I'll cross that road when I come to it [Archive]

Gary Naturist

01-03-2003, 03:04 AM

I'm pleased with myself, so I would like to share my experience with everyone.

I live on a residential street of 50-foot lots, with houses on both sides. During 2002, I extended nudity on my property to my front yard, but only pre-dawn. Taking out the garbage, setting out the sprinkler, and even a couple of times going out on the porch to accept the morning paper from the delivery person.

I have been "caught" by neighbors a couple of times -- in one case, the guy gave me a wolf whistle; in the other, he said "nice body". (Why can't I get reactions like this from women?)

Our neighbors across the street were away for the holidays, and asked us to retrieve their morning paper. A couple of days ago when it was fairly warm and with no snow on the ground, I opened our front door (nude, of course) to pick up our own paper and thought "Why not theirs as well?".

I looked up and down the street and saw no signs of life. I also saw that, with trees and bushes denuded of leaves, I would be completely exposed to about eight houses on both sides of the street.

However, at this time of day, I feel quite comfortable being nude outdoors, for several reasons. I know that almost everyone is asleep. Also, I feel that people will be more accepting of nudity when it's dark out, and when it's only them and me -- they'll understand that I am not expecting to be seen nude.

Alternatively, because they know that some people sleep nude and may not immediately get dressed after getting up, they'll understand that someone might venture outside nude to do a minor chore like putting the garbage out.

Finally, some might guess that I am a nudist and not be surprised to see me doing something outside while nude at that time of day.

Having said all of this, I expect that if anyone were to see me walk nude onto the neighbor's property, they would have difficulty to rationalize my doing so for any reason.

I exited our house and walked across the lawn. I walked at a normal pace, determined not to turn the excursion into a streak. As I approached the street I felt very exposed because of the lack of foliage and the illumination of the streetlight positioned directly across from our house.

Crossing the street, I realized that I could be seen from quite a long distance away by anyone on our street, or passing by on a cross street. Nevertheless, I felt very comfortable in my nakedness.

I walked across the neighbor's lawn, up onto their porch and picked up the paper. Turning around, I saw that I had a very good view up of the houses on our side of the street (and vice versa).

On the return trip, I thought to myself: this feels natural -- this feels right. I arrived back on our porch and turned the doorknob. To my relief, I had not locked myself out. Mission accomplished.

Why did I do this? Why risk embarrassment if someone were to see me? Very simply, I wanted to expand the size of my nude world and to have a new nude experience. Do you relate to this?

Gary

Gary Naturist

01-03-2003, 03:04 AM

Rik

01-03-2003, 03:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
Why did I do this? Why risk embarrassment if someone were to see me? .... Do you relate to this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. Given the other thread you started on public nudity it's interesting that you say "why risk embarrassment?" rather than "why risk offending someone?". It's my view that most nudists feel the same way and it's the embarrassment factor which keeps them covered up rather than any real consideration for the sensitivities of others.

Rik

RalphVa

01-03-2003, 04:13 AM

I can relate.

I used to get the paper nude in La (still do here; had to wear a ski parka this morning though). A couple times, the paper delivery person caught me. I'd just go on the other side of one of the big trees out front.

Other times, I'd sneak out front to do something quick during the day. Got caught once or twice doing that, too.

One morning, about 2:30-3ish (couldn't sleep) I decided to stroll down our street, which is really a one-way-in long cul-de-sac (near 1 mile), I went over about 3 houses and saw some people playing a card or domino game on their screened porch that stuck out to the right of the house. That spooked me. I walked back home and didn't ever do my walk down the street again.

Ralph

steevo

01-03-2003, 06:10 AM

A SALUTE to you Brave souls. It's something I've always wanted to be able to do, but have been afraid of what might happen.
The more I read of events like this here, the closer I feel that somday it may come truefor me. So PLEASE keep shareing your experiences. I LOVE IT!
My dream is to some day, to sit on my front porch and wave to the passer-bys. Keep dreaming I always say.
Steevo here /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gary Naturist

01-03-2003, 06:26 AM

Rik, you said: "Yes. Given the other thread you started on public nudity it's interesting that you say "why risk embarrassment?" rather than "why risk offending someone?". It's my view that most nudists feel the same way and it's the embarrassment factor which keeps them covered up rather than any real consideration for the sensitivities of others."

