Legal versus Right [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

TheNorm

08-02-2007, 08:13 AM

I often wrestle with the "legal versus right" discussions on this forum. (Just because a thing is legal, doesn't make it right, and just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong.) The topic usually goes something like, "If it was legal to be nude in public, would you do it?" My own opinion is that nudity should be "de-criminalized" to the extent that simple nudity would not be a legal issue, but predatory behavior, public nuisance, etc. would be prosecuted on the grounds of what it is...and totally unrelated to the state of dress.

I'd really like to read some lively discussion around this topic or maybe a few links if it's already been discussed ad nauseum.

nacktman

08-02-2007, 08:39 AM

Simply being nude is legal.

However the monetary costs, social stigma, overcoming bigotry and preconceived misconceptions are prohibitive and therefore most do not undertake the effort to set precedent.

All the "other" things equated (erroneously I might add), with simply being nude have been 'outlawed' in one form or another and have been upheld as "lawful" but simply being nude has never been held as "unlawful" and attempts to make it so have ultimately failed.

Walt Iliff

08-02-2007, 09:18 AM

I try to see each situation as appropriate or inappropriate, regardless of whether or not something may or may not be "legal". Does one's actions contribute positively to societal acceptance of non-sexual nudity? It may be legal and appropriate to lie on a beach nude, or for example in New York State, topless. Is it then legal to go into a bank to cash a check topless? Well, yes, but is it appropriate behavior? Would you go to church wearing a Speedo? Why not? It's perfectly legal, but it would be rude. Unfortunately, as I've stated before, each time someone has pushed the boundaries of "legal" but inappropriate behavior, there has been a backlash against nudism with in some cases real losses of our hard fought for advances. For example, Playalinda Beach in Brevard County, Florida, Hippie Hollow, Austin, Texas, Huntington Beach, California, possibly Brattleboro, Vermont. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are a hell of a lot more textiles than there are nudists, and that's the way the politicians vote. You may not like it, you can try to compare it to the civil rights movement....good luck, by the way....but each time there has been "inappropriate" nudity as defined by the textile society at large, nudism and our ability to expand areas where we can be nude takes a hit.

Walt Iliff

Stu2630

08-02-2007, 02:20 PM

Here in the UK, nudity can be either legal or illegal, depending upon the context. If you are nude in circumstances which a court deems is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, then it is illegal. In deciding that likelihood, the court can take account of subjective factors, such as the way people actually responded or if they complained, or objective factors, such as the prevailing sensibilities of people towards nudity, attitude of people such as parents and whether or not nudity could reasonably be expected at the relevant time and location.

I have said before that I regard nudity in the same way as certain strong words that are regarded as obscene. Different people respond in different ways - some find them unacceptable so it is inconsiderate and therefore illegal to use them in a loud voice in public if it is likely to cause offence. The fact that some people are entirely comfortable with such words does not make their use in public acceptable, nor does it protect the user from prosecution. Like nudity, obscene words are not physically harmful, but they do mar the enjoyment of public places for some people, so they should not be used in these places indiscriminately.

Stu

jon71

08-02-2007, 02:46 PM

I've heard that "non-aggressive" nudity is legal in the state of California, although there could be local ordinances against it. The way I understand it "aggressive" nudity would be flashing, prostitutes soliciting, etc. and "non-aggressive" would be everything else. Frankly that's as it should be. Once in college I was walking through a grass square kind of between four of the main buildings. A group of students had their shirts off just talking and hanging out and one of them was femaile. I doubt that was legal in N. Carolina but it should have been and even if they were completely nude they were doing nothing wrong, nothing to concern the law. We have too many laws on the books because of what upset blue haired old ladies that serve no useful purpose at all. Worse than that the police waste their valuable time on frivolity and that indirectly increases real crime.

