Making Love Outdoors

[NW Nude]

A few weeks back we were at a lake club. Very quiet that weekend and not many people there. We went hiking down to a dried up waterfall area. Knowing nobody else was around, we took advantage of the moment and layed out the towel and had great love in the woods. I know this violates the clubs rules, but I was certain noboby would be around. Is this wrong, and has anyone else done this?

[NW Nude]

A few weeks back we were at a lake club. Very quiet that weekend and not many people there. We went hiking down to a dried up waterfall area. Knowing nobody else was around, we took advantage of the moment and layed out the towel and had great love in the woods. I know this violates the clubs rules, but I was certain noboby would be around. Is this wrong, and has anyone else done this?

[Hooked]

I don't think this type of thing is wrong in general. What could be more natural than making love in an outdoor setting? However, you really have to use good judgement if you are going to do this. If you are fairly certain no one will come upon you, then it's probably ok. The danger zone is when people are doing it for the excitement of possibly getting caught. That's not a good thing. But if a couple is in a very secluded area and it's highly unlikly they will be discovered, then I think it is a very natural and nice thing to do. Some people would take the stance that there is always a risk involved so you should never do it but I really think it's a judgment call. I do not advocate sex in public areas, but if no one else is around then it's not really public. I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts right now but basically it is a judgment call and I also think that usually the people know wether it's right or wrong when they are doing it. One of those hard to define moments but everyone "knows it when they see it"

Why is it wrong to have sex in public? It's a perfectly natural thing to do. What harm would it do if someone caught you?

Stu

[luvnaturism]

Making love outdoors can be a wonderful thing, but respect for others dictates that you be sure that you really are in a private place where you will not be seen by others. Maybe in the outdoors you can't be 100% certain, but you can be 99.9% sure.

People who hope (secretly or openly) that they will be seen are exhibitionists. They doesn't fit my definition of naturists. Anyone caught making love in an area that is recognized as commonly used by naturists automatically makes it harder for everyone else, and we can do without that.

But given the right privacy, enjoy! Some of the most beautifully romantic memories my wife and I have involve the outdoors.

[Trailscout]

I was shocked at first, Stu, but then I realized that it is possible to have sex while clothed, so I can imagine how you could be logically consistent in advocating public sex (as long as you aren't showing bare skin).

Well, unlike simple nudity, sex is a behavior, so I am opposed to people doing it in the road. Wasn't that a Beatles song?

And as for you couples who are "doing it" wrapped in a blanket on a well-traveled beach, get a room! The blanket does NOT give you true privacy.

Trailscout,

"Well, unlike simple nudity, sex is a behavior, so I am opposed to people doing it in the road."

Why are you opposed to it in public when it is a normal, natural and harmless human activity?

Stu

[Swimguy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


Why are you opposed to it in public when it is a normal, natural and harmless human activity?

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would agree that sex should be a very private thing. It is the most intimate thing two people can do together. It is full of deep emotions. In my opinion, you are making something very special into something vulgar if you are doing it in front of others. I mean vulgar in the sense of it being common and not special--it's a real definition of the word.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Why is it wrong to have sex in public? It's a perfectly natural thing to do. What harm would it do if someone caught you?

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only thing that makes it wrong in this situation is that they were at a club that had a rule against it. Otherwise I say go for it. I would imagine just about everyone has had an adventure where they were out someplace secluded and beautiful and wanted to celebrate by knocking boots.

"I would agree that sex should be a very private thing. It is the most intimate thing two people can do together. It is full of deep emotions. In my opinion, you are making something very special into something vulgar if you are doing it in front of others. I mean vulgar in the sense of it being common and not special--it's a real definition of the word"

Yes but should there be a LAW against it? Some people might want to share their most intimate joys with the rest of the world. Should that be illegal?

"The only thing that makes it wrong in this situation is that they were at a club that had a rule against it."

Yeah but there are rules - i.e. laws - about being nude in public but that doesn't worry you people, does it?

Stu
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Yes but should there be a LAW against it? Some people might want to share their most intimate joys with the rest of the world. Should that be illegal? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At first I thought that was a wacky idea, intended to defame legitimate naturism by linking it with lewd conduct and public sex. But Stu makes such a good argument in favor of it that maybe it should be legal. Of course it will have to properly regulated... kept in designated public fornication zones. Fornicators must produce a valid marriage license and health certificates. Viewers would be enrolled in a national voyeur register which will be screened to keep out perverts and the easily upset. Good idea Stu!

[nudeM]

I believe that making love out in the open should be held out of the view of others. True, it is a very intimate time between the couple involved, but it shouldn't be out in the open. In my younger days, lovemakeing out in the open was done in the most remote locations I could think of i.e., in the middle of the desert. The location was very private. Not even the rattlesnakes were watching. Would I do it again? You bet. But I will try to find a remote location.

I did stumble across a couple in the middle of their endeavor, but I quickly left the area so that they could share the moment out of the view of a spectator. I do not believe a couple should go out of their way to find a location that is well traveled knowing that someone could show up at any time. I do agree, it is a natural thing, but to perform on a stage? Com'on, there should be some discretion involved here.

[Jochanaan]

With all due respect, I think nobody got the point of Stu's original comment. He was trying to challenge us to consider why many of us think that public nudity should be all right but public sex shouldn't be. I doubt very much that he was seriously advocating sex in any public forum.

It's a good question that deserves careful thought.

But Stu, many of us have come to understand, not just with our minds but in our spirits, that simple nudity is not sex nor even erotic. This CANNOT be overemphasized or repeated too often. Therefore it is entirely reasonable, if not completely logical, to choose to be naked in a public setting but not to do sex in one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
With all due respect, I think nobody got the point of Stu's original comment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure we did. I think you missed it. You didn't give a valid reason why we should not have sex in public. After all, it doesn't hurt anyone to see sex.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He was trying to challenge us to consider why many of us think that public nudity should be all right but public sex shouldn't be. I doubt very much that he was seriously advocating sex in any public forum.

It's a good question that deserves careful thought.

But Stu, many of us have come to understand, not just with our minds but in our spirits, that simple nudity is not sex nor even erotic. This CANNOT be overemphasized or repeated too often. Therefore it is entirely reasonable, if not completely logical, to choose to be naked in a public setting but not to do sex in one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why? What makes one ok and the other not ok? Where is the harm?

[Bob S.]

stu, if you are going to argue it, please argue it with all due vigilance. Get into our minds. Understand how we feel. Walk in our shoes. We have been walking in the shoes of the textile for most of our lives. We understand your point of view, do you understand ours?

NW Nude, you were technically in the wrong as you were on the club's property. I wouldn't fret over it, though.

"Yeah but there are rules - i.e. laws - about being nude in public but that doesn't worry you people, does it?"

stu, name one person here who has gone nude out in public. We are arguing about whether the laws should be there or not. Steve Gough and Vincent Bethell are teh ones who are going naked.

"Some people might want to share their most intimate joys with the rest of the world."

Sharing "joys" and not wanting there to be a dress code are two different things.

And finally, this topic is not about having sex in public. It is about having sex outdoors on private property. And a private business has the right to create any rules it wants, so long as they do not violate any existing laws.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:


stu, name one person here who has gone nude out in public. We are arguing about whether the laws should be there or not. Steve Gough and Vincent Bethell are teh ones who are going naked.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? How about me? I've been nude in public on many occasions. So have many others who post here.

Gary

[Abiqua]

Personally, I don't have a problem with seeing others copulating (the only time that I've actually witnessed public sex was at a textile beach, though!), but I am concerned about the perception that it creates.

There are already many too-influential people who are crusading against clothing-optional activities who make wild claims of social nudity leading almost inevitably to "sexual immorality." Verified instances of nudists participating in public sex would simply give these people a perceived justification for their campaigns against us.

I don't believe that it's harmful to witness an act of consensual sex. Seeing that young couple having intercourse, a few steps from a beach trail, injured me in no way. Even if I'd been offended by it, that wouldn't have been the same as being harmed. Refraining from public sex, though, is a matter of respect for other's feelings, and, in our case, not strengthening the position of our opponents.

[nfstan]

One time my wife and I were walking a nature trail that we frequent. On coming to a clearing we encountered a blanket with a considerable area of backsides protruding. As we approached a woman's head popped out and very quickly ducked under again. We passed by quietly, although I was tempted to say "Carry on!".

[theoldman]

Dogs, pigs etc. Do we really want to be lumped in with them? I guess I'm old fashioned about some things. Being naked, erections (without flaunting)to me is OK. However I (and I think a lot of others as well) would hold that certain things (bowel movements, masturbation, & COPULATING) are best done in private. Just the opinion of one old (naked) geezer.

[MikeyBear1964]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong in what you did. Am sure it was quite beautiful for you both. It wasn't like you were making love in the middle of a busy shopping mall (LOL)!

The problem I have with it, is that it violated the rules. If you make the choice to go to a nudist environment, you respect and adhere to their rules. If you feel the rules are unjust, then petition to have them changed.

Also, are you 100% sure NOONE was watching? As another member pointed out - nothing is 100%.

[Trailscout]

If people are making a reasonable effort to be out of sight, it does not matter whether they are indoors or outdoors when lovemaking.

If a man cares about his girlfriend or wife, he should consider that a few sick individuals might be provoked to rape by the sight of his lady engaged in sex with him. That concern alone should motivate couples to seek a very discrete place for lovemaking.

If they are having sex where people are likely to pass by, they are displaying a reckless disregard for the feelings of others. Nude beaches are particularly vulnerable to public criticism. Let them have sex on a textile beach instead. They have no right to jeapardize the few places that are available to us for nude recreation. Nudist groups need to patrol their beaches and call the law if necessary.

[Mike67]

Given the proper place and if there is no chance of being caught,what could be better? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It wouldn't be natural if you didn't at one time or another think of doing it in an outdoor situation.If they would admit to it, I think just about everyone has had a fantasy about it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

cyndiann

"You didn't give a valid reason why we should not have sex in public. After all, it doesn't hurt anyone to see sex."

Exactly right, cyndiann!

Bob S.

"stu, name one person here who has gone nude out in public. We are arguing about whether the laws should be there or not."

I think Gary has answered that, Bob! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Sharing "joys" and not wanting there to be a dress code are two different things."

