media when it went comedic without being self-depricating. Get people to laugh and they will accept you more. Maybe this is a topic starter.

Bob S.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Nobody streaked the Superbowl.

I like how Rik put it, nudism is more accepted when it is in a comedic or sexual tone. And streaking is definitely meant to be comedic.

Nudism puts a serious, non-sexual face on nudity. That is harder to react to than the streaking or media sex.

Maybe we need to take the lifestyle less seriously and joke about it some in the media (without denegrating it) in order for the public to take it more seriously. Look at the way homosexuals are seen in the popular media. Ellen Degeneres became the first actress to come out on her comedy show (as well as her character).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You may have a point. Nudism, both in the past and present, has always had a stern, cult-like, no nonsense face to it. Part of it as a way of projecting the image of non-sexuality, but also as a healthy body-healthy mind approach, much like many of the lifestyle cults of the seventies.

Before we can expect to the general public to take it less seriously, we as nudist must do the same. I think it is possible. I know that I don't take it all that seriously. While I enjoy being nude, I don't break out in hives and have heart palpitations if I have to get dressed to visit the in-laws for the day. We need to be able to joke about the very things we hold so serious now.

Of course, laughing at some of the dear old treasured myths and truisms of nudism will take some doing for many. But I see a start in the ability to talk about alternatives when age old issues like erections come up. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif My personal favorite is the healthy body=healthy mind.... looking around the club grounds at all the paunchy bellies and sagging thighs... I wonder what is going on in the minds of those sunning themselves around the clubhouse /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[MikeJB]

Yeah but lots of people go streaking and skinny dipping and they areint nudists so just because they do it or think its cool if others do it doesnt mean they necessarily support nudity or nudism. Mostly these people just do it for a bit of fun and as soon as its done put their clothes back on and are just as body conscious as they were before they did it.

[Rex]

I see any form of non-threatening nudity, of a not over-sexual kind, as helpful in creating an acceptance of nudity.

I put streaking in that category. [I am not supportive, however of public intrusion, nude or not, if it is disruptive, or creates a safety hazzard.]

I also include nude protests, nude art, nudity in advertising, nudist magazines and websites, "pin-up" magazines and websites, street parades, nudity in films and TV, nude-in-public websites, or Spencer Tunick type photo sessions, strippers and exotic dancers, [of the romantic, or humourous "tease" type, not the ones where the girl looks like an aerobics instructor, trying to turn herself inside-out, or where there is inappropriate interaction with members of the audience].

I've seen some good stage shows, too, containing nudity, humourous, musical, or making good serious points.

None of these would be seen, by anyone, as representative of nudism, but I believe they can be helpful in creating some acceptance for nudity in general.

[MaxUK]

Rik,

'As for the question "Why would anyone want to go and run around showing their bits off on a football field?" you could replace the words "showing their bits off" with almost any phrase (e.g. with a silly hat on, with their mother-in-law, eating spagetti) and the answer would be the same: "beats me!".'

Appearing nude in such a public place is worlds apart from wearing a silly hat or eating spagetti. People do these things all the time - it is accepted public behaviour and nothing out of the ordinary. Nudity certainly is not.

So - you could definitely not replace the words with just any others Rik. You are stretching the bounds of believability with that one!!

Max

[Rik]

Max,

Then how would you answer the question "Why would anyone want to go and run around wearing a silly hat on a football field?". Beats me!

Rik

[TXK NUDE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Nobody streaked the Superbowl.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>http://www.thestreaker.org.uk/streaks/sbowl/bb.jpg
http://www.thestreaker.org.uk/streaks/sbowl/aa.jpg
http://www.thestreaker.org.uk/streaks/sbowl/dd.jpg

so...I guess this guy was just taking a Sunday stroll? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[shãybare]

No one has mentioned that he was promoting the Golden Palace by wearing the words "goldenpalace.com" on his chest and back. I wonder how much the Golden Palace paid him to streak ?

[Bob S.]

TXK Nude, I was told that he was wearing a g-string. In the ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs03/news/story?id=1725499) article, it says "then stripping the clothes off and parading around in a silver G-string." In an Ananova story, (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_865224.html?menu=sport.sportingquirkies) it says "I was there, naked, apart from a plastic American football over my nether regions held on with Sellotape,"

So was he naked or not? I'm confused.