TheNorm

08-02-2007, 06:02 PM

It seems that most laws leave some room for "intent." Unfortunately, that leaves lots of room for interpretation. In the case of non-confrontational/non-sexual nudity, if a complaint is filed you have to prove that it was NOT your intent to affront or cause alarm...which may be difficult. Better (in my opinion) to cite an individual for the REAL offense than to cover the subject broadly with "indecent exposure." If you are creating a public nuisance, then you should be fined for it. If you are acting lewdly or stalking, you should be taken off the street. To do otherwise prevents the general public from ever gaining an acceptance of the naked human body in proper context.

As I (and many others) have stated before, there are many places where I feel clothing is important. However, I do believe that nudity should be as appropriate as a bathing suit.

Stu2630

08-03-2007, 09:50 AM

It seems that most laws leave some room for "intent." Unfortunately, that leaves lots of room for interpretation.

I don't believe it was the intention of the legislators who framed these laws to do so in such a way as to protect non-sexual public nudity. I don't think that issue was in their minds at all and I don't think our present legislators have any wish to re-frame the laws to facilitate it.

I agree with removing the "intent" part because it does create uncertainty and is open to interpretation, as well as placing too severe a burden on the prosecution. The right option, in my view, is that taken by certain US states in which certain venues are allocated for nudist use and all other public places are covered by clear laws which explicitly enumerate which parts of the anatomy it is unlawful to expose to others. That confers an absolute right to nudity in some places, and an absolute prohibition elsewhere if others can see you.

Stu

Agde

08-03-2007, 10:44 AM

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Walt is raising the issue of custom versus law (appropriate versus illegal) and how to find a balance.
<LI> Stu looks at custom versus context, noting that judges look for the legal balance between custom and law, at least in the UK where law is based on custom, by considering context.
<LI> Jon raises the issues of behavior versus state-of-being and whether local custom can trump general principles, like gender equality.
<LI> Norm suggests that custom versus law gets blurred by consideration of "intent" since, in the case of nudity, it reverses the normal burden of proof by assuming one has prior knowledge of what is going on in a stranger's head. [/list]

Once again, the Spanish model offers some useful general principles. The default principle is that how people dress (or not) is a matter of personal choice, not a matter for the courts. This answers the original topic point -- nudity in itself is hence not criminal. This also spares the expense Nactman worries about in adjudicating simple cases of individual offense versus personal choice. The accompanying principle is that custom should regulate actual practice. This allows an establishment, say a bank, to watch over the general comfort of all customers by having a minimum dress code -- perhaps over time nude clients will become commonplace as custom changes or as businesses compete for rich nudist customers, who knows. The Spanish model otherwise deals separately with behavior from state-of-clothing, and then context informs judgment of behavior -- insisting on riding nude on public transport after someone objected and you didn't cheerfully cover up would thus be considered aggressive behavior. How you respond after a complaint is the basis for sanction, not prior assumption. Maybe eventually nobody will care or at most the "blue haired old lady" will say "For heaven sakes, sit on a towel!", who knows.

Nudity is hence not an absolute right per se, but its not a crime either.

While courts are spared fashion disputes and custom ensures normalcy, Spanish localities are meantime not allowed to make local laws that are stricter than national ones. This may be a major lesson for American nudists who continue to engage in costly skirmishes over local ordinances, rather than fighting a clear, principled case to the Supreme Court.

TheNorm

08-03-2007, 06:30 PM

I don't believe it was the intention of the legislators who framed these laws to do so in such a way as to protect non-sexual public nudity. I don't think that issue was in their minds at all and I don't think our present legislators have any wish to re-frame the laws to facilitate it. That pretty much says it all. Most of the laws in my state were most likely written in response to flashers and sexual predators. The fact that the laws are overly broad prohibits the naturist from enjoying his/her own property without threat of prosecution.

