What we really want?

[Sauna]

What do you want fron this society really?

[nudetech]

I chose somewhere in each county. At minimum I would like most beaches, large parks (Central park, Hyde Park), nature reserves, and my own property, even if visible from the street. Ideally we would be free to go nude prety much anywhere except where safety makes it unreasonable, or where private owners set a dress code (most businesses and government office building I would expet).

-chris

[Fuzzy Nuts]

I really wanted to vote halfway between first 2 choices.

As it stands now I can be naked somewhere in the county - my own home, but this is not what I think poll meant.

It would be wishful thinking to have nakedness appropriate everywhere as we as naturist must must realize the thoughts and feelings of others must be respected.

[nudeM]

I voted for the first option. I wished there was an option that stated something to the tune like, "Free to practice nudity without public prejudice". I believe what we really want is to practice casual nudity without outside interference from law officials with the threat of jail and/or fines.

We should be able to roam nude around our private properties and have social events, i.e., birthday parties, wedding parties, bowling tournaments, swim parties, barbeques, etc., without the worries of neighbors calling the local authorities to report a 'crime'. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[NorthVanNudist]

I voted to be free everywhere. Sure, I am naked around the house and in my backyard, and can be nude in recognised places like Wreck Beach. But in an ideal world, I would like to be able to go for a walk on a summer evening naked in my neighborhood, people would be able to enjoy all of our parks and beaches without clothes if they wished, in other words people could choose for themselves whether or not to wear clothes. At a clothing-optional designated area such as Wreck Beach, at times you see a mix of clothed and naked people interspersed, (particularly at the Acadia Beach end where it changes arbitrarily from Spanish Banks (textile) to Acadia (signed clothing optional). You see naked people walking out on the sandbars at low tide, passing people with clothes on. I have seen naked people playing volleyball with clothed persons, clothed adults with naked children (and the other way around). I have stood for twenty minutes, naked, talking with a clothed woman I had never met, who was walking her dog. An ideal world to me.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

I voted free everywhere...but like another thread someone stated,"I would be satified to be naked on my own property without any backfire!"

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Nuts:
I really wanted to vote halfway between first 2 choices.
...

I agree -- there's a big difference between everywhere and somewhere.

[atalanta]

I agree something between 1 and 2. I also agree 100% with the second paragraph of NudeM - this should be a priority.

[Nudony]

To be quite honest, I'm not sure I'd go nude "everywhere". For one thing, I understand that some people may not want to deal with my nudity, and I respect other people's choices and views even if I do not agree with them; likewise, I would not light up anywhere if smoking was legal everywhere, and I would not roll a joint anywhere if marijuana was legalized. The other thing is that I prefer to be nude in a predominantly nude environment, where everyone is comfortable with the setting/situation.
A designated spot in every county would be enough for me, because that way I wouldn't have to travel and spend money just to be nude. A nude section next to every public beach would also be great. And the ability to be nude in and around my home would be nice; clothing-optional subdivisions could provide an environment where walking the dog nude is a neighborhood activity.

[johny]

Interesting, who voted that one vote for the last option. Somehow havent seen the Stu in this link. Could it be his duplicate??

[bill2me]

I went with option 2. I don't want to force my opinions and lifestyles on everyone else. I just want to be able to enjoy mine own in peace.

[SargentIV]

Evolving - Is there really unrestricted naturism/nudism in California's state parks without any legal reprisals?

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by johny:
Interesting, who voted that one vote for the last option. Somehow havent seen the Stu in this link. Could it be his duplicate??

I'm pretty sure that Stu would select the 2nd option. He favors having plenty of places set aside for naturists, so long as they don't stray outside of them.

-Mark

[nudepartime]

I like #2 don't need to be nude when others are not or they would not appreciate me being nude. I would love to have nude beaches and other forms of recreation around the area I live. The thought that occures to me is clothed when logical, nude when logical.

[waitwhat?]

number 1. if i want to lay nude in the middle of the city. who would it hurt? not offend...hurt. this country is full of offensive behavior. because an action is offensive is not a valid reason to make it outlawed.

[waitwhat?]

ps. that was just an example chances are that i wouldnt lay nude in the middle of the city. but i shouldnt told that its a crime.

[RunningNude57]

I voted for number 2. But I think there should be a few days a year where it would be OK to be nude anywhere. "Nude Day" - especially in parks (like in Germany), or on beaches, forest trails and more.... that would be cool

Originally posted by Sauna:
What do you want fron this society really?

[Sacramento Jesse]

I really don't care to be free EVERYWHERE. I'm fine with marked/designated spots where nudity is legal. I hate that my only option relatively close to me is LDS. I've heard of spots near me like rivers and lakes, but those spots aren't legal and if caught nude there I could be fined big.

[Kari P]

I voted number 1, but I don't mean nudity needs be legal and accepted in really every place. I'd be satisfied if being naked without an obvious intent to disturb people would be clearly legal everywhere but certain places where it certainly would not be acceptable and not even wanted by naturists. And the owners of premises would have the right to set the dressing code on their property. So, at home and on your own property you could choose to be naked not taking into account if you can be seen from public area.

Sauna, I don't understand in your choices what are "textile spots" and "clothes fee". If you mean that there would be only some and rare designated textile spots where nudity is banned then my choice would be that one.

[l2ltlarry]

clothes fee to users
Huh?

[Sauna]

Originally posted by Kari P:
I voted number 1, but I don't mean nudity needs be legal and accepted in really every place. I'd be satisfied if being naked without an obvious intent to disturb people would be clearly legal everywhere but certain places where it certainly would not be acceptable and not even wanted by naturists. And the owners of premises would have the right to set the dressing code on their property. So, at home and on your own property you could choose to be naked not taking into account if you can be seen from public area.

Sauna, I don't understand in your choices what are "textile spots" and "clothes fee". If you mean that there would be only some and rare designated textile spots where nudity is banned then my choice would be that one.

You understood it right. Clothes fee means naturally that if you wnat to be environmental unfriendly and ude clothes you are naturally willing to pay for it. It is the opposite to clothes free (no clothes no fee). Textile spots are areas where you can use clothes without any fee.