Why? Naturists enjoy being naked and sharing their experience with others, don't they?

"And finally, this topic is not about having sex in public. It is about having sex outdoors on private property."

The title of the thread is "making love outdoors".

"And a private business has the right to create any rules it wants,"

Of course it does. Businesses decide what behaviour is and is not acceptable on their property. And public authorities make rules too - about what behaviour is and is not acceptable on public property. Glad we agree.

"so long as they do not violate any existing laws."

But it's OK to violate laws you disagree with, isn't it, Bob? Provided that you think the laws are bad, naturally. That's what you've told me.

Gary Naturist

"Huh? How about me? I've been nude in public on many occasions. So have many others who post here."

BOB- and you say they can relax the laws and I would have nothing to worry about!!!! LOL LOL LOL

"Refraining from public sex, though, is a matter of respect for other's feelings,"

HURRA!!!!!! I've been asking people here to show respect for others' feelings ever since I first posted here. Now you've got the message!!! YIPPEEEE! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Being naked, erections (without flaunting)to me is OK. However I (and I think a lot of others as well) would hold that certain things (bowel movements, masturbation, & COPULATING) are best done in private."

What's the difference? I personally think being naked should only be done in private! Why is one thing to be confined to private places and others can be done in public? Makes no sense to me.

MikeyBear1964

"The problem I have with it, is that it violated the rules. If you make the choice to go to a nudist environment, you respect and adhere to their rules. If you feel the rules are unjust, then petition to have them changed."

I totally agree. The way to change rules you feel are unjust is by petitioning, and not just violating them. (I hope you are reading this, Bob etc!!)

"Also, are you 100% sure NOONE was watching? As another member pointed out - nothing is 100%."

Good point. A bit like skinnydipping, or hiking nude on a public footpath - you can never be sure that someone won't see you and be shocked or offended.

Trailscout

"If people are making a reasonable effort to be out of sight, it does not matter whether they are indoors or outdoors when lovemaking."

Why should they make an effort to be out of sight? If they are happy to share their experience with any passers-by who care to watch, or passing schoolchildren who could be educated about the facts of life, where is the problem?

"If a man cares about his girlfriend or wife, he should consider that a few sick individuals might be provoked to rape by the sight of his lady engaged in sex with him. That concern alone should motivate couples to seek a very discrete place for lovemaking."

There is no evidence whatsoever that watching people lovemaking inspires them to commit rape.

"If they are having sex where people are likely to pass by, they are displaying a reckless disregard for the feelings of others."

Hold on a minute...nobody has the right not to be offended. That's what everyone here has been telling me for ages! Now we seem to be talking about having regard for "feelings of others".

"Nudist groups need to patrol their beaches and call the law if necessary."

I totally agree. Nudists should call the law when they need to - and they should therefore respect and obey the law.

I have really enjoyed this thread. Keep it up, fellas - you're doing a great job! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Stu

[Trailscout]

Stu,

I am well aware of the comparison between nudity and sex that you are attempting to make.
You almost had me reaching for my trousers to put on, but then I remembered that you have never satisfactorily addressed the critique that nudity is not behaviour, it is the natural human condition. You have to reach for your trousers in the morning and put them on, otherwise you will head out the door starkers. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Sexual intercourse is a behaviour. We are physically inactive by default until we choose to have sex and find someone willing to endure a few minutes of it with us.

By the way, I do not delight at the prospect of prancing down main street in the altogether before horrified crowds of prudes.

I simply want the assurance that I will not be charged with a crime when I decide to get my kit off at a lonely beach and the beach patrol stumbles across me before I can cover up.

Trailscout

"...you have never satisfactorily addressed the critique that nudity is not behaviour..."

Wearing my lawyer's hat, a behaviour is an act OR an omission. In other words, you are as much responsible for what you don't do as you are for what you do. If you find some money and you don't know who the owner is so you keep it then that is a behaviour. If you later accidentally discover who it does belong to and you say and do nothing then, although you are inactive, the law deems that you have "behaved" dishonestly. Besides, being naked in a public place necessitates an active behaviour - either entering the place whilst naked, or divesting yourself of clothing whilst in public.

"...it is the natural human condition."

The majority of the world's population could not survive in their current habitat without access to clothing because it's too cold etc. We have evolved in such a way that we can now live in places other than the homelands of homo-erectus.

"I do not delight at the prospect of prancing down main street in the altogether before horrified crowds of prudes."

I know you don't - but there are others that do!

"I simply want the assurance that I will not be charged with a crime when I decide to get my kit off at a lonely beach and the beach patrol stumbles across me before I can cover up."

The facts that (a) you chose a lonely beach and (b) you would be willing to cover up if discovered means that you are a considerate naturist, and you should have nothing to fear from the beach patrols or the police. But there are some people who, unlike you, seek to force their nudity onto an unwilling public.

At risk of diverting the topic of this thread away from sex outdoors to public nudity, I'll leave it at that!

Stu

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
... it is entirely reasonable, if not completely logical, to choose to be naked in a public setting but not to do sex in one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why? What makes one ok and the other not ok? Where is the harm? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn't say that one was O.K. and the other wasn't, nor that one would harm people and one wouldn't. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I was just saying that it's a reasonable choice for someone to make, since nudity is a state of being and sex is an activity.

Since the subject is up, I would prefer (if I had a partner, which at the moment I don't) to keep my sexual activities out of the public view. This is a personal preference only, and does not mean I am not open to sex on a beach, a trail, or a forest. Nor do I condemn those who choose to do such activities in a more public forum.

Why? What makes one ok and the other not ok? Where is the harm?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say that one was O.K. and the other wasn't, nor that one would harm people and one wouldn't. I was just saying that it's a reasonable choice for someone to make, since nudity is a state of being and sex is an activity.

It would be a reasonable choice for a nudist to make but not the general population. Most perceive nudity and sex to be on the same level.

[Bob S.]

Gary, I knew you would say something, but realize that I was referring to the type of public nudity like Steve Gough and Vincent Bethell.

"Naturists enjoy being naked and sharing their experience with others, don't they?"

Actually, naturists would just want to relax.

"The title of the thread is "making love outdoors"."

And I agree that one can have sex outdoors where no one else can see them or where they are reasonably sure that no one else will see them.

"But it's OK to violate laws you disagree with, isn't it, Bob? Provided that you think the laws are bad, naturally. That's what you've told me."

Would you agree that during the Holocaust, those who hid the Jewish population were in the wrong? After all, they were violating Nazi law.

Now stu, I am beginning to think that you are blatently ignoring me. I have NEVER SAID THAT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!! I said that CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IS ONE WAY TO CHANGE THE LAW, NOT THE ONLY WAY!!! If you ever state that I am for breaking the laws as the only solution, I will consider it as trolling for a negative reaction.

Once more: civil disobedience is a peaceful protest of a law where you break the very law that you want to protest. The law cannot be violent in nature, nor can your behaviour. The disobedience must be a part of a larger cause such as repealing the law. It should not be the first thing and should have been preceeded by a reasonable attempt to change the law using all most other forms of change such as talking with the public, politicians, civil groups, and other influential groups.

Now, I would be for a more liberal policy for public lovemaking, but society isn't ready for that as they cannot even seem to tolerate simple nudity. So for now, I am working that angle, more tolerance for nudity. The sex will have to come later.

Bob S.

[AustinPowers]

I believe most people become naturists because they enjoy the aroused feeling social nudity can create.
Lets be honest, the possibility of sexual activity has to increase when when there are groups of naked people together.
To me, sex is a beautiful part of life, to be shared by people who care for each other. Most would head the other way if they saw people involved in some secluded part of the woods. But you have to respect the feelings of those who may find it offensive. Especially if you are aware children are in the area.
The problem is in the accepted norms for sexual expression within the naturist community and if any laws are violated. That is why extreme discretion should be used.

[Trailscout]

Austin,

What is a naturist? Just a naked person? If that's all, then yeah, most people get nekkid to get their jollies.

There are other people who refrain from wearing clothes when possible because it feels good and natural, usually not because they are preparing for sexual activity. Such people are called naturists or nudists.

It varies with the situation, but at most nudist venues, the possibility of sexual activity drops like a rock the minute you enter the gates of a nudist resort. Why? Sex in public is forbidden by most AANR resort policies. Many resorts will not even allow unescorted men to visit. If you do they will watch you discreetly but carefully. There might be some fooling around in private areas, but generally not more than you'd find at a textile social activity. So where's all this extra sex you are hoping for? It ain't there!
A lot of nudists are grandmas and grandpas. A lot of nudists are carrying too many pounds. We accept them for their inner self, but the typical nudist is kind of ordinary looking. There aren't that many Britneys and Jennifer Lopezes wiggling around to tease your lusts.

Nudists get used to seeing one another naked and it isn't the big turn on that you imagine. We are turned on by romantic words, by touch, by shared history, by little thoughtful acts. Oh sure we still admire beauty, but so do textile men who looking at fully clothed women.

When I want the chance for romance, I go on hikes with my singles hiking club. They have plenty of cute attractive single ladies, far more than you will see at the neighborhood nudist camp.

Bob,

"Actually, naturists would just want to relax."

That's not the impression I get here. AustinPowers below seems to think nudity is "arousing". Mr Gough wasn't arrested for "just relaxing". And it's just as easy to relax clothed as unclothed.

"And I agree that one can have sex outdoors where no one else can see them or where they are reasonably sure that no one else will see them."

You are STILL not telling me why it should matter whether someone will see them. Why?

"Would you agree that during the Holocaust, those who hid the Jewish population were in the wrong? After all, they were violating Nazi law."

No, Bob. I have always said that extreme, life-and-death situations are different. You cannot apply normal rules to such situations. It is wrong to steal, but even the most honest person would steal rather than starve to death.

"If you ever state that I am for breaking the laws as the only solution, I will consider it as trolling for a negative reaction."

Bob it is you who is misreading my meaning. I never said that you regard breaking the law as the ONLY solution - but you do say you regarding as ONE legitimate method of getting your own way. But if people here are saying that we should obey rules (e.g. of a private club etc) then I say we should also obey the rules of public places. If people here are saying that naturists should be able to call law enforcement to deal with troublesome people on naturist beaches, then I say that if you USE the law you should also respect and OBEY it. There is nothing to stop people such as Mr Gough, or Gary here, campaigning lawfully to change those laws they disagree with. But to demand enforcement of laws you agree with whilst at the same time flouting those you disagree with is supremely hypocritical.