I agree with removing the "intent" part because it does create uncertainty and is open to interpretation, as well as placing too severe a burden on the prosecution. The right option, in my view, is that taken by certain US states in which certain venues are allocated for nudist use and all other public places are covered by clear laws which explicitly enumerate which parts of the anatomy it is unlawful to expose to others. That confers an absolute right to nudity in some places, and an absolute prohibition elsewhere if others can see you.
This is where we will always disagree. As stated in other posts, custom is adequate to deal with simple nudity. IMHO, criminalizing nudity, especially as a sex crime, is wrong. There are no laws on the books that explicitly state where any other form of dress is optional (or not). Why would we want to explicitly state where nudity is optional?

I very much like Agde's explanation of Spanish law since it most closely resembles my thoughts on the subject.

Bob S.

08-03-2007, 07:46 PM

Norm:"In the case of non-confrontational/non-sexual nudity, if a complaint is filed you have to prove that it was NOT your intent to affront or cause alarm...which may be difficult."

It also goes against our judicial system's idea of innocent until proven guilty and that the prosecutor must prove his case rather than the defendant proving her case.

Bob S.

nacktman

08-03-2007, 08:14 PM

jon, it is legal for a female to be topless in NC ... it is the same reasoning I posted above that inhibits them from being so not from a legal standpoint.

By the same token any female who does not have 16 yards of cloth in her clothing is considered "naked in public" and subject to arrest and to being sold into indentured servitude for a period of no less than 10 years ... it's still on the books, though I can find no instance the statute has ever been enforced in the past 400 years.
Whereas a female who is actually nude in public could not be arrested for she had no cloth to begin with and therefore had no obligation to meet the yardage requirement ... it mainly was a class and chaste delineation statute, heck, mainly nothing it was/is a class and chaste delineation statute.

Just an example of the schizophrenic meanderings of our legal system - and not just in NC.

Sanslines

08-04-2007, 09:13 AM

jon, it is legal for a female to be topless in NC ... it is the same reasoning I posted above that inhibits them from being so not from a legal standpoint.

Under NC state law, it is NOT illegal for a woman to go "topfree". A woman's breasts are not considered "private parts", so in most places a man can go shirtless, so can a woman. There are some exceptions, however. Individual towns or counties may have their own law against women going topfree, and in any NC State Park it is illegal.

But in most places, a woman can go topfree in NC legally. I know a police officer, and where we live, a woman could walk down any street in town topfree, and there's nothing the police could do. It isn't done only because it isn't common knowledge that a woman can go topfree legally.

Stu2630

08-04-2007, 09:47 AM

It isn't done only because it isn't common knowledge that a woman can go topfree legally.

I reckon it isn't done also because most women don't feel comfortable exposing their breasts to strangers.

Stu

MJ_KC

08-04-2007, 11:05 AM

nacktman

08-04-2007, 12:39 PM

Sorry but it IS legal for a woman to be top free in any state park, anyone can be nude for that matter under the law.

Local ordinances attempting to curb this right have and will be continued to be thrown out as illegal or simply not enforced as is the statute pertaining to the yardage amount 'required' for a woman's clothing. An amount I might add that is not even used in the most elaborate costumes for the "female nobility" at the Renaissance Faire despite the mountains of layers of bloomers and under and over skirts involved. If this was enforced EVERY female within the state would be imprisoned.

nacktman

08-04-2007, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Stu2630:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It isn't done only because it isn't common knowledge that a woman can go topfree legally.

I reckon it isn't done also because most women don't feel comfortable exposing their breasts to strangers.

Stu </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the ladies I know and what they know of others it is the harassing of close friends and family rather than strangers that keeps them from being topless more often particularly if those relatives and friends are the perverted Prunella Prude and Pearcey Prigsniff types. Strangers are ignored for the most part unless they physically threaten or touch them.

Eric6420

08-04-2007, 01:25 PM

in Canada, there is a law against public nudity. There is a man who was arrested by the police and even had to go a few days in jail simply for being naked on a beach in New brunswick.

On the other hand, there is a nude beach in Vancouver that is very popular.

But the problem with the law against public nudity in Canada is that you can theorically be arrested for being naked in your swimming pool in your own backyard even though I never heard of the law to be executed to such an extreme.