Max, streakers are usually seen as a sideshow for the audience. Their costume is their naked body. They are going to be treated the same way if they were wearing a clown outfit, Mime outfit, or dressed as William Shakespeare. It is their over-the-top oufits that are meant to get the attention. And they do this in the middle of sporting events for the maximum effect.

The question for those people who are upset at streakers is whether they are upset because they are naked or because they are interrupting the play or schedule of play?

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
So was he naked or not? I'm confused. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He was almost naked, but not quite.

Another recent story described a 'streaker' who put on a tutu and entered the ice at a skating competition.

So the question is, are these 'not quite naked' people 'streakers', or just @sswipes.

-Mark

[TXK NUDE]

You can see the pics (which I got from his official website) that he is naked except for a small plastic football cut in half to make a "cup" for his genitals. The streaker in a tutu was the same guy, and he streaked Wimbeldon with three tennis balls strategically placed over his "nether regions" (or as Stu calls them--naughty bits).

[MaxUK]

Rik,

'Then how would you answer the question "Why would anyone want to go and run around wearing a silly hat on a football field?". Beats me!'

Easy - Because their team has just gained promotion into the next division and they are ecstatically happy, thus wearing the silly hat they have brought along for the day out, like the rest of the crowd they are with!

Bob S,

'The question for those people who are upset at streakers is whether they are upset because they are naked or because they are interrupting the play or schedule of play?'

Good question, though I'd say people do not get 'upset' at streakers, just annoyed, primarily because they are interrupting the play. That they are naked just elicits the response;

'Oh here we go, another naked idiot running around thinking he's gut-bustingly funny and holding up play.'

Personally I'm not sure if streakers help or hinder the naturist cause. The comedy (ie. generally positive) effect of someone 'getting their bits out' is not to be underestimated in showing it's nothing to be scared of.

However, the perceived 'extremist' or at least 'weird' behaviour of the usual streaker can also be seen negatively by folk who then attach those labels to perfectly normal naturists!!

Max

[Rik]

There's an article about Mark Roberts (the serial streaker) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3025035.stm which reports on his court case at Manchester following his streak at the Commonwealth Games last year. One paragpraph reads:
"After viewing an amateur video of the incident, prosecution counsel Jamie Hamilton said he had difficulty in proving the charge of public nuisance because the crowd was cheering and clapping.".

No doubt Stu would claim that "cheering" was misspelt and actually the crowd was "jeering". /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
No doubt Stu would claim that "cheering" was misspelt and actually the crowd was "jeering". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No no, the crowd was a bunch of perverts 'leering' and clapping. They should all have been arrested. LOL

-Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
[/qb] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He was almost naked, but not quite.

-Mark [/QB][/QUOTE]

What is "almost naked"? Either he was or he wasn't, and from what I saw, he wasn't. His so-called "private parts' in front at least were covered. So I wouldn't call him naked. That's my half penny's worth.

[TXK NUDE]

The technical terminology of most law books indicate the exposing of one's genitals for public viewing. Since he technically had them covered, he couldn't technically be charged with indecent exposure. But most law officers qould find the line between intent and technicality to be vague and easily smudged.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yukon1:
I don't think that streaking has anything to do with "nudism" or even with nudity particularly. It's about exhibitionism (or just plain goofing around) and being totally or mostly nude is merely a handy tool for that (unless you're Janet Jackson, of course! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Murray <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But nobody said it was nudism. The question was if it helped or hindered nudism.

It is just another form of nudity, one that isn't particularly harmful, and one that causes the general public to become accustomed to seeing nudity in public. Therefore it helps nudism even though it isn't nudism.

[Rex]

"It is just another form of nudity, one that isn't particularly harmful, and one that causes the general public to become accustomed to seeing nudity in public. Therefore it helps nudism even though it isn't nudism."

Exactly what I think, cyndiann, along with the other examples I posted earlier.

Same goes for the forthcoming nude bike rides.

[Frank R]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
No doubt Stu would claim that "cheering" was misspelt and actually the crowd was "jeering". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No no, the crowd was a bunch of perverts 'leering' and clapping. They should all have been arrested. LOL

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good one Mark - I loved it!