I know all my close neighbors, and none of them would be offended by seeing me nude. However, I would be hard pressed to explain to any of them why I'm nude on the neighbor's property. My reasons -- expanding my nude world, and having a new nude experience -- would only be understandable to some other nudists (and not all of them). That's why possible embarrassment was my concern.

If I know that I am not offending anyone, I would be comfortable being nude anywhere among clothed people, and would take the opportunity to do so. However, on the few occasions when my nudity has provoked a negative verbal reaction, I have been very upset -- essentially because the other person is upset.

Gary

Hokienudist

01-03-2003, 06:33 AM

I'm not sure about this whole topic.

While like all of you i wish for a world in which public nudity is legal and wait for the day to do something like you described, i'm not sure what you did was such a good idea.

I have no problem with getting the paper in the morning nude if its on your front porch, but once you leave your front porch i think you need put something on. Once you open the door and walk outside, your in public and i think alot of people would object to you being able to go about doing these types of things in the nude.

We dont want to give nudism a bad name by abusing it.

florida-david

01-03-2003, 07:44 AM

i think walking across the street to your neighbors house is not a good idea because if someone saw you, they might assume that your neighbor was ok with your lifestyle choice although your neighbor might not be. if you want to be naked on your own porch or go into your own yard to retrieve the paper, that is ok because it does not extend your beliefs onto others. it might put you into an embarrasing position but i don't think it should harm any rational individual. walking down the street, though fun, could get you into trouble. i would suggest walking in the woods or at a park (with shorts in hand). i went nude canoing on the lake behind my house last night and no one noticed since it was really dark. but two older people on their bikes were on an overpass when i went under and they did not even notice i was nude. we just said our hello's....

Gary Naturist

01-03-2003, 09:38 AM

Hokie nudist, consider this the following.

If we do not venture out nude beyond our front porches, there's no way that public nudity will become accepted beyond our front porches.

Advances in the acceptance of public nudity have been achieved only by people engaging in public nudity (e.g. beaches, hiking, parks in Europe, rollerblading in San Francisco).

Keep in mind that old saying: It's better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. ("Better" meaning "more effective").

The idea is to do something in public, then look for acceptance (forgiveness) rather than first asking permission, which is (of course) denied.

Gary

Hokienudist

01-03-2003, 09:40 AM

I dont think you should be out walking in the woods, canoeing, or whatever as long as your in a non-naturist place. Going naked in these places and people catching you gives nudism a bad name.

Keep nudism to nudist places or your property.

Gary Naturist

01-03-2003, 09:57 AM

Florida-david: You're talking to a veteran of nude outdoors excursions here.

I have mentioned this elsewhere, so I'll be brief. When on vacation in rural or undeveloped areas (e.g. east coast of the Big Island of Hawaii), I regularly go for nude walks of an hour in length along the main local road in the hour before dawn. Sometimes I take nothing with me, so find myself a half hour from home totally naked with no coverup. It's a highly sensory experience.

Last summer, I went on a 4-day kayak/camping trip along a river system and was nude almost the whole time. We met or passed by people from time to time, but no one had any problem with our nudity.

Gary

Hokienudist

01-03-2003, 10:29 AM

Gary: I'm not trying to put down your nude activities, cause i'm sure they're alot of fun.. and i'd love to do that too someday. But i dont know if thats nudism or exhibitionism... i'd almost say its exhibitionism. If that sort of thing was legal then its nudism.

01-03-2003, 10:34 AM

I think you're on VERY dangerous ground here. You don't know who might see you and under what circumstances, and you're inflicting your own values and lifestyle on others who might find it offensive. Besides, I think you should seriously ask yourselves what you expect to achieve by this. Do you thin people will see you and then think it's OK to be nude in the street? You should also perhaps reflect upon WHY you did it. Was it really to make some sort of point? Or were you really hoping that someone WOULD see you? If that was the case why do it when there is little chance that someone will. Was this some kind of thrill-seeking exercise?

Here in the UK the law extends to your own property if you are visible from any street or public place, so you could end up in court for behaving in that way. Nudists appearing in court accused of "indecent exposure", being fined and registered as sex offenders isn't going to help the public's perception of naturism!

Stu

Hokienudist

01-03-2003, 10:42 AM

I agree with Stu on this one.

Rik

01-03-2003, 12:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hokienudist:
But i dont know if thats nudism or exhibitionism... i'd almost say its exhibitionism. If that sort of thing was legal then its nudism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No it's not exhibitionism as Gary is clearly not lookng to attract attention to himself. It's not forcing his lifestyle on other people and is not representing nudism as a whole but, given that he was nude, is clearly a nudist activity. The best description is probably thrill-seeking but equally it is "pushing the envelope" a little.