But the other question we have to ask ourselves is why so few people are interested in nudism, and why so much think that it will harm children if they see a naked body.

The idea that must be fight agaist is that nudity is dangerous, harmfull and indecent espacially for children.

TheNorm

08-04-2007, 02:15 PM

The idea that must be fight agaist is that nudity is dangerous, harmfull and indecent espacially for children.
Agree 100%. The real harm that is done to children is when their parents (or other adults) over-react to nudity and firmly implant the "nudity is evil" idea in their minds.

Unpopular as the idea may be on this board, we'll never gain acceptance by being antisocial. I cringe everytime I read a post about someone "taking chances" because when they get caught, they reinforce the public's notion that nudists are wierdos. I guess we all struggle with how to portray nudism as a "normal" activity. I'm fortunate to belong to a great club, but most are not.

hm0504

08-04-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Eric6420:
in Canada, there is a law against public nudity. There is a man who was arrested by the police and even had to go a few days in jail simply for being naked on a beach in New brunswick.

On the other hand, there is a nude beach in Vancouver that is very popular.

But the problem with the law against public nudity in Canada is that you can theorically be arrested for being naked in your swimming pool in your own backyard even though I never heard of the law to be executed to such an extreme.

But the other question we have to ask ourselves is why so few people are interested in nudism, and why so much think that it will harm children if they see a naked body.

The idea that must be fight agaist is that nudity is dangerous, harmfull and indecent espacially for children.

Do you have a link to the New Brunswick case?

Wreck Beach in Vancouver is officially designated as CO so no problem there. Generally, if the beach is remote enough, nudity is also legal. Also, if nudity is regularly practiced (e.g. at Oka), the authorities ignore it.

Stu2630

08-05-2007, 07:08 AM

The real harm that is done to children is when their parents (or other adults) over-react to nudity and firmly implant the "nudity is evil" idea in their minds.

I don't think that many textile parents "implant" the idea that ALL nudity is evil - they simply don't want their children seeing it any more than they want their children seeing sexual activity or hearing obscene language. These are also things which are not intrinsically harmful. Yes, it's cultural conditioning - and nudist parents raise their kids with one approach while textiles choose to raise their kids in a different way. Both are valid. It is no more harmful, nor any more healthy, to keep children away from the sight of adult nudity than it is to encourage them to see it.

Unpopular as the idea may be on this board, we'll never gain acceptance by being antisocial. I cringe everytime I read a post about someone "taking chances" because when they get caught, they reinforce the public's notion that nudists are wierdos. I guess we all struggle with how to portray nudism as a "normal" activity. I'm fortunate to belong to a great club, but most are not.

I entirely agree - and it is a point I have made here many times. Nudists who adopt an "in-your-face" approach will only antagonise and alienate people - including those textiles who may otherwise be tolerant of nudism.

Stu

Sanslines

08-05-2007, 07:18 AM

Sorry but it IS legal for a woman to be top free in any state park, anyone can be nude for that matter under the law.

Why is there so much confusion and misinformation about when and where someone can either be topfree or nude? Why are not AANR and TNS clarifying the laws on a state by state basis and educating people as to when and where they can be nude? The Bulletin seems to exist only for promoting AANR clubs and nudism almost seems an afterthought to them.

In NC, if you ask the majority of women, they will tell you that being topfree is illegal in all places within the state. People just don't seem to know and the nudist organizations are doing a lousy job of educating people about laws and clarifying laws.

Naturist Mark

08-05-2007, 07:46 AM

Why is there so much confusion and misinformation about when and where someone can either be topfree or nude? Why are not AANR and TNS clarifying the laws on a state by state basis and educating people as to when and where they can be nude?
It is a tremendous job. The Naturist Society does publish it's World Guide (http://www.naturistsociety.com/shop/detail.jsp?category=21253&itemId=3164720) which includes many public places in North America where the law usually accepts traditional nude use.