"...and should have been preceeded by a reasonable attempt to change the law using all most other forms of change such as talking with the public, politicians, civil groups, and other influential groups."

OK, so you used up all the legal avenues and it is clear that, having listened to your concerns, researched and consulted the public, the authorities decide that the most fair and just solution is to retain the existing status quo. Are you STILL justified in breaking those laws you disagree with?

"Now, I would be for a more liberal policy for public lovemaking, but society isn't ready for that as they cannot even seem to tolerate simple nudity."

So you agree society isn't ready for "simple nudity". Perhaps it will never be. So why not respect the will of society and be content to seek more designated naturist venues? Why support people who are inflicting nudity on a public that, to use your words, "isn't ready" for it?

AustinPowers

"I believe most people become naturists because they enjoy the aroused feeling social nudity can create. Lets be honest, the possibility of sexual activity has to increase when when there are groups of naked people together."

What an interesting perspective. Thank you for being so candid - obviously I have been very naive. So you think that nudists who say there is no sexual aspect to their naturist activities are lying? Or are they in denial?

"But you have to respect the feelings of those who may find it offensive."

I totally - completely - absolutely agree! People have a right to go to certain places (i.e. public places) without being offended by a selfish minority. Unfortunately there are some here who don't share our view on this. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"Especially if you are aware children are in the area."

So you are saying that children should be protected from seeing certain things because they could be, or at least their parents think they could be, emotionally harmed by seeing them? I agree with you. Of course there are those here who will say that there's no evidence to show children are harmed by witnessing the natural act of sex any more than they are harmed by seeing nudity. But I agree that is not the point, is it? Parents should be allowed to introduce subjects to kids such as sex in their own time and in heir own way. Similarly, parents have the right to determine when and under what circumstances their children should, if at all, see adult nudity.

"... extreme discretion should be used."

Well said! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Trailscout

"Why? Sex in public is forbidden by most AANR resort policies."

I wonder why that is the case. Perhaps it's so that naturists aren't caused offence! Yeah! That must be the reason! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[AustinPowers]

I believe this is evolving into a very interesting subject. Sexuality at naturist settings. The dos and donts. Obviously if youre with your spouse & get the urge & go back to your room, everyones likely ok with this. Beyond that the area gets grey.

Stu -on your comment of naturists 'lying' or in 'denial' of how it may increase their sexual feelings, I think they feel a need to say the 'socially acceptable' answer. Afraid of admitting to sexual feelings to someone they may have encountered in a nudist setting. That may lead to some sort of branding like youre a 'sex fiend'.
The fear is if the club turns into some sort of 'sex camp' and the police step in and arrest people & shut down the camp for their sexual behaviors. Im with what you allude to in that sexuality is one of the wonderful gifts of life. Some of the taboos lead to to much punishment for fulfilling a basic human need.

trailscout -if the naturist setting helps to improve the love life of grandma & grandpa & ordinary people, Im fine with that. Im not necessarilly looking for sex, Id like to build friendships. Im just stating an observation we all likely sense. Outdoor sexual behavior is more likely in a naturist setting than in most other places & likely expected to be.

Personally, I think its ok that two people connect to the point they want to experience each other sexually. The dynamics here are similar to meeting someone at a bar, ie, if there are no reciprocating feelings developing, you have to move on.
The opportunity to share it with someone you care for in special settings is one of the life enhancements naturists sites can provide. Again, the key is to be very discrete. I believe the occurances can be fairly rare too. Again the problem is in the punishments associated with this form of sexual expression if caught.
Nudity to some extent is a form of sexual expression. It is a very vulnerable state. Youre basically saying 'this is me' 'accept me for who I am' but are risking social alienation. Being accepted at this point is a very wonderful thing. Sexuality can be much the same thing.

[Swimguy]

Ok, Stu is asking questions, and I think I have one of the answers, but not all of them. Many naturists go to areas set aside for naturist activities. The man who posted the orininal message in this thread was at one of those locations. Everyone there was naked. Sexual activity was not a part of the norm in the open areas of this naturist club.

In plain terms,everyone who was there knew they would encounter naked people. Open sexual activity, however, was not expected.

I, personally, do not think it is appropriate to have sexual relations where others can see and chose not to watch others doing the same thing. They great thing about life, though, is that we can all come to our own conclusions about what is and is not right. We can share our opinions and let others decide whether or not they agree. What we decide to do depends largely on how much we value and respect others and how we choose to offend or not offend others. It's all a question of respect.

Austin,

"Afraid of admitting to sexual feelings to someone they may have encountered in a nudist setting."

So it's different in a nudist setting to a non-nudist setting, then? Now that is interesting.

"Some of the taboos lead to to much punishment for fulfilling a basic human need."

I don't think the punishment is for having sex, it's for doing it in the presence of others who may not wish to see it. A bit like naturists getting naked in a non-naturist public place, really.

"Outdoor sexual behavior is more likely in a naturist setting than in most other places & likely expected to be."

Now I didn't know that. Hmmm

"Nudity to some extent is a form of sexual expression."

I didn't know that, either. This is very enlightening to me, a non-naturist. All this time I have been labouring under the misapprehension that naturism was in no way connected to sex, and now I find out that it is!

Swimguy

"Sexual activity was not a part of the norm in the open areas of this naturist club."

OK. So we should respect norms, then? I'll buy that!

"In plain terms, everyone who was there knew they would encounter naked people. Open sexual activity, however, was not expected."

You mean like nudity isn't "expected" in non-nudist places? Please, go on. This is very interesting.

"I, personally, do not think it is appropriate to have sexual relations where others can see and chose not to watch others doing the same thing."

Surely if people don't want to see it, all they have to do is look the other way. That's what people here have been telling me about public nudity.

"What we decide to do depends largely on how much we value and respect others and how we choose to offend or not offend others. It's all a question of respect."

This is great stuff! Respecting others and trying not to offend. I totally agree with you.

I hope that people like Mr Steve Gough and Mr Vincent Bethell and their supporters read these postings by genuine and CONSIDERATE naturists. People enjoying naturist venues have the right to go there without being offended by people behaving "inappropriately". People using public places too have the right use them without being offended inappropriate behaviour. The sight of people having sex in public offends many people, just as nudity offends many people.

There is a time and place for everything sex AND nudity.

Stu

[Jochanaan]

Hi, Austin! Welcome to the discussion!

I feel many things when I'm naked: alive, whole, peaceful, alert. The pleasure, as you probably know, is virtually impossible to describe. But none of those sensations are necessarily associated with sex.

Unfortunately much of modern society confuses any strong pleasure with sexual response. Just listen to how some people talk about food, as if it alone could induce an orgasm. One of the benefits of nudism is that it restores at least one pleasure to its proper function of healing and inducing joy, removing the erotic associations that have tainted it for so many people.

As for increased outdoor sexual activity at naturist events and places, such things are what the attendees make of them. Sure, there will be some places such as the Hedonism resorts in Jamaica where people get naked mostly to make doing sex easier and quicker. But many other places--including the club of which I'm a member--follow the same rules when naked that they do when clothed. Any generalizations about this aspect of naturism fail to stand when compared with actual experience.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AustinPowers:
I believe most people become naturists because they enjoy the aroused feeling social nudity can create.
Lets be honest, the possibility of sexual activity has to increase when when there are groups of naked people together. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because of the verb tenses you are using it sounds as if you've not been to a naturist venue. I have, for 18 years. I don't believe social nudity increases the possibility of sexual activity at all. AANR clubs for the most part don't allow it and if you are a longtime nudist plain nudity doesn't increase arousal. However it doesn't decrease it either and if you are a highly sexual person that won't change while at a nudist resort or beach.

[Naturist Mark]

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

There is a time and place for everything sex AND nudity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, Stu sure is having fun using 'public sex' to mine for arguments to use against 'public nudity'.

Yes Stu, the IS a time and place for sex and nudity, but they aren't necesarily the same times and places. Try not to confuse the two! LOL

Stu seems to consider nudity and sex to be just about equally inappropriate in public settings. Most of us here don't agree. We would like to see social norms evolve towards making ordinary nudity as unremarkable and innoffensive as it is to us. Most of us have no desire to do the same with sexual activities.

No need for us to accept the two as a package. But nice try! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

By the way Stu, do you know that some people enjoy eating in public. Putting food into their mouths. All that chewing and swallowing right out in the open where they can be seen by people who may have no desire to see such a disgusting display. Oh sure, they don't mean any harm, but still! Oh the horror!

-Mark

[Ricky071110]

"I don't believe social nudity increases the possibility of sexual activity at all...it doesn't decrease it either and if you are a highly sexual person that won't change while at a nudist resort or beach."

Hi, I'm really new to this board and have been posting a lot of questions. I'm an 18 yr male and I never had a chance to be nude at home, but a month ago I movied to college and realized I'd like to try and, and since then I've been asking around on netnude and such. (I've actually signed up for mynudelife, but I'm 'awaiting authorization").

Anyway, being new to nudism (I've never been nude around another person), I've been reading up on it alot on all of these websites.


I got the general message that nudism-does-not-equal-sex. And I think that's pretty positive.

I mean, like you said, I don't think being nude makes people intrinsically more or less aroused. (Of course, I do think revealing MTV-generation fashions are, but there's a difference).


But, I mean I'm worried. I suppose I would eventually try to interact with females in a social nude situation, but no more than at a clothed party; you know, looking for like minded individuals. But what if there IS sexual attraction? (I don't think that this would be an instant problem, I mean, over years of doing this if it came up EVENTUALLY).
Nudism to me (from what I've learned) is the rejection of clothed society's contradictory prudish/conservative attitudes and lascivious supermodel/Madonna/Spears attitudes.
But obviously, there must be some sort of middle ground between these extremes, as seen between two people in a loving relationship....I mean is there 'good' and 'bad' sex? (I know that sounds cliche, I'm sorry).
Well, like I said I'm really new to nudism and haven't tried anything yet. I've still got lots of questions and hang-ups, and I'll keep posting (usual stuff; how do I control myself if I have an uninentional erection, sexual atmosphere, how will I look (unlike many I've got tanlines), etc.) I'll just keep working this out.