But let's not start that debate again. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Hokienudist

01-03-2003, 01:43 PM

Its forcing his lifestyle on others when he walks around naked and when he comes upon people he doesnt cover up.

Just because an activity is done nude, doesnt mean its a nudist activity.

Rik

01-03-2003, 02:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hokienudist:
Its forcing his lifestyle on others when he walks around naked and when he comes upon people he doesnt cover up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gary said "I know all my close neighbors, and none of them would be offended by seeing me nude." Whether you believe that or not is up to you but based on what he has said (which is all we have to go on here) he could not be accused of forcing his lifestyle on people who don't have a problem with his lifestyle. If they did have a problem, and they told him, then his writing suggests that he would have acted differently. If they failed to tell him that they had a problem with his lifestyle or failed to call the police or failed to take whatever action people take when they get offended by nudity then, frankly, he could not be expected to know that it was a problem. No doubt some people might say that he should always assume people are offended by nudity even if he truly believes they are not. Well that's fine but remember he's talking about pushing the envelope not taking over the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Just because an activity is done nude, doesnt mean its a nudist activity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How would you define a nudist activity?

Rik

Hokienudist

01-03-2003, 03:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hokienudist:
Its forcing his lifestyle on others when he walks around naked and when he comes upon people he doesnt cover up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gary said "I know all my close neighbors, and none of them would be offended by seeing me nude." Whether you believe that or not is up to you but based on what he has said (which is all we have to go on here) he could not be accused of forcing his lifestyle on people who don't have a problem with his lifestyle. If they did have a problem, and they told him, then his writing suggests that he would have acted differently. If they failed to tell him that they had a problem with his lifestyle or failed to call the police or failed to take whatever action people take when they get offended by nudity then, frankly, he could not be expected to know that it was a problem. No doubt some people might say that he should always assume people are offended by nudity even if he truly believes they are not. Well that's fine but remember he's talking about pushing the envelope not taking over the world.

What your forgetting is that its AGAINST THE LAW

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Just because an activity is done nude, doesnt mean its a nudist activity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How would you define a nudist activity?

I have no idea, but walking nude out in public among clothed strangers is not a nudist activity.

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Angel

01-03-2003, 08:10 PM

Boy, the tone of this thread has gotten really negative!

My 2 cents (YMMV!):

I don't see any essential conflict between Gary's "embarassment" and "concern for the feelings/opinions of others". It was stated that because he mentioned "embarassment", he obviously was thinking only of himself and his own motives, without regard for anyone else. I didn't get that impression.

Gary took a chance that he would *not* offend anyone by walking over to the neighbor's house nude at that time of morning. He stated that he would have been embarassed if someone had seen and objected. Wouldn't you? I'd be embarassed if something I did upset someone I didn't know.

Have you ever accidentally or by not paying attention or by being drunk (or whatever) walked into the wrong restroom? You didn't mean to offend anyone, although your actions would obviously be offensive to most. Wouldn't you be embarassed, too? Even if you really *had* to go, and the wrong-sex restroom was the only one available ... and you went in deliberately.

Chill out. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

01-03-2003, 09:01 PM

Bob S.

01-03-2003, 10:11 PM

Marcus, I think you had an excellent point: "But i dont know if thats nudism or exhibitionism... i'd almost say its exhibitionism. If that sort of thing was legal then its nudism."

That is kind of looking at it through a non-nudist's POV. But realize that Gary was very cautious about making sure there was no one around. And he claimed that he was doing such at an early time before sunrise (can you give us an approximate time, Gary?). Also acknowledged was that his neighbors really so far had no problem with his nudity.

All of this adds up to someone who took all considerations into account and decided to go for it. His risk of being seen was very small and it turned out to be the case. Yes, what he did was illegal and had the possibility of landing him in court, but he decided that the bnefits outweighed the risks.

And stu, if you read his message, you would know why he did this, "Very simply, I wanted to expand the size of my nude world and to have a new nude experience." He did not want to get caught and made sure no one was out there. And I believe it was thrilling in the sense that he did his own thing beyond the confines of his own home. And doing so in Canada in December is enough of a thrill for me!!

Bob S.