Unfortunately knowing the law isn't enough, you also have to know the legal precedents and local enforcement policies. And even if you know all of that, the police probably don't - so you will be at the mercy of the local gendarmerie. For example - here in Ohio where topfreedom is most definitely legal, a woman in nearby Bowling Green was arrested for being topfree (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6880058252/m/9640035234?r=3580045234#3580045234) in a public park and fined for a nonexistent crime. Neither the park ranger, nor her lawyer, nor the judge were aware - or cared - that she had committed no crime.

-Mark

Eric6420

08-05-2007, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by hm0504:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Eric6420:
in Canada, there is a law against public nudity. There is a man who was arrested by the police and even had to go a few days in jail simply for being naked on a beach in New brunswick.

On the other hand, there is a nude beach in Vancouver that is very popular.

But the problem with the law against public nudity in Canada is that you can theorically be arrested for being naked in your swimming pool in your own backyard even though I never heard of the law to be executed to such an extreme.

But the other question we have to ask ourselves is why so few people are interested in nudism, and why so much think that it will harm children if they see a naked body.

The idea that must be fight agaist is that nudity is dangerous, harmfull and indecent espacially for children.

Do you have a link to the New Brunswick case?

Wreck Beach in Vancouver is officially designated as CO so no problem there. Generally, if the beach is remote enough, nudity is also legal. Also, if nudity is regularly practiced (e.g. at Oka), the authorities ignore it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no more data about the case in New Brunswick. The man was from Rimouski,QC and he was arrested for being naked on a New Brunswick beach. I suppose that it was on a textile beach with a lot of people. I do not think they would arrest a man that was alone on a remote beach.

Sanslines

08-05-2007, 08:06 AM

The Naturist Society does publish it's World Guide which includes many public places in North America where the law usually accepts traditional nude use.

The World Guide has not been updated and dates back to the days of Lee Baxandall. Unfortunately, with rapid constant change, the World Guide can become obsolete within a year and the latest edition is late 1990's.

nudebushwalker

08-05-2007, 08:20 AM

'Public nudity' isn't illegal in Australia, either...

However, there are (State..) laws concerning such issues as, for example, "obscene and willful exposure.." and "indecent behaviour..", that could be used to influence when and where the courts and authorities might deem it to be acceptable or inappropriate.

The matter of nude/'clothing optional' beaches and areas is a mater for the individual states - in NSW, and probably most others, they then handed the decision making (as to which beaches might be clothes 'free' beaches..) to the local councils. With more than 10,000 available beaches [we do have the longest coastline in the world - even longer than Russia's, even though their land mass is more than twice as large..], once you get away from those council-controlled areas, that means that the majority of beaches here can be considered as 'clothes optional' (as long as you don't do anything "lewd" or "obscene" in front of someone who might complain..).

Further to that example of 'nacktman''s above - of old and ridiculous laws left on the books - there are a couple of others I have heard of :
* over in England there is reputed to be a law that still makes it legal for a man to beat his wife, in order to discipline her.. [ !?! ]
* down in Tasmania [at least until recently..], it was a crime for someone simply to be a homosexual (they didn't have to be acting obscenely, nor to be threatening the morals of a minor, or anything else that was actually wrong - it was simply a law against someone's state of being/nature..).

There should be plenty of others that people on here might add - and even Stu may find some amusement in them...

Naturist Mark

08-05-2007, 11:55 AM

http://www.barebeaches.com/img/wbnbr.jpg The World Guide has not been updated and dates back to the days of Lee Baxandall. Unfortunately, with rapid constant change, the World Guide can become obsolete within a year and the latest edition is late 1990's.
The link I provided was for the newly published (2007) edition, titled The World's Best Nude Beaches & Resorts (http://www.naturistsociety.com/shop/detail.jsp?category=21253&itemId=3164720).

New name, this is the updated World Guide from the Naturist Society.

David77

08-05-2007, 02:48 PM

I have the DVD from TNS as follows, which I very much appreciate. This does not take the place of the book mentioned above concerning <u>world</u> facilities.