[Bob S.]

"I believe most people become naturists because they enjoy the aroused feeling social nudity can create. Lets be honest, the possibility of sexual activity has to increase when when there are groups of naked people together."

Aren't we being presumptuous, Austin? Are you a nudist? Do you enjoy non-sexual nudity? You seem to think when we get together, orgies spontaneously erupt. Even stu understands this to be a myth. When you are alone on a beach with your loved one, you will tend to get more frisky than if you were surrounded by a group of people, naked or clothed. So, the more people who gather, the less of a possibility of sexual activity exists.

"Most would head the other way if they saw people involved in some secluded part of the woods."

And most would also accept that the two found a secluded part of the woods to engage in their lovemaking and leave them alone.

"I think they feel a need to say the 'socially acceptable' answer. Afraid of admitting to sexual feelings to someone they may have encountered in a nudist setting. That may lead to some sort of branding like youre a 'sex fiend'."

Wrong. If I were to go to a nudist park and find someone sexually attractive, I wopuld not consider that as evil thoughts, but just as normal human thoughts. Being labelled a sex fiend would require having sex out in public view of everyone else, especially with someone whom you just met there.

"The fear is if the club turns into some sort of 'sex camp' and the police step in and arrest people & shut down the camp for their sexual behaviors."

Yes, and the same goes for beaches. We do want them thought of as sex camps where there are orgies behind the walls. That's already what a lot of people (apparently you as well) think. We are trying to separate the idea in the minds of others that nudity and sex are always linked. We want others to understand that a man and a woman can hang out together while naked and not have sex.

"Outdoor sexual behavior is more likely in a naturist setting than in most other places & likely expected to be."

Well, apparently textiles believe that is what happens there anyway and go there. And for the most part, nudist beaches are secluded anyway. If there happens to only be a few people at the beach, a couple could find it the best place to engage in sex. It would be interesting to know how many textiles vs beach regulars have sex on beaches. My guess is that textiles are the majority.

One last comment, sexual activity does occur at nudist parks. But just like everyone else, it is reserved for behind closed doors and in private. Not out in the open.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"You are STILL not telling me why it should matter whether someone will see them. Why?"

I like Mark's argument, "{there} IS a time and place for sex and nudity, but they aren't necesarily the same times and places. Try not to confuse the two! LOL" And it is called etiquette akin to public displays of affection. The more intense the behaviour, the more private it becomes. Nudity is different in that there is nothing sexual going on. If a 5mm thick piece of cloth that is 4 inches wide by 15 inches long is sufficient difference between walking legally and walking illegally, then what is the big deal? BTW, it would be very uncomfortable.

"The way to change rules you feel are unjust is by petitioning, and not just violating them. (I hope you are reading this, Bob etc!!)"

Did I just misread that or just misread your tone of voice? And I stand behind my message that civil disobedience is a legitimate way to get laws challenged. We live in two different cultures and two different carreers. You are naturally going to stick to your stance seeing as how you are a law enforcement lecturer. Do you have people in the UK who go on strike? They are violating the law as well (or at least their business' rules). Heck, your whole system of laws goes back to the Magna Carta, which if I remember, was signed after a band of peasents forced the king to sign it or die.

And yes, if you feel the law undermines your freedoms and you feel the government is being unduly influenced by those who want to create their own sense of morality, then yes, you still have that right. But let me ask you, how hard is it to overturn a law? Do the people have to pass it before it becomes law? I'm thinking that your laws may be akin to laws that are in our state constitutions.

"So you agree society isn't ready for "simple nudity"."

No. I said they weren't ready for public sex. I think they are ready to be able to tackle simple nudity. Humankind has always been ready for that.

"So why not respect the will of society and be content to seek more designated naturist venues?"

Again, you forget about what my original intent was. There was a question of how to desensitize the public to nudity. More naturist venues was the most popular answer but we came to an impasse when we couldn't decide how to create more naturist venues without breaking the law. So I suggested that a relaxation of laws would do that, creating a better position for more naturist venues to be created without fear of the authorities.

"Why support people who are inflicting nudity on a public that, to use your words, "isn't ready" for it?"

I support them because they want more than what I want. While I may not totally agree with their methods, I do support what they are trying to accomplish. And as I said above, you misinterpreted me.

And I love how you are just doting over Austin. "What an interesting perspective. Thank you for being so candid."

He is another one of the minority here. And so far, he seems to be completely wrong in his assessment of naturism and naturists. I thinnk you understand us better than he does. Don't overdo the lovin'. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob S.

[Fresh Air]

I suppose my wife and I are 99.9% people. I'm certain she is a nudist at heart, because when we are away from civilization and alone together she likes being nude outdoors. We'll sunbath or skinny dip. On two occasions, this has lead to love making. Once was after sunbathing in a field of grass. The other was during a fresh water skinny dip. Both times were beautiful to me and I would do it again in an instant.

So, I think it's ok, but only if it's a truely remote location. I figure, by the time we are remote enough for my wife to feel comfortable nude, we are remote enough to be free to express out love towards eachother without worry of offending anyone else.

Fresh Air

[AustinPowers]

Hello to all,

Cindiann -very astute. I have been but only a handful of occasions. Basically first yr experiences. I guess, for myself, Im trying to get a feel for what naturism is all about. The fantasy vs the reality. I would guess that the initial feelings are more intense than after you become accustomed to it.

stu -a lot of what I write are basically my opinions or beliefs. Not necessarilly founded in hard evidence but seem logical to me. Like in my comment on outdoor sexual activity. You look to respect the rules and sense the boundries on where you are.

For 'afraid to admit to sexual feelings.' Yeah, I guess its similar but being naked actually puts you 1 step closer. People would be on a heightened state of deciding on how to respond to any signals.

-hi jochanaan, thank you for your kind invitation to the discussion.

On my comment of nudity being a sexual act. Actually, its a key ingredient. It creates sensations that are part of sexual experiences. So where is the line where it goes from pleasant sensation to being sexual?
I find interesting the idea of nudity having therapeutic values. Stress reliever? Do nudists actually live longer?

naturist mark -I hope the naturist experience doesn't become unremarkable. Then why bother. I dont think people are nude 100% of the time. Most would consider it a special occasion, a special experience. The question is to what extent do people want to go with this? Where does each individual decide to draw the boundry. What does each consider offensive behavior?

Bob S -What to say? Youre right, I am not that involved in the naturist society. These were my initial thoughts to the subject of sex in the outdoors. It's an evolving attitude. I dont expect orgies to erupt. I expect virtually all instances to have behavior to be similar to as if youre clothed. But you aren't. So you may find more instances of couples going back to their room or tent or whatever. So why do I feel the need to state the obvious on a sensitive subject? Good question. My Bad! guess I am interested in peoples feelings on sexuality at naturist settings.

Also, if you read stu's comments, to me its sarcasm. Im not yet in touch with these accepted norms & he likely found that amusing.

To all -wow, more writing than I've done in awhile.

Mark,

"We would like to see social norms evolve towards making ordinary nudity as unremarkable and innoffensive as it is to us. Most of us have no desire to do the same with sexual activities."

When you say "we", then you mean "we naturists", because this is a naturist board. But naturists are a minority - and there is no evidence that the majority want "ordinary nudity (to be) unremarkable and innoffensive", just as most people don't want sex to be normal behaviour in public.

"No need for us to accept the two as a package. But nice try!"

It was an analogy, Mark, and it does work! To you, public nudity is OK but public sex isn't. To a few people, both are OK. To most people, neither is OK. We all have our limits, and the limits of people who advocate the acceptance of public nudity are at variance with those of the majority population, just as the limits of the "open sex" people are at variance with those of most naturists. So how does society decide where to draw the line (i.e. what laws there should be)?

"By the way Stu, do you know that some people enjoy eating in public. Putting food into their mouths. All that chewing and swallowing right out in the open where they can be seen by people who may have no desire to see such a disgusting display. Oh sure, they don't mean any harm, but still! Oh the horror!"

I agree. So let's do a little survey and ask the public which, if any, of these activities should be permitted in any public place:

1. eating
2. sex
3. being openly naked

I'll abide by the majority view if you will. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob S.

"And it is called etiquette akin to public displays of affection. The more intense the behaviour, the more private it becomes. Nudity is different in that there is nothing sexual going on."

Bob, you aren't seriously suggesting that public sex breaches "etiquette" whilst public nudity doesn't! Now THAT is funny! All that etiquette is, is accepted norms of the way one conducts oneself. Certainly there is etiquette concerning the showing of affection, but there is most definitely etiquette concerning how one is clothed, or unclothed, in public or elsewhere. And why should we respect the etiquette concerning affection but disregard the etiquette concerning appearance? And all of a sudden YOU are concerned with etiquette - what about these basic rights that people keep telling me about? What about the right to "desensitize" people? There are some gigantic double standards at work here.

"If a 5mm thick piece of cloth that is 4 inches wide by 15 inches long is sufficient difference between walking legally and walking illegally, then what is the big deal? BTW, it would be very uncomfortable."

The big deal is that it's etiquette Bob, just like you said.

"I stand behind my message that civil disobedience is a legitimate way to get laws challenged."

OK, but clearly I'm not the only one here who disagrees with that view.

"Do you have people in the UK who go on strike? They are violating the law as well (or at least their business' rules)."

Most strikes here are conducted within the law - we have the right to strike provided certain things are done first.

"Heck, your whole system of laws goes back to the Magna Carta, which if I remember, was signed after a band of peasents forced the king to sign it or die."

Correct. But these "peasants" had neither voice nor vote. They were subjects of a tyrant. As such they had no moral duty to obey the law. These days we can't claim that.

"But let me ask you, how hard is it to overturn a law? Do the people have to pass it before it becomes law? I'm thinking that your laws may be akin to laws that are in our state constitutions."

Here passing a law is a lengthy procedure involving various stages including consultations with interested people and groups. You need a law to overturn - i.e. repeal - a law. If I believe that a law is unjust the first thing I do is find others who share my view. We can then lobby our Members of Parliament and government ministers to legistale to repeal or change it. Where there is sufficient public pressure, the government listens and eventually acts.