Rik

01-04-2003, 02:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hokienudist:
What your forgetting is that its AGAINST THE LAW <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The law is a separate issue. "Law abiding" citizens break laws all the time (e.g. speeding, stealing stationery from their employers, dropping litter) but it doesn't mean their forcing their lifestyle on other people - they're just doing what people do. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>How would you define a nudist activity?

I have no idea, but walking nude out in public among clothed strangers is not a nudist activity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you have "no idea" what a nudist activity is then how can you possibly say that an activity (in this case walking) undertaken in the nude is not a nudist activity - the clue is in the words "nude" and "activity". /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

steevo

01-04-2003, 03:52 AM

Gary,
Well that didn't take too long. Yesterday I replied to your post about going to the mail box NUDE. Well I did it this morning. And it was no big deal. It was alittle damp and chilly(40%). but the cold doesn't really bother me. Any way I'm proud of myself. I even told my wife, when she got up(thinking she hit the roof) but she just laughed at me and said your so silly. Because I worry about someone seeing me in the picture window during the day.
Steevo here /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

fns

01-04-2003, 04:07 AM

Some think that going nude to the mailbox, or off the porch, etc. might work against the acceptance of simple social nudity. Yet they themselves would like nudity to be more accepted. To make it more accepted, there needs to be activism at all levels. Some will work within the political and legal system, i.e. establish, protect free beaches, on the one end of the spectrum will be nudists who promote via word of mouth, and on the other end of the spectrum will be those who do break laws, and show up in court nude. The extreme cases are few, but get the most media attention. But all these activities are necessary to further the cause. Maybe in 200 years, the USA will be more like some places in Europe that are more accepting.

steevo

01-04-2003, 04:29 AM

HEREA, HEREA, as they say in good old jolly England. May we all be allowed to do our own thing!!
Steevo Here /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Gary Naturist

01-04-2003, 04:29 AM

Very insightful comments by Rik, Bob S. and Angel. Thank you.

To Hokienudist: From your comments, you are advocating a cautious approach to practising nudism, and that's OK. But it's not my approach -- I'm an activist.

To fns: Excellent comment on the need for activism and the range of activities that contribute to the furtherance of nudism. I'm more optimistic than you about the timeline for North America -- all it would take is a Supreme Court decision linking nudism to freedom of expression.

To Steevo: I'm pleased that you were influenced by me. One reason why I post a lot is to communicate my activities and thoughts to nudists in the hope that others will be encouraged to expand their own practice of nudism. I have become more confident about nudism by reading about the activities and attitudes of other nudists.

Gary

Hokienudist

01-04-2003, 06:00 AM

I apologize to everyone, my comments in no way are meant to be negative. I just dont want anyone on this board to get in trouble for their activities.

I'm in no way a prude when it comes to going naked, if you knew me you'd know i'd go naked all the time if it werent for a pesky roommate.

I think the moral of the story here kids is that they need to legalize public nudity so we can dont have to talk about things like these anymore /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But lets not get into that cause i think its a whole seperate thread. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fns

01-04-2003, 06:36 AM

Gary, thanks for the comment. The Supreme Court ruling would help, let's hope it isn't far off. Acceptance by others will take much longer. But to have legal protection would be great. I'm not really an activist, although I'm kinda leaning that way. I have gotten a ticket, at a beach not officially designated as nude, but which does get some nude use. It was a bit of a shock at the time, but I've gotten over it. I get brave now and then, but generally, I'm trying to avoid the long arm of the law.

01-04-2003, 06:39 AM

Just for my benefit - what is this Supreme Court ruling?

Stu

01-04-2003, 06:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hokienudist:
I apologize to everyone, my comments in no way are meant to be negative. I just dont want anyone on this board to get in trouble for their activities.

I'm in no way a prude when it comes to going naked, if you knew me you'd know i'd go naked all the time if it werent for a pesky roommate.

I think the moral of the story here kids is that they need to legalize public nudity so we can dont have to talk about things like these anymore /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But lets not get into that cause i think its a whole seperate thread. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You see Hokey, if we push the small details we educate people and nudity becomes more mainstream. Small things like magazines that once refused nudist ads and who now are changing their minds can become the small steps leading to more acceptance. Gary is educating his neighbors through the small details. Yup, it is illegal to get the mail/paper nude but so is using most of our nudist beaches. Casually mentioning your adventures with nudism to non-nudist friends is another way. Don't ever push it on them but do bring it up now and then. Having your neighbors get comfortable with you being a nudist gives them a firsthand look at what kind of people we are. They see you are otherwise just like the other neighbors and it gives them good impressions on what we do.