Product Id: DVD
Description: NEW! Great American Clubs & Resorts and Great American Beaches on a single 116 minute DVD.
Price: $39.95

Price Status: TNS Member Discount [Subtract 10.00%] Non-member Price

MJ_KC

08-05-2007, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
http://www.barebeaches.com/img/wbnbr.jpg
The beach in the bottom part of the picture looks so good that I wouldn't want to ever leave.

Bob S.

08-05-2007, 07:30 PM

Stu:"I don't think that many textile parents "implant" the idea that ALL nudity is evil"

The issue Norm was talking about was the overreactions that some parents give to nudity. Like if a parent yells at their child to get out of the room while in the middle of changing or showering, a parent yells at the child for being naked around the house, parents chide their children for being able to looking at a naked person, etc. In all of the above examples, it is possible to attach negative emotions to nudity, thus implanting the idea that all nudity is evil.

Overreactions are bad. Simple reminders of the family values are fine.

Stu:"Nudists who adopt an "in-your-face" approach will only antagonise and alienate people - including those textiles who may otherwise be tolerant of nudism."

Most of those who have an in-your-face attitude are not nudists. The two most popular UK proponents of that were not nudists, with one vehemently deriding nudism. But nudity is nudity in the mind of most people, especially those who make the law.

Bob S.

Stu2630

08-06-2007, 12:35 AM

Overreactions are bad. Simple reminders of the family values are fine.

Bob

There was no yelling in our house. Our kids were told that nudity stays in the bathroom or your own bedroom (with doors closed) and that you knock before entering someone's room and wait to be invited in in case they are getting changed. When any of our kids were small and likely to forget, we locked the door. That was our family values and it worked fine.

There wasn't ever an "over-reaction", but a firm reaction if they transgressed - but we didn't "react" to the nudity bit. They knew to knock before entering and if they didn't they would be rebuked for it, whether we were getting changed or otherwise. That made them realise that we take privacy seriously. It also gave us our own space, so we could discuss private stuff and even wrap their Christmas presents without them bursting in. We returned their respect of our privacy back to them by telling them we would always knock before entering their bedroom, and telling them they should close their doors if they were getting undressed because their privacy should be important to them. I know our ways aren't the same as your ways, but we brought up three kids and they've all turned out fine.

The two most popular UK proponents of that were not nudists, with one vehemently deriding nudism.

You've baffled me, Bob. Who are they and what have they said about nudism?

I was actually talking about some of the more militant types of nudist, or nude activists who, apart from being belligerent and rude, risk alienating people from the decent, considerate majority of nudists. I am equally critical of the extremists at the other end of the scale who think nudism is wicked and don't think there should be any places where it can be practised. I have to say that I have yet to encounter anyone who holds such an opinion in the UK.

Stu

TheNorm

08-06-2007, 08:19 AM

Stu, just to be clear, my comment about over-reacting was not aimed at you. I have no interest in judging your lifestyle or your ability to raise your children. My point is that any parent who rushes to cover their child's eyes at an art exhibit and says, "don't look at that, it's nasty" has sent the wrong message to the child. There is a big difference between teaching modesty and body shame. The current political climate of "protect the children" has distorted the message.

Bob S.

08-06-2007, 07:32 PM

Stu:"There was no yelling in our house."

Stu, I was not accusing you of anything. I was just giving examples of over-reactions that could (and probably would) cause children to view nudity as bad. If, in a home, a child's nudity was linked with an angrily yelling parent, the child would pair the two together and figure there is something wrong with nudity, both their own and other people's.

Can you agree that over-reacting about nudity can result in negative views about the naked body?

Stu:"You've baffled me, Bob. Who are they and what have they said about nudism?"

Maybe "popular" wasn't the right word. I tend to use that word when I mean well-known. I was talking about Steve Gough and another guy whose name escapes me. Steve hated the nudist movement and was on his own with his nudity. Nudists usually use more tactful ways to get the point across. The more "militant type" activist people tend not to be nudists or naturists.