"I said they weren't ready for public sex. I think they are ready to be able to tackle simple nudity. Humankind has always been ready for that."

Bob, you said: "...but society isn't ready for that as they cannot even seem to tolerate simple nudity." You are right. A simple poll of, say, 1,000 people asking them if they consider it acceptable for adults to be naked in public places would prove this. And I know what the answer would be. So on the one hand you are saying that the public cannot "tolerate simple nudity" but then you say "I think they (the public) are ready to be able to tackle simple nudity". Er...... /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"So I suggested that a relaxation of laws would do that, creating a better position for more naturist venues to be created without fear of the authorities."

And I said that you haven't yet fully explored all the legal means of getting more naturist venues. I also asked you that, if there WERE more such venues, would you agree that public nudity outside of those venues should continue to be prohibited. I can see absolutely no connection with a new law stating that anybody can be naked anywhere in public without legal sanction on the one hand with the government or others being compelled to create more designated naturist venues.

"I support them because they want more than what I want."

Sorry, Bob, you'll have to explain that one. You either support them because they want what you want, or you don't because they don't.

"While I may not totally agree with their methods..."

This is interesting. Which methods do you take issue with?

"I do support what they are trying to accomplish."

Well, Mr Gough's main aim is that people should be able to be naked absolutely anywhere he likes - the supermarket, the airport, the main street in his town, as a passenger on a train or bus etc. and nobody should be able to touch him for it - not the law nor social pressures. You support that? Mr Bethell, on the other hand, is a self-confessed anarchist who thinks that wearing clothing of any sort, but especially uniforms, is a form of sexual perversion. He thinks that the prohibition on public nudity is based on racism. In my opinion he is barking mad - but I'm not qualified to say - that's just my impression.

"I thinnk you understand us better than he does."

I think I do, Bob /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AustinPowers

"Also, if you read stu's comments, to me its sarcasm."

Before I posted my reply I too thought it could be interpreted as sarcasm, but actually it wasn't intended that way. Certainly I have had some fun with this thread because I can see some real double standards in the attitudes of some naturists here. On the one hand they have been telling me that no-one has the right not to be offended, and that people should be desentisized, or that if they don't want to see something they can just look away, but then on the other hand they say that you shouldn't have sex in public because it can offend people!!! Brilliant, eh?

"I'm not yet in touch with these accepted norms & he likely found that amusing."

Forget the "accepted norms" - make up your own mind!

Stu

[tarsus]

you know this subject is deep.
i think sex should be private, but private can be a lot of places not just the home. its
something thats needs more public attention also
i don't know quiet how to put it in words.
hello stu still stirring the pot i see, hope all is well in the "motherland".

[Rik]

I get the impression reading through these posts that most of those who say things like "love making should be done in private" are not suggesting that it is offensive but that they prefer to keep their lovemaking private. In other words private love making is primarily for their benefit and not for the avoidance of offence.

In some ways this is consistent with the naturist view of public nudity. Even though the vast majority of nudists do not practise public nudity it is not, in my view, because they are concerned about the effect it might have on others so much as the effect that public disapproval might have on them.

But the really important aspect of this issue from a naturist perspective is that naturism is not sex and sex is not naturism even though the connection might be made in some people's minds (even some nudists sadly) and even though naturists are no less sexual than non-naturists.

Whilsts naturists might just be successful in persuading people that naturism is good and healthy they are unlikely to do so as long as there are people who use naturism as an excuse for public sex for that would only reinforce the prejudice which already exists.

I think the right for sex in public should be left to those campaigners, if they exist, who demand the right for sex in public. Naturists should focus on the right to be nude in public.

Rik

Tarsus

"hello stu still stirring the pot i see, hope all is well in the "motherland"."

Hello tarsus. Yes I'm still here irritating everyone. Unfortunately I'm still here in Blighty, but only for another four and a half years.

Rik

"I get the impression reading through these posts that most of those who say things like "love making should be done in private" are not suggesting that it is offensive but that they prefer to keep their lovemaking private. In other words private love making is primarily for their benefit and not for the avoidance of offence."

Yes, but they live in the same world that we all do. No-one is suggesting that anyone here might engage in public sex. But plenty of people here consider that it would cause offence - presumably to passers-by etc. and as such it should be done in private places only and out of public view.

"the vast majority of nudists do not practise public nudity it is not, in my view, because they are concerned about the effect it might have on others so much as the effect that public disapproval might have on them."

So nudists are just being selfish, then?

"I think the right for sex in public should be left to those campaigners, if they exist, who demand the right for sex in public. Naturists should focus on the right to be nude in public."

True. But the analogy still works well. Some people find sex in public offensive and unacceptable - and people here recognise that and are prepared to respect public sensibilities. But they think that these sensibilities can be ignored when the take exception to public nudity. And the reason? They WANT the right to be naked wherever they feel like it, but they don't want to have sex except in private. See - self-interest at work again resulting in double standards.

Stu

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why are you opposed to it in public when it is a normal, natural and harmless human activity? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In a very fundamental & moral sense there is nothing "wrong" with sex in public. In a very pragmatic sense the public is far less accepting of this. In another pragmatic sense, there isn't much demand for it as demonstrated by the fact there are no traditionally "public sex" beaches in the US, at least not that I'm aware of. (Maybe Frisco?) It also involves much harsher criminal penalties than simple nudity.

The public may also conflate nudity and sexual activity. This makes my particular cause, nonsexual nudity, more difficult to advance.

So for purely pragmatic reasons I would strongly discourage having sex in public as a form of civil disobedience.

I also realize that it happens, regardless of my personal wishes. The motive isn't generally to promote the evolution of a better society or fight for what one feels is one's civil rights, but rather a thrill. Thrill seeking is generally not ameanable to legal intervention since the risk is part of the payoff. So is the fantasy that others are watching and enjoying.

Social pressure is the way to control sex in inappropriate locales, just as it controls nudity in inapproriate locales. Take the "payoff" out of it. It is difficult to enjoy oneself when those around you are behaving in a hostile manner. It obviously works, since I have found overt sexual activity on the traditionally nude beach to be uncommon, esp. so where when the beachgoers are proactive.

Private parks may always do as they wish WRT sex and nudity since they are private and not relevent to the discussion.

And if you are outdoors having sex and nobody sees or someone does but isn't offended, then there is no possible objection to it.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I believe most people become naturists because they enjoy the aroused feeling social nudity can create.

Lets be honest, the possibility of sexual activity has to increase when when there are groups of naked people together. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!!!!

Troll alert!!!

"pragmatic sense the public is far less accepting of this".

And you think - in a pragmatic sense - the public IS accepting of open public nudity? Not where I live, they're not!

"In another pragmatic sense, there isn't much demand for it as demonstrated by the fact there are no traditionally "public sex" beaches in the US, at least not that I'm aware of."

Relatively speaking, there's not much demand for public nudity, either. Bear in mind that only 2% of the population describe themselves as naturists - and, as we have seen here, not all naturists think that public nudity away from nudist venues is acceptable.

"It also involves much harsher criminal penalties than simple nudity."

What have the penalties got to do with it? What about individual freedoms against state oppression?

"The public may also conflate nudity and sexual activity. This makes my particular cause, nonsexual nudity, more difficult to advance."

Again, what has your personal cause got to do with this argument? We are discussing a principle here. If the public are so ill-informed that they conflate nudity and sexual activity then why should that influence legislators to create prohibitions of people behaving in a harmless and natural way?

"So for purely pragmatic reasons I would strongly discourage having sex in public as a form of civil disobedience."

Pragmatic reasons? You mean selfish reasons. You want public nudity to be acceptable but have no interest in achievin the same for public sex - so tough luck on those who want public sex to be legalised. Hmm

"The motive isn't generally to promote the evolution of a better society..."

Hold on! Are you telling me that, in a wider sense, campaigning for acceptance of public nudity is done for the purpose of "[evolving] a better society"? Now that's funny!!! Where is the evidence that an acceptance of public nudity makes for a better society?

"...or fight for what one feels is one's civil rights, but rather a thrill."


You are ASSUMING that thrill is the motivation - it may or may not be. There are plenty of textiles who strongly suspect that naturists are just thrill-seekers. Besides - when I heard the people who want to make public sex acceptable being interviewed on the radio, I got the impression that they just thought that sex was a beautiful act - as natural as kissing - and that there should be no shame in doing this act in a public park or on a beach. They had indeed done this at some holiday complex or club in Jamaica - where this sort of behaviour was accepted! Besides - even if they do get a thrill from being watched, where is the harm in that? Aren't people allowed to get a thrill if nobody else is being harmed? Do we ban kids from using rollercoasters?

"It is difficult to enjoy oneself when those around you are behaving in a hostile manner."

So we leave it to the public to get nasty and hostile with people who are behaving inappropriately rather than expect the police to intervene? If the offended person is a six feet five inches tall wrestler the inappropriate nudists will quit, but if he only person complaining is an elderly lady, or a mother with a young child, well, she can get lost can't she? Either something is acceptable or it isn't. We don't expect the public to get "hostile" with other forms of unacceptable behavour - we expect the police to protect us.

"And if you are outdoors having sex and nobody sees or someone does but isn't offended, then there is no possible objection to it."

Why should they care if anyone is offended? I keep being told that nobody has the right not to be offended.

Stu

[AustinPowers]

Hello to all, a few responses to the chat.

stu
-let me say, I do make up my own mind. Generally, I look to 'go with the flow' likely looking to fit in, unless I see a strong reason not to.

aunaturelone
-Yes, I may be going to naturist settings to 'connect' with women I find interesting. My behavior would be similar to meeting people in a bar. It's a social setting. But youre naked. Youre a little more 'turned on'. Doesnt mean youre going to turn into some sex starved animal.

I respect peoples choice to be left alone if they chose to not want to get to know me. I just see it as their loss.

I just think nudity is an aspect of our sexuality. I dont see sexuality as a negative or evil thing. And to 'pitch' naturism as nonsexual to me is absurb. More openness as to our sexual natures is a good thing.
To often people use sex as a tool to oppress, control or tear others down. This is a true evil. Such as the Repubicans using sex to tear Clinton down. Find real issues to do that.