Little steps.... they lead to big changes eventually.

01-04-2003, 06:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fns:
Gary, thanks for the comment. The Supreme Court ruling would help, let's hope it isn't far off. Acceptance by others will take much longer. But to have legal protection would be great. I'm not really an activist, although I'm kinda leaning that way. I have gotten a ticket, at a beach not officially designated as nude, but which does get some nude use. It was a bit of a shock at the time, but I've gotten over it. I get brave now and then, but generally, I'm trying to avoid the long arm of the law. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please tell me you fought that ticket and didn't just pay the fine. By paying it you are agreeing that what you did was wrong and of course it wasn't. I'd like to hear the story please.

Another little step....

Naked Bob 2

01-04-2003, 08:32 AM

I see nothing wrong with it and I have gotten the paper nude several times myself. I know I did not want to be seen I just didn't want to have to get dressed to get the paper and then get undressed as soon as I got back inside, makes no sense.

I think little things like this do help us in the long run. Nudity is not seen as so unusual. To hang out nude around your house now is no big deal where as it was say ten years ago. They make funny comercials about it, joke about it in TV sit coms, remember Seinfeld? All this taken as a whole conditions the public that it is not really all that weird, strange or quirky yes but not totally outrageous.

As with anything that pushes the community standards there is risk involved. As long as the person doing this has looked at that and weighed the pro's and con's of it then I say, go for it. I also think it shows some thoughtfulness on his part that he has found out that his neighbors have no problem with his nudity. I would not want to over do it so as to make them change their minds. So as long as consideration is given to them and the nudity is not over done with an in your face attitude.

01-04-2003, 11:27 AM

I'm always nude in my house, and I also see no reason to get dressed just to get the mail and then have to undress again. Of course, a pair of shorts works. With my prudish neighbors I have to be careful. The neighbor woman across the street left a message on my answering machine that she couldn't believe I cut my grass on Sunday. Can you image how she would react to seeing me outdoors nude? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

fns

01-04-2003, 11:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
I'm pleased with myself, so I would like to share my experience with everyone.
(Snipped)
Why did I do this? Why risk embarrassment if someone were to see me? Very simply, I wanted to expand the size of my nude world and to have a new nude experience. Do you relate to this?

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I relate to this Gary. This morning, had to go out and snowblow the driveway. I have no neighbors in site of me, no one across the road. But the road is traveled. I usually wear a down parka long enough to cover the essentials, but this morning, it was warm enough, I put on a short ski jacket which did not cover the essentials. As I'm just getting to the end of the driveway at the road, an SUV wizzes by, I really didn't see it coming til it was too close to do anything. At best, the driver may have seen a side shot of butt, thigh, and leg. Since the car when by so fast, I did wave, although I didn't see a wave in return, I just continued to turn around, and go on with the blowing. I can relate.

01-04-2003, 11:45 AM

I'm rather surprised at the views expressed on here and the absence of logic being shown. If all you're doing is being naked where nobody is likely to see you, then what have you achieved? Zilch! If you are naked where people who don't care anyway will see you, then what have you achieved? Zilch! If you are seen by people who do care (and I would care!) then you are at best going to upset people and at worst land yourself in court. Then what have you achieved? Notoriety and disgrace for your "cause".

Naturism should be confined to naturist places (of which there should be more). It does not belong in the wider public domain.

By all means protest at the lack of facilities for naturists. Canvas your elected representatives about this. Expand your membership. Try to get the unofficial naturist places designated. Seek all the publicity you can ger and make sure it's ALL positive.

But if you inflict your nakedness on the rest of us then you'll start to lose sympathy from the textile community and sooner or later you'll feel the backlash from it. And whatever you do, don't start a crusade to try to convince the rest of us that naked is really OK and if we don't like it then that's due to our hang-ups.

Some friendly advice from a well-meaning textile! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

By the way, what IS this Supreme Court ruling that's expected soon? Will somebody please enlighten me?

Stu

fns

01-04-2003, 11:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Please tell me you fought that ticket and didn't just pay the fine. By paying it you are agreeing that what you did was wrong and of course it wasn't. I'd like to hear the story please.

Another little step.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would love to tell you that I fought the ticket, but I didn't. According to the charge, I was guilty, can't deny it. I agree what I was doing wasn't wrong, but that doesn't make it legal. Could I have gotten out of it somehow? Perhaps, I could have contacted a lawyer, but I didn't. I wasn't there to make a statement, just to get a tan. As I said, this place has no official designation as clothing optional. Sorry I let you down.