Bob S.

Stu2630

08-07-2007, 08:54 AM

Can you agree that over-reacting about nudity can result in negative views about the naked body?

Bob - a difficult question in some ways and it really made me think (thanks! I like my grey cells to be made to work!http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif ). On one level, of course I agree that over-reacting about anything with children is bound to distort their perceptions of it. By definition, over-reacting is an excess and therefore a negative thing to do. But take away the "over" and you are just left with "reacting", and I see nothing wrong with presenting children with a measured and appropriate "reaction". In your case, you would probably make a minimal reaction to a child in your household seeing you naked, whereas we would respond with a firm negative reaction at the child failing to remember to respect our personal privacy rules. Does that make sense?

I was talking about Steve Gough and another guy whose name escapes me. Steve hated the nudist movement and was on his own with his nudity.

Aha! Now I see what you are saying! Sorry, Bob, I was being really dense - I completely misread your point. The "other guy" I think you meant was Vincent Bethell.

Nudists usually use more tactful ways to get the point across. The more "militant type" activist people tend not to be nudists or naturists.

Yes, that's very true. I have nothing against nudists being militant to get more and better facilities - in fact, I think you SHOULD be more assertive in that respect than you are. But Gough and Bethell have made it clear that they have no interest in promoting naturism - in fact, they despise it just as much as they despise the mainstream textile attitude to public nudity. I think it's a good thing that they have distanced themselves from nudism because if they were ever seen as nudist pioneers, apart from being objectionable in their behaviour (as well as being somewhat eccentric in other ways), people would wonder exactly what nudists really want - do they want more and better nudist opportunities? Or are they going all out to be allowed to be naked anywhere they please?

Stu

Cigol Edun

08-07-2007, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark
here in Ohio where topfreedom is most definitely legal, a woman in nearby Bowling Green was arrested for being topfree in a public park and fined for a nonexistent crime. Neither the park ranger, nor her lawyer, nor the judge were aware - or cared - that she had committed no crime.

Crazy. Crazy! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif
(IN as much as true (Not that I doubt it--just haven't researched this yet)).

Naturist Mark

08-07-2007, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Cigol Edun:

Crazy. Crazy! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif
(IN as much as true (Not that I doubt it--just haven't researched this yet)).

Story on this PAGE (http://tinyurl.com/3auohz), scroll down to July 22, 2005 where Lorien Bourne's name is highlighted.

Cigol Edun

08-07-2007, 04:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Cigol Edun:

Crazy. Crazy! Roll Eyes
(IN as much as true (Not that I doubt it--just haven't researched this yet)).

Story on this PAGE, scroll down to July 22, 2005 where Lorien Bourne's name is highlighted.

The part I was most wondering about is your contention that in Ohio "topfreedom is most definitely legal". I do presume you probably have done your homework on this as it seems from many of your other posts that you research and keep abreast of stuff quite well.

Naturist Mark

08-07-2007, 08:32 PM

The part I was most wondering about is your contention that in Ohio "topfreedom is most definitely legal". I do presume you probably have done your homework on this as it seems from many of your other posts that you research and keep abreast of stuff quite well.
Legal since 1990, even before New York (1992):
The STATE of Ohio v. PARENTEAU (http://web.archive.org/web/20070423194126/http://home.att.net/%7Esaran/parent.htm)

This case established that breasts are not "private parts" i.e. genitals, and therefore not prohibited by Ohio's public indecency laws. Attempts have been made to change the law since ( here's (http://www.cleveland.com/livelines/index.ssf?/livelines/more/072001.html) a 2001 article discussing whether the law should be changed), but so far none have passed - and it is unlikely that a law could be crafted that would make females breasts but not male breasts illegal due to the equal protection clauses in both the State and Federal constitutions (which is the legal principal upon which New York's law was changed - and many other places since).