Also, branding me a 'troll'. Isnt that a bit of a double standard. It's like saying 'Im ok as a nudist because Im nonsexual' youre not because youre not like me. Id like to see people a little more openminded.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Yes, but they live in the same world that we all do. No-one is suggesting that anyone here might engage in public sex. But plenty of people here consider that it would cause offence - presumably to passers-by etc. and as such it should be done in private places only and out of public view. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How many people who have contributed to this thread have specifically said that they would not engage in public sex because it would cause offence? Does that number equate to "plenty of people here"? How representative is that of all people or all nudists? Is this not just a politically correct response that is challengable?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"the vast majority of nudists do not practise public nudity it is not, in my view, because they are concerned about the effect it might have on others so much as the effect that public disapproval might have on them."

So nudists are just being selfish, then?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The word 'selfish' is simply your spin on what some people believe to be an exercise of their moral rights. You may recall a poll on this discussion board earlier this year (in which you participated) which asked the question whether people would be prepared to strip off on a busy beach if all anti-nudity laws were lifted. Only 11% said "I would not strip off because I believe other people would be offended at the sight of my nudity". The remainder had few qualms about being 'selfish'.

Rik

[Buzzer]

While we don't make it a habit, when camping my wife & I have had sex in the outdoors in the wee hours of the morning. No one could see us, as there was no moon, though the first time we did in a very secluded spot surrounded by bushes, under a full moon Maybe there's something about a full moon, afterall. LOL

[Bob S.]

"So you may find more instances of couples going back to their room or tent or whatever."

No more so than clothed couples, Austin. Just the fact that nudity is the best dress code for sex does not mean that people who are naked all the time are more apt to have sex more often during the day.

"Bob, you aren't seriously suggesting that public sex breaches "etiquette" whilst public nudity doesn't!"

No. But I am saying that sex is more of a breach of etiquette than simply being naked.

"And all of a sudden YOU are concerned with etiquette -what about these basic rights that people keep telling me about?"

What rights? And who is telling you about them? Seriously, if nudity could be controlled by etiquette, which in large part, it is, then there would be little reason for laws.

"I'm not the only one here who disagrees with that view."

Yeah, we both have supporters on the topic of civil disobedience.

"So on the one hand you are saying that the public cannot "tolerate simple nudity" but then you say "I think they (the public) are ready to be able to tackle simple nudity". Er......"

Yes. Although they cannot seem to be able to handle it right now, they are ready to be able to tolerate it. Every society is ready to be able to tolerate simple nudity.

"I can see absolutely no connection with a new law stating that anybody can be naked anywhere in public without legal sanction on the one hand with the government or others being compelled to create more designated naturist venues."

How about getting a dot-to-dot book. It is a simple connection. I'm sorry you can't see it.

"You either support them because they want what you want, or you don't because they don't."

Steve Gough simply wants to walk the length of your island naked. His theory is that no one should be offended at the naked body, something I believe as well. I merely want more places to go naked and more of a societal acceptance.

Vincent Bethell is a bit more radical, but his main idea is that offense at nudity is illogical, and the laws are illegal (or used illegally). I believe in that as well.

Bob S.

Bob,

"No. But I am saying that sex is more of a breach of etiquette than simply being naked."

Well at least we are agreed that public nudity is a breach of etiquette.

"Seriously, if nudity could be controlled by etiquette, which in large part, it is, then there would be little reason for laws."

The same could be said for public sex, couldn't it? Some people couldn't care less about etiquette or causin offence. The laws exist for those people.

"Yes. Although they cannot seem to be able to handle it right now, they are ready to be able to tolerate it. Every society is ready to be able to tolerate simple nudity."

What is the difference between "handling" and "tolerating" other people being nude in public? Either the majority of people think it acceptable of they don't. And they don't.

"How about getting a dot-to-dot book. It is a simple connection. I'm sorry you can't see it."

I can't. And I suspect most other people coudn't see the connection, either.

"Steve Gough simply wants to walk the length of your island naked. His theory is that no one should be offended at the naked body, something I believe as well."

We are all entitled to have a theory. Nobody complained about him having a theory. He didn't get arrested for having a theory and he's not in
prison for having a theory.

"I merely want more places to go naked"

You should have more places. But that's not what Mr Gough is campaigning for. He wants the right to be able to walk into any street, supermarket, school etc stark naked whenever he pleases. The vast majority of people consider that unacceptable.

"... and more of a societal acceptance."

You should have more social acceptance for being a naturist, yes. You should feel comfortable telling your neighbours, your boss, you children's teachers etc. But people are entitled to have choose their own degree of acceptance of nudity and not have it inflicted upon them by inconsiderate crusaders and extremists.

"Vincent Bethell is a bit more radical, but his main idea is that offense at nudity is illogical, and the laws are illegal (or used illegally). I believe in that as well."

A bit more radical??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Radical wouldn't be the word I would use to describe him. In the UK the laws are the laws. There is no such thing as illegal laws - it would be a contradiction in terms. Mr Bethell has been convicted several times of public nudity in spite of his publicized acquittal and it is notable that he has since desisted in such antisocial behaviour - perhaps in light of the judge's warning to him that he may not be so lucky next time.

Stu

[Bob S.]

"They WANT the right to be naked wherever they feel like it, but they don't want to have sex except in private. See - self-interest at work again resulting in double standards."

How is that a double standard? A double standard is allowing men to go topless while barring women from that very right. If we believe that sex should be kept in private areas while nudity should be allowed in more areas, that is not a double standard. Nudity and sex are not the same thing. A double standard requires one group who is allowed to do something that another group isn't allowed to do.

"If the public are so ill-informed that they conflate nudity and sexual activity then why should that influence legislators to create prohibitions of people behaving in a harmless and natural way?"

A lie is a lie. A myth, a myth. Society should be one where untruths should not be used in decision-making.

"You mean selfish reasons. You want public nudity to be acceptable but have no interest in achievin the same for public sex - so tough luck on those who want public sex to be legalised. Hmm"

Hmm what? Yes. Tough luck for those who want to have sex at the beach in full view of everyone else. We can have our own limitations as well. Your limitation is not to see naked people, ours is not to see people having sex.

"Are you telling me that, in a wider sense, campaigning for acceptance of public nudity is done for the purpose of "[evolving] a better society"? Now that's funny!!! Where is the evidence that an acceptance of public nudity makes for a better society?"

Where is the proof that a society that makes its citizenry wear clothes all the time is better than one where clothing is optional? Children who see nudity on a regular basis know what top expect when they go through puberty. They do not have to deal with sexploration that their textile peers go through where they try to see each other naked. Nudity is second nature to them.

There are lots more advantages of seeing nakedness, but I'll save that for later or if someone else wants to show stu the way (how about the 200 benefits of nudity or whatever number it was).

"I keep being told that nobody has the right not to be offended."

And that is still true. But should one's offense be the reason for law? And how do we, in this case, decide how much is offense at seeing a lawbreaker in action?

"What is the difference between "handling" and "tolerating" other people being nude in public?"

They cannot seem to tolerate seeing nudity outside of the contexts they are used to. But they can handle it if they had to. People are strong enough to be able to see nudity and let it pass. Some just choose to raise a stink over it.

"And I suspect most other people coudn't see the connection, either."

People congregate with like-minded people and tend to avoid those who disagree with them. If the laws were relaxed, nudists and others who enjoy the air over their whole body would congregate to places where others of them would go as well. Soon there would be more places to go where those naked enthusiasts have gathered together.

"You should have more places. But that's not what Mr Gough is campaigning for."

Yes he is. You just told me that he wants more places where he can go naked. So our places are different.

"But people are entitled to have choose their own degree of acceptance of nudity and not have it inflicted upon them by inconsiderate crusaders and extremists."

Civil disobedience. You disagree with it, I agree with it.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
People have a right to go to certain places (i.e. public places) without being offended by a selfish minority. Unfortunately there are some here who don't share our view on this. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is another person on this bulletin board who gives the appearance of supporting your views. This person has frequently made posts displaying disgust with homosexuals, fat people, the handicapped and the unattractive.

I know that you (Stu) do not share those views, they are not your prejudices. But do you really think that because this person expresses offense at the sight of those people that there is some sort of right to not have them 'inflicted' on the public? Would it be OK if that disgust were the general public opinion?

Or could it be that there are some things that the public in a free society must accept.

The bone of contention is where to draw the line. We don't have to make it all or nothing: Require Burkhas or allow public sex. The 'public' nudists among us want the line to be on the side of allowing ordinary non-sexual nudity, the prudes don't. The point of activism is to sway public and official opinion and move the line.

-Mark

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No. But I am saying that sex is more of a breach of etiquette than simply being naked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is entirely possible that areas of beaches may evolve where sexual activity is the norm, or at least not a rare exception. I think there is one remote section of Cap d'age where that is the case. There are also small sections of "gay" beach in San Francisco where sexual activity regularly takes place without legal intervention. May well be others I don't know about.

Obviosuly these are areas where sexual activity is not a breach of etiquette.

What defines a "breach of etiquette" is entirely up to who you are with at the time and the mood the are in.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Or could it be that there are some things that the public in a free society must accept. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>BINGO!

An adult enjoying the many advantages of a free society also has to shrug off occaisional rude and crude behavior. Any society sufficiently restrictive to eliminate crude behavior is also neccessarily too restrictive to offer the benefits of a free society.

People such as Rocket and Stu do not see individuals as powerful, competent and capable of handling the viscitudes of daily living. To them, individuals are weak and childish, properly subservient to peer pressure and in need of the strong guiding hand of a paternalistic government to kiss every scratch and send them to bed on time.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Or could it be that there are some things that the public in a free society must accept. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>BINGO!

An adult enjoying the many advantages of a free society also has to shrug off occaisional rude and crude behavior. Any society sufficiently restrictive to eliminate crude behavior is also neccessarily too restrictive to offer the benefits of a free society.

People such as Rocket and Stu do not see individuals as powerful, competent and capable of handling the viscitudes of daily living. To them, individuals are weak and childish, properly subservient to peer pressure and in need of the strong guiding hand of a paternalistic government to kiss every scratch and send them to bed on time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DOUBLE BINGO!

Wish I had said that .. Gary

Bob

"How is that a double standard?"