Naked Bob 2

01-04-2003, 12:58 PM

Along the same lines as the begining post.

I am sunning in the backyard today just lucky to have it warm enough. I have a privacy fence around the small backyard and to one neighboring house which can see in the yard is empty, moved away last week.

Anyhow kids run around behind my yard and if they were to push their nose up to the fence could see through the cracks in between boards. Now I know kids are curious like that but I don't know their parents. Question is am I being a perv or are they peepers? I just think they are simply being kids. But I fear possible repercusions. I came inside to see if they clear off. What would you do?

Rik

01-04-2003, 01:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If you are seen by people who do care (and I would care!) then you are at best going to upset people and at worst land yourself in court. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh Stu, you're always so negative. At best they would be enlightened: that would be an achievement!

Rik

Rik

01-04-2003, 01:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Naked Bob 2:
Question is am I being a perv or are they peepers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure you know the answer to that but I agree it's a difficult situation for it seems to me that kids these days are always given the benefit of the doubt if there is the slightest suggestion of improper behaviour. The bottom line is you have to look after yourself so I would get those holes plugged if I were you.

Rik

steevo

01-04-2003, 03:06 PM

Gary,
It's funny that I never thought about doing this earlier. After all I did it back in 1970 after getting back from the Nam. I walked about three miles, down 6A on Cape Cod, But back then I was a less conservative. Now I have a lot more to loose.
But I wil keep trying to do all I can.
Three cheers for progress,YEA:YEA:YEA
Steevo Here

01-04-2003, 03:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I'm rather surprised at the views expressed on here and the absence of logic being shown.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course you are surprised Stu.... you really don't have a clue about us just like I said before. You cannot see why we do the things we do and you probably never will.

I understand Gary and why he's doing what he does. It won't make things worse by pushing our limits. There are people who already hate us and work against us no matter what we could tell them logically. They aren't the mainstream folks but the far right fundamentalists who spend way too much time creating obstacles for us to overcome. They would do that even if we stayed in our ghettos, it doesn't matter. The mainstream people are slowly getting used to more and more skin being shown and having less and less of a problem with it. All we need is time....

Angel

01-04-2003, 04:40 PM

stu said: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If all you're doing is being naked where nobody is likely to see you, then what have you achieved? Zilch! If you are naked where people who don't care anyway will see you, then what have you achieved? Zilch! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu:

Gary wasn't trying to be seen, or to make a political statement, or to take an activist approach to nudist publicity in the act he described. He was simply working to expand his own comfort zone, for his own peace of mind, for his own self-realization.

Not everything nudists do - even activist nudists! - is geared at promoting nudism or garnering publicity.

Gary pushed his limit. You've probably done the same thing in a lot of ways, for a lot of the same reasons, just on a different subject. You might have pushed your comfort zone limits by accepting a public speaking engagement for the first time. Or by trying out a gourmet recipe. Even by jumping off the high-diving board, or asking a girl out on a date for the first time.

Lately, I've been walking to work. A 30-minute walk. Dramatic expansion on my exercise regimen recently. Like Gary, I make sure I'm not going to inconvenience anyone else, or cause problems for anyone else - such as making sure I leave early enough to get to work on time, and making sure I get up early enough to make sure the kids are fed and happy before I go. Just like Gary did by considering the feelings of his neighbors, the likelihood they'd be up at that time of morning, and the angles from which he could be seen. He thought it through, and took a step toward his own self-realization.

Does this give you a bit of a different perspective on *why* someone might do such a thing? I hope it at least gives you a bit to think about. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gary Naturist

01-04-2003, 06:09 PM

To Stu: There is no pending Supreme Court decision. What I was saying that if a case regarding nudity as freedom of expression ever got a positive decision from the Supreme Court, it would advance the cause of nudism greatly. It would make it possible for people to appear nude in public.

Gary

Gary Naturist

01-04-2003, 06:20 PM

People have contributed some very interesting and insightful comments. Some have speculated on my motivations, so I thought that it would be useful to provide more background on my approach to nudism.

I am a nudist, so naturally want to do things while nude. More specifically, I?m a ?mobile naturist? ? connecting with nature through nudity while walking, hiking, cycling, backpacking, kayaking, canoeing. I used to think that there weren?t many places to engage in mobile naturism because there are non-nudists around, many of whom would object. Then I realized that this is not the case at 4 or 5 in the morning. I pretty much own the world at this time.