-Mark

Cigol Edun

08-08-2007, 07:11 AM

To Naturist Mark:

Thank you. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Bob S.

08-08-2007, 07:51 PM

You want crazy Cigol, See this article from Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161748,00.html) about a man who was arrested for going without a shirt. Apparently, he has "a full set of breasts" according to the prosecutor.

Stu:"By definition, over-reacting is an excess and therefore a negative thing to do. But take away the "over" and you are just left with "reacting", and I see nothing wrong with presenting children with a measured and appropriate "reaction"."

Of course reacting normally is fine. Of course defining an overreaction can be tricky. A child who happens in on their parent getting dressed should not have to endure anything negative. A simple "could you please wait until I am finished dressing." would suffice. Getting angry at the child is, to me, an overreaction.

In fact, getting upset at a child anytime he sees nudity is an overreaction unless he is being deliberate and covert, trying to spy on someone. Of course, in that case, the spying is the issue, not the nudity. The same thing for being naked. You can get upset about breaking the rules of the house, but not for being naked.

Stu:"The "other guy" I think you meant was Vincent Bethell."

Thanks. That's who I was thinking of. It was hard to type in "that other naked guy" into google and get something I could use http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

Bob S.

MJ_KC

08-08-2007, 08:54 PM

Naturist Mark

08-08-2007, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Bob S.:
You want crazy Cigol, See this article from Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161748,00.html) about a man who was arrested for going without a shirt. Apparently, he has "a full set of breasts" according to the prosecutor.

What is even crazier is that he was arrested in Cincinnati, the very city where the 1990 State v. Parenteau case was decided that established the legality of female topfreedom.

So he couldn't even be charged with indecent exposure if he were a woman. This is just another case of the police AND the prosecutor not knowing the law.

But of course this case had to get weirder. The guy is apparently a transexual with a long police record. His court appointed lawyer was well acquainted with the law and would have easily had the charges dropped ... except the idiot skipped a hearing and several meetings with his lawyer ... I can't find any citations about the ultimate disposal of his case, but I expect the IE charges were dropped, and others were filed.

More discussion here. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7400016152/m/1050014753/p/1)

Stu2630

08-09-2007, 06:53 AM

In fact, getting upset at a child anytime he sees nudity is an overreaction unless he is being deliberate and covert, trying to spy on someone. Of course, in that case, the spying is the issue, not the nudity. The same thing for being naked. You can get upset about breaking the rules of the house, but not for being naked.

Bob

It's not so much what the child "sees" as what the child "does". We have house rules and children who break them get told off or punished. One rule is that you knock before entering someone else's bedroom: the only exception is if you know they are not in there. That rule applies whether regardless of the state of dress of the person inside, so if they fail to knock, they get told off - not for seeing nudity, but for forgetting their manners and knocking first.

We also have a rule which says if you are in a state of undress in your room, you keep your door closed and if you are in that state in the bathroom, you lock the door. Again, doing otherwise is a breach of the house rules and results in a telling off or punishment.

Kids need boundaries and the clearest way of showing where these boundaries are is by making stated rules and sanctions if they are not respected. I don't believe that made my kids especially prudish because my eldest two haven't turned out that way. My eldest daughter will soon qualify as a doctor and she has just spent two months working in the gynaecology unit, examining the intimate parts of women. In spite of that, she takes great care when booking holidays that she won't be anywhere close to a nudist beach.

BTW - I'm going to Denmark tomorrow for a couple of weeks staying at a beach called Stillinge Strand:

http://www.sologstrand.dk/ferie-danmark/sjaelland/stillinge-strand.htm.

There isn't a nudist beach there so far as I know (thankfully!) but there is one a few miles to the north at Mullerup. You see, the Danes have plenty of nudist beaches all around their coastline and publish their locations. That way, nudists have plenty of choice and know where they can enjoy nudism, and those of us who don't want to see nudity can easily avoid it. The perfect solution? I think so! Don't you?

Stu