The double standard is saying on the one hand nobody has the right not to be offended but on the other hand people shouldn't be exposed to offence by public sex. In other words you are saying that because you don't think YOUR behaviour isn't offensive we should tolerate it, but because YOU think that public sex IS offensive it should be prohibited.

"A lie is a lie. A myth, a myth. Society should be one where untruths should not be used in decision-making."

I agree. And I don't think legislators conflate sex with nudity - but they still ban nudity.

"Tough luck for those who want to have sex at the beach in full view of everyone else. We can have our own limitations as well. Your limitation is not to see naked people, ours is not to see people having sex."

Precisely. So how do we decide where we draw the line? The only fair way is to use as our criteria what behaviour (including state of dress) the majority find acceptable.

"Where is the proof that a society that makes its citizenry wear clothes all the time is better than one where clothing is optional? Children who see nudity on a regular basis know what top expect when they go through puberty. They do not have to deal with sexploration that their textile peers go through where they try to see each other naked. Nudity is second nature to them."

No, Bob, I meant independent scientific evidence. Not naturist propagander.

"And that is still true. But should one's offense be the reason for law?"

Of course. That's why using obscene language and drunkenness and many other forms of antisocial behaviour are illegal - including public sex!

"And how do we, in this case, decide how much is offense at seeing a lawbreaker in action?"

We can't measure the degree of offence, so we have a blanket law - don't expose your private parts in public or you'll get fined or go to jail. Simple.

"They cannot seem to tolerate seeing nudity outside of the contexts they are used to. But they can handle it if they had to."

In public places people shouldn't HAVE to put up with anything that is objectionable. We are talking here about PUBLIC places - not your living room, or a private beach. The authorities are entitled, no, duty bound, to institute and enforce whatever rules are necessary to make public places as user-friendly as possible. No litter,no drunkenness, no sex, no nudity.

"People are strong enough to be able to see nudity and let it pass. Some just choose to raise a stink over it."

Some people aren't "strong" enough. Besides, you could argue the same for any kind of disorderly conduct - people put up with just about anything if they have no choice. But, with regard to public places that the public pay for, the public should have a say in how these places are regulated.

"People congregate with like-minded people and tend to avoid those who disagree with them. If the laws were relaxed, nudists and others who enjoy the air over their whole body would congregate to places where others of them would go as well. Soon there would be more places to go where those naked enthusiasts have gathered together."

It wouldn't happen, Bob. Naturists could do that now if they wanted. They know there are local and national societies, clubs, internet sites and so on where they can find naturist venues. Generally speaking, non-naturists have no interest in going nude anywhere, so we're talking about, and only about, regular or occasional naturists.

"Yes he is. You just told me that he wants more places where he can go naked. So our places are different."

Bob, why are you saying this? You know perfectly well tha Mr Gough has absolutely no interest whatsoever in there being more places for naturists. None! He doesn't just want there to be MORE places where he can be naked. He wants nothing less than the guaranteed right to be naked wherever and whenever he wants. That is very different from what you are advocating and you must know that. It is also totally unacceptable to the vast majority of the people of my country.

naturistmark1

"Would it be OK if that disgust were the general public opinion?"

Mark, I have said many times that people are how they are. They don't ask to be that way. I am unable to conceive of any support from the vast majority of the general public for discriminating against people who are fat, disfigured or just ugly. So trust public sense and sensibility. Nudity, however, is a choice. Nudists can choose to put on a small garment thus instantaneously ensuring that they are not causing offence.

"Or could it be that there are some things that the public in a free society must accept."

I don't accept that premise where it comes to what freely chosen behaviour is and is not permitted in public. The public know they have to put up with foul language being shouted by a sufferer of Tourette's Syndrome - but there's no way they have to tolerate it from a drunken lout.

"The bone of contention is where to draw the line. We don't have to make it all or nothing: Require Burkhas or allow public sex. The 'public' nudists among us want the line to be on the side of allowing ordinary non-sexual nudity, the prudes don't."

Do you think that anyone who objects to publc nudity is a "prude"? If you do then that's fine. I'm a prude and proud of it. But you are right - we do have to draw the line somewhere. So how do we decide where that somewhere is? What criteria do we apply in arriving at that decision? The answer has to be what the majority of the public regard as acceptable. For most people, public nudity isn't.

"The point of activism is to sway public and official opinion and move the line."

That can be said for any cause - just or unjust. The bottom line is can you justify civil disobedience because either the government has no mandate from the people, or the issue is one of extreme gravity that you have no choice? The answer to both questions has to be "no" in our societies.

aunaturelone

"What defines a "breach of etiquette" is entirely up to who you are with at the time and the mood the are in."

And, most important, the place and time.

"People such as Rocket and Stu do not see individuals as powerful, competent and capable of handling the viscitudes of daily living. To them, individuals are weak and childish, properly subservient to peer pressure and in need of the strong guiding hand of a paternalistic government to kiss every scratch and send them to bed on time."

No. People are intelligent and informed and capable of making a decision as to what is and is not acceptable in public places. In legislating to criminalise public nudity, the authorities are merely reflecting prevailing public attitudes. The people WANT there to be legal controls on nudity! That's why they'll call the police if you walk naked down your street tomorrow morning - try it and see!

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
The double standard is saying on the one hand nobody has the right not to be offended but on the other hand people shouldn't be exposed to offence by public sex. In other words you are saying that because you don't think YOUR behaviour isn't offensive we should tolerate it, but because YOU think that public sex IS offensive it should be prohibited. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Certainly people need to accept behavior, appearance or other aspects of life they may find offensive. Rocket has proven that simple offense isn't a valid reason to prohibit something, else the handicapped would all have to be kept out of sight (just like back in the 'good olde days'). Most people have the option of looking away.

Allowing public sex is not a matter of simple offense (or offence), it is a matter of what we consider to be indecent in a public context. Obviously Stu considers simple non-sexual nudity to be indecent. Most nudists do not. But many nudists DO consider public sex indecent. Many would not be 'offended' by people having sex publicly, but still find it inappropriate.

'Offense' is a dead horse. Too many offensive things must be tolerated in a free society. The real question is what you consider indecent, and what (if any) public policy there should be concerning indecency.

-Mark

I saw a man at Turtle Lake resort who had huge golfball-size clumps of skin all over his entire body. He sat there totally nude. I wasn't offended by his appearance, but I was rather intrigued and curious. I had never before seen anything like it. I wanted to ask him about them and if they couldn't be surgically removed. However, I didn't want to offend HIM by mentioning it. It was difficult not to stare, but I did my best to resist the temptation.

Mark,

To me and, I suspect, the vast majority of other people, a person's appearance can cause shock or repulsion but, out of a feeling of basic human charity, we learn to put up with that appearance and accustomise ourselves to it. But that is where the person has no choice about their appearance - perhaps because they are deformed etc. In my experience most people who have a deformity that can be concealed, do so: this is for the benefit of others who have to see them as well as to preserve their own dignity. The classic example of that is where someone has a massive and grotesque operation scar. Of course it certainly isn't always possible to hide disfigurement any more than one can hide severe obesity or some form of severe ugliness! These days we tend to take people as they are because they can not help how they look.

But that is vastly different from people CHOOSING to be nude in circumstances where they know it will cause offence.

"Certainly people need to accept behavior, appearance or other aspects of life they may find offensive."

Appearance that cannot be helped, yes. Behaviour that can be helped, no, because it isn't necessary. The (inappropriately) nude person is putting their own preferences ahead of the feelings of those around them.

"Most people have the option of looking away."

The "looking away" option isn't really valid, as I attempted to show with the issue of public sex. If I come to your home and you choose to be nude and I don't like it then I have two choices - I can leave or I can look away. If I choose to stay and I suffer shock or offence then that's my own fault. But public places are entirely different. They belong to all of us - they are a shared environment. What is permitted in public environments is behaviour that is acceptable to the vast majority of users.

"Allowing public sex is not a matter of simple offense (or offence), it is a matter of what we consider to be indecent in a public context."

But as I said, indecency isn't a fixed concept - it's subjective. As you rightly say, I, and many others, consider nudity to be indecent when out of context and that gives rise to the offence that we suffer.

So, Mark, what's the solution?

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

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

But as I said, indecency isn't a fixed concept - it's subjective. As you rightly say, I, and many others, consider nudity to be indecent when out of context and that gives rise to the offence that we suffer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So, Mark, what's the solution? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think there is any 'solution' that will please everyone. Welcome to life. But I do think it is perfectly legitimate to strive for change, even to the point of civil disobedience.

The strategy is to move people to change their minds about what they consider indecent. Note that I'm not arguing that people need to agree on what they like or don't like.

Steve Gough has shown that his nudity hasn't harmed anyone else. Even though he himself has been harmed due to criminal hooliganism and he has been deprived of his freedom due to official reaction (or over-reaction). There has been little public 'offence' to his nudity, but abundant curiousity. The official outrage against him has little to do with outraging public morals, rather they are much more to do with outraging public officials by not doing as he is told.

Steve Gough's trek has generated very little public outrage (or none), at worse he is a seen as a goofball and loon, not a danger nor offensive. He has been little more than comic relief to the vast multitudes during a long hot summer.

The British public will be looking at what Steve Gough has done, and compare that to how he has been treated. THAT will have a profound effect on what they consider indecent.

-Mark

[Gary Naturist]

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

To me and, I suspect, the vast majority of other people, a person's appearance can cause shock or repulsion but, out of a feeling of basic human charity, we learn to put up with that appearance and accustomise ourselves to it. But that is where the person has no choice about their appearance - perhaps because they are deformed etc. In my experience most people who have a deformity that can be concealed, do so: this is for the benefit of others who have to see them as well as to preserve their own dignity.


Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I find your comments above to be highly objectionable. You use the words shock and replusion above with respect to a person's appearance. You have also used the word disgust in previous posts with respect to viewing nudity.

I view your words as being no less than obscene.

No one should have to conceal any part of their body to benefit others or to preserve their own dignity.

No person should have to suffer the pain of being viewed with shock, replusion or disgust.

You have gone way beyond the bounds of decency. From now on I will find it extremely difficult to have any respect for anything you say.

Gary

"But I do think it is perfectly legitimate to strive for change, even to the point of civil disobedience."