Here are my specific motivations.

1. Expand my nude world ? gradually increase the percentage of the planet that I have enjoyed while nude.

2. Have new nude experiences ? keeps nudism interesting for me.

3. Promote public nudity ? expand opportunities for, and encourage tolerance of, public nudity by engaging in activities while ?incidentally nude?. By ?incidentally?, I mean that the activity -- e.g. bringing in the paper, going for a walk -- is the main activity, and being nude is secondary. In general, people become desensitized, i.e. more accepting, of something by increased exposure to it. There is evidence that this is the case for incidental public nudity.

4. Enjoy the sensory experience of being nude in nature ? breeze / sun / warm rain / sand/ waves on skin, combined with the sights, sounds, fragrances and textures of the natural world.

Regarding #4, my senses of sight and hearing are heightened when I am vulnerable in some way ? for example, being out for a nude walk, a half-hour from home, with no coverup. It?s a fear reaction, probably involving increased adrenaline production. The resulting total sensory experience is very intense. However, I do this only rarely and then only when the likelihood of meeting someone is remote (e.g. country road at 4 am).

Note: The above items are characteristics of a hobby. If you replace ?nude/nudity? with the word ?birding?, you?ll see what I mean.

Regarding the legal situation, going for a walk nude down a public road may or may not be illegal. It?s only illegal if the person is convicted (innocent until proven guilty, remember?). Depending on the jurisdiction, simple nudity may not be cited as being subject to prosecution, or may not be convictable -- i.e. while prosecutable, the practice is not to charge, or judges are reluctant to convict or juries will not convict.

Let?s say that the law is: nude so as likely to cause offense. Am I *likely* to cause offense at 4 am in the morning when I expect no one else to be around? Especially if I cover up if someone approaches? Consider how a judge would view the situation. Also, there is evidence that prosecution is less likely if the person was engaging in some activity (e.g. jogging) that keeps that person out of close or continued contact with a particular person.

So here?s the story that I have prepared for the authorities: ?I am a naturist, which is a person who likes to be nude when outdoors to maximize his connection with nature. I select places and/or times (e.g. 4 am) for my naturist activities so as to minimize the chance of offending anyone, and I cover up if anyone approaches. My naturist activities are neither sexual nor threatening to anyone." If this doesn?t work, then I will add: ?Oh, and by the way, I wasn?t nude ? I was wearing sandals.?

We nudists should not apologize for being what we are and for doing what we do. We are simply ahead of the rest of the world in body acceptance. We should help educate and encourage people to accept the human body in its totality. We should lead by example, and work to expand the acceptance of nudity as an option in at least some of our daily activities.

Gary

Trailscout

01-04-2003, 08:55 PM

I will confess that I am not eager to venture into my very public front yard in the nude in the present social climate.

I do believe in talking favorably about skinny dipping and nude beaches when I can work it into a conversation.

I do believe in giving money to the Naturist Action Committee, Friends of Apollo Beach, etc. and other worthy causes that protect our right to be nude.

I would like to see more favorable or at least neutral articles about nudism in newspapers and magazines.

I would support billboards promoting nudist resorts.

I believe in the work of nudist Web sites such as INA's because they can reach people who would not otherwise be reached by the message of the nudist lifestyle.

I would like to support progressive groups such as INA in their efforts to apply pressure on nudist resorts and clubs to reach out to young people and singles.

I would like to raise children to be nude at home and have the whole family participate in social nudity.

I would like to eventually move to a more private setting, where nude gardening, swimming and other sports can enjoyed in the nude.

I would be willing to participate in nude canoe trips down rivers or walk with nude hiking clubs.

Bob S.

01-04-2003, 10:38 PM

"If all you're doing is being naked where nobody is likely to see you, then what have you achieved? Zilch! If you are naked where people who don't care anyway will see you, then what have you achieved? Zilch!"

stu, I am naked right now as I am typing this message to you. I am alone in my room. Who cares? No one. When I am at a nudist park, I am there to relax amongst others who share in my appreciation of being naked. Being naked is a part of our lives. The only thing about it is it is illegal in certain areas. Most of us are not trying to prove anything by being naked. We are just enjoying ourselves. Can't we do that without you jumping all over us?

"But if you inflict your nakedness on the rest of us then you'll start to lose sympathy from the textile community and sooner or later you'll feel the backlash from it."