As I have said many times, it is legitimate to strive for change, but civil disobedience is only defensible in democracies in the most extreme circumstances. The right of recreational nudists to practice their passtime in public places hardly justifies lawbreaking.

"The strategy is to move people to change their minds about what they consider indecent. Note that I'm not arguing that people need to agree on what they like or don't like."

Breaking the law and getting arrested usually alienates the public from the protestors. This is especially true where the activities that the protestors want to engage in are perceived as offensive or antisocial.

"Steve Gough has shown that his nudity hasn't harmed anyone else...There has been little public 'offence' to his nudity, but abundant curiousity. The official outrage against him has little to do with outraging public morals, rather they are much more to do with outraging public officials by not doing as he is told."

If you asked the public whether they supported the actions of Mr Gough in walking about nude, or the Sheriff for imprisoning him, I would gladly wager that a large majority of the UK population would choose the latter! But you are right when you say that the main reason he is in prison is because he will not do as he is told. There comes a time when the rule of law has to be tested - the showdown has to happen - and the law must win and be seen to win. Without that anarchy reigns supreme. Mr Gough could have simply gone home, or finished his walk wearing just a pair of shorts, but he chose to defy the law instead.

"Steve Gough's trek has generated very little public outrage (or none), at worse he is a seen as a goofball and loon, not a danger nor offensive. He has been little more than comic relief to the vast multitudes during a long hot summer."

Firstly, it is surprising how few people have heard of him. Our news has had more serious stories to tell us and another loon isn't front page news in summer. Nevertheless he has caused offence and a number of people have called the police for various reasons. The sad thing is that many of those who have heard about him have used two words to describe him - 1. nudist and 2. idiot (or similar). When those terms are used in the same breath, damage is caused to the wider public perception of naturists.

"The British public will be looking at what Steve Gough has done, and compare that to how he has been treated. THAT will have a profound effect on what they consider indecent."

I have not heard a single person express any sympathy for Mr Gough's present plight. Not personally, nor in the media. He is regarded as a sad, obsessive eccentric. Nobody that I have encountered has questioned their own attitudes towards nudity and I very much doubt that naturism in the UK has recruited a single new member as a result of his behaviour. In fact, it's probably put a few people off a movement that he has tainted with the adverse labels his behaviour has attracted.

Gary

"I find your comments above to be highly objectionable. You use the words shock and replusion above with respect to a person's appearance. You have also used the word disgust in previous posts with respect to viewing nudity."

That's how I feel and it's how others feel. I'm sorry if you can't handle that fact.

"No one should have to conceal any part of their body to benefit others or to preserve their own dignity."

No-one should be so inconsiderate as to expose the intimate parts of their body in such a way as to cause others to experience shock and repulsion when using public places.

"No person should have to suffer the pain of being viewed with shock, replusion or disgust."

No-one should have to put up with the shock and repulsion brought about by indiscriminate and obtrusive nudity when using public places.

"From now on I will find it extremely difficult to have any respect for anything you say."

OK.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
As I have said many times, it is legitimate to strive for change, but civil disobedience is only defensible in democracies in the most extreme circumstances. The right of recreational nudists to practice their passtime in public places hardly justifies lawbreaking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's merely your opinion based, no doubt, on your own prejudices against nudity! Given that you yourself have said that Steve's Goughs "crimes" are minor then surely his breaking the law to make a point is entirely defensible (morally that is) because frankly he's not doing anyone any real harm.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Breaking the law and getting arrested usually alienates the public from the protestors. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's self evident that people who use radical methods to attempt to sway public opinion will face opposition. If they didn't then they would be radical. But just because people face opposition it doesn't mean they should give up - I'm sure you wouldn't. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Firstly, it is surprising how few people have heard of him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I seem to recall you reporting that 10% of your law students had heard of him. I don't know how representative they are of the population at large, but there's people out there committing really serious crimes who wouldn't rate anything near 10% recognition.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The sad thing is that many of those who have heard about him have used two words to describe him - 1. nudist and 2. idiot (or similar). When those terms are used in the same breath, damage is caused to the wider public perception of naturists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps you could point to any real evidence that the public's opinion of naturism has been damaged by Steve Gough. Sure there's some naturists who think so but they too have no evidence of damage. In fact in all the press reports I've read I don't even recall any reference to naturism let alone any damage to it (although I'm happy to be corrected on that if you know otherwise).

Rik

[Sundance36]

Hey my wife and I did It in a forest where we were sure no one would be. or get caught.I think It added ti the intenity of the moment. the fresh air over our bodies like being nude the first time. But we would never do it at the beach. that is why they tend to close nude beaches. the beach I go to the people having sex would be ran off. we don't want to lose our beach. the county seems to have acceped the beach as long as it is clean. and no lewed activities happen. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Dan and Janette]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Yes but should there be a LAW against it? Some people might want to share their most intimate joys with the rest of the world. Should that be illegal? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At first I thought that was a wacky idea, intended to defame legitimate naturism by linking it with lewd conduct and public sex. But Stu makes such a good argument in favor of it that maybe it should be legal. Of course it will have to properly regulated... kept in designated public fornication zones. Fornicators must produce a valid marriage license and health certificates. Viewers would be enrolled in a national voyeur register which will be screened to keep out perverts and the easily upset. Good idea Stu! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're kidding, right? Designated public fornication zones. Government regulated, of course. Marriage licenses required? The singles will file suit with the ACLU. Ditto for STD sufferers. Voyeurs too, since they have a "right" to partake in their particular sexual proclivity. All of the above will find a sleazebag lawyer who can convince a burned out judge it's constitutionally protected. Say, kiddies can skip the sex ed classes, a field trip to the closest fornication zone should do the trick. A picture's worth a thousand words, right? Advanced courses can feature the pros and cons of various positions. Doggy, anyone?
Say Mark, who'll fund this orgasmic panacea you envision? Wait.....designated zones.....health certificates....properly 'regulated'..... I got it!!
THE TAXPAYER!!!!!
Thanks for the laugh, Mark.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan and Janette:
Say Mark, who'll fund this orgasmic panacea you envision? Wait.....designated zones.....health certificates....properly 'regulated'..... I got it!!
THE TAXPAYER!!!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not taxes - User Fees!

-Mark

[Bob S.]

"Not taxes - User Fees!"

Let's not forget the attendance price. All voyeuristic audiences must pay a 5pound spectator cost, up to 50pounds for really good seats. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bob S.

[Fresh Air]

Why not just pay to participate...then we can call it prostitution. Oh, wait...that's illegal. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fresh Air

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fresh Air:
then we can call it prostitution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not when you pay the government!

Unless you are suggesting.....

[Sundance36]

I have a question nopthing aginst stu. but has anyone seen sat niught live. the skit with pat in it. I befuttled about stu. where he stands on stuff. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[johny]

RE: (Stu)
""There is no such thing as illegal laws - it would be a contradiction in terms""

Question - what the hell is doing such institution as European Court if not cancell the illegal laws issued by (some) memberstates and penalizing those memberstates for issuing laws what are contradicting their own constitutions and/or Human Rights principles/International agreements. I have surely heard this court is filled with abundance of cases to work next many years, and great part of claims are proven be true. So really everywhere ARE many illegal laws (for example one law in my state what demands writtenly confirm what religion the citizen belong, other way he/she cannot be legally married - have You heard ever something more stupid and contradicting to Human Rights principles about freedom of beliefs?)

From lawer viewpoint legality and illegality are terms which witches out from the legal SYSTEM pyramide. And those system elements are basic law - Constitution in the very top, UNDER it stays the International Agreements; UNDER it a National Laws; UNDER stays plenty of Minister Cabinet Regulas, and only then comes a queue for Community regulas, officer written and oral orders etc.

So, if one somehow contradicts to another - thats simple thing - You analyse it in the 5 known ways and allways such collision have a solution - wins highest level (exclusions if collision of Law happens in one level Acts then wins a most specialized or if one level specialism, wins newest).

So, I am accenting - basic principle said allways wins a highest level Acts. So what if MK Regula says everyone have no freedom to be nake in own bedroom/bed/bathroom or at own land/yard/lake but the Constitution said private flat are untauchable, private property hence have uncrossable etc? Only I can quess (if such) those MK regula IS heavely illegal and if those land will not erase itself, it someone must sue in International Court and those Government shall pay the big money as penalty and shall loose a legal battle with dirty mouth. I have seen such many times, yet in little bit another branches.

[Gary Naturist]

Someone earlier posed the question: where do you draw the line between burkhas and public sex? This is mixing appleas and oranges: wearing a burkha relates to appearance, and public sex relates to actions.

So, a better question is: Where do you draw the line between wearing a burkha at one extreme and being nude at the other? This is a basic human rights issue. There should be no line. Wearing a burkha and being nude should both be legal, as well as every state of dress in between.

The other question is: Where do you draw the line between doing public pushups and public sex? This is a social etiquette issue.

Gary

[OZJames]

This topic of lovemaking in the open air has certainly stirred up some emotion ? lovemaking is an emotional activity.

# Do we want to do it ? I think the answer from everybody would be yes. We have made love in a few places on our TOTALLY PRIVATE farm, once on the top of a 5,000 gallon plastic water tank out in a paddock ? so much fun !
# Do we want to do it in public ? most people would say NO. I think it is a natural instinct to want to make love only IN PRIVATE. The desire for privacy is even common in the animal world. We have bulls that only mate with cows at night or in bushy areas out of sight.
# Do we want to offend anybody ? No we don?t. Public sex will offend ? the line is therefore drawn here. I think that only bad mannered, inconsiderate people purposely do things that offend others. There may be minor things we do that are or may be offensive (such as poking your tongue out at somebody) but even those actions are not done by considerate polite people. Nudists may go so far as being nude on a beach that has not yet been declared a legal nude beach. Should somebody arrive at the beach and be offended it is only a small problem.
# Do we want nudity to be accepted more widely ? yes. To try and achieve that, we have publicity in newspapers, magazines, TV and radio, we have Steve Gough, we have many nudist clubs and beaches, bare to breakers runs etc etc, all good fun things to do to make nudity more widely acceptable.

Regardless of whether public lovemaking is a good or bad thing to do, I think it is fine to have a spirited debate on a ?clothesfree? chat group BUT I think it would be counter productive to the cause of nudism to allow the debate to get out into the public forum.

JAMES