Inflicting out nakedness on others? Thanks for making me laugh. But the scary thing is that you actually mean it like that. You make it sound as though our nakedness is going to do harm (oh, wait...) Please try to think of another word other than inflict. How about expose?

"And whatever you do, don't start a crusade to try to convince the rest of us that naked is really OK and if we don't like it then that's due to our hang-ups."

But that's the only way that we are going to get our way, if we convince others that their "hang-ups" concerning nudity are just that. We will "win" if we get others to realize that viewing a naked body is no big deal. The crusade is alive and well, if not a bit low key. We are slowly but surely gaining support. In fact, the proposed law in the UK and other laws here in the US may be proof that we are gaining ground. A kind of legal backlash to try to quell the growth of nudism.

"By the way, what IS this Supreme Court ruling that's expected soon? Will somebody please enlighten me?"

Well, in Hypothetical City, a man fought his indecent exposure accusation saying that he had the right to be naked as it was guarenteed in the Constitution as freedom of expression.

He lost, but appealed to the Appelate courts, who also ruled against him. It was then taken to the Supreme Court of the State of Confusion. They ruled that he, indeed, had a valid argument, but refused to overturn the conviction. This incensed him, and he and his lawyer petitioned a Federal Appelate Court for his district. They, too, were not about to overturn the verdict, despite acknowledging that his argument was valid.

Meanwhile, Jon Smith's life was turned into a media circus, especially as he was forced to stay inside his house to be naked since cameramen were camped out at his house. He had already given interviews up the a** including the infamous interview with Barbara Walters, where both were naked. And ABC took a lot of flack when it decided to show Barbara's breasts undigitized. But the boycotting of anything Disney failed miserably as they control the universe.

He also took a news crew to a nudist beach so that they could see just what goes on there. Jon stripped off his clothes and joined in the others who were there, many of whom were there mainly because of the media. Some were clothed, some were not. The news crew interviewed many people while there and even the reporter decided to get in on the act and doffed his clothes and did a live segment sans any covering.

The case had gotten the attention of the national and international media and was even the topic of many a late night comedian's monologues. It seemed, in fact, to be the main topic of all major news media shows with discussions taking place every week.

Religious leaders, politicians, activists, and regular Joes were debating the issue on news shows. Interest in the nudist lifestyle is increased exponentially, as the major nudist organizations reported that they had been getting more requests for information in the past months since the case hit the State Supreme Court than they had in the previous ten years combined. The AANR and TNS, at last report, had over one million new subscribers combined, although actual numbers could not be verified as many people could have joined both.

More and more people came out that they were nudists and they were not looked upon as weird, but rather just as if they had announced that they were becoming vegetarian. Even more shocking was that 89 members of the House of Representatives and 18 members of the Senate came out that they were nudists. Suddenly, being a nudist was not something to be ashamed or embarrassed about. Instead, it was something to be proud of.

Finally, the day came that Joe and his lawyer argued theri case in front of the Supreme Court. And as usual, they are not expected to make a ruling until May or June.

That case, stu.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bob S.

Karoline

01-05-2003, 01:52 AM

I have been reading this and I now want my say. I have been a naturist for more than twenty years but if I saw somebody in the street with nothing on I would be pretty annoyed and upset. If my teenage daughters who have grown up in a naturist household came across a nude guy unexpectedly in a quiet street they would be pretty shocked and I would be livid. That sort of thing gives us all a bad name. There are right places and wrong places to go buff and a road or street or somebody elses garden is the wrong place. Thats what I think. Thank you.

Rik

01-05-2003, 03:40 AM

Hi Karoline and welcome,

What would be the nature of your annoyance? Would you, for example, assume there was some threatening sexual element involved or would your annoyance be confined to the fact that nudity in inappropriate places simply gives naturism a bad name? Would your response be different if it was a woman? Would your reponse be different if it was a busy place rather than a quiet street?

Rik

fns

01-05-2003, 04:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Karoline:
... There are right places and wrong places to go buff and a road or street or somebody elses garden is the wrong place. Thats what I think. Thank you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If the naked person were in their own yard, would that be ok? I believe it should be ok, legal, for a person to be naked on their own property, indoors, or outdoors. If they are gardening, mowing the lawn, sunbathing, whatever, where is the harm in that? Just because someone else is offended is hardly a basis for being illegal. I'm offended all the time by many people, but I don't want to see their particular "thing" made illegal, well most of the time anyway. I think having that right, on your own property, would be a great start. Being on someone elses property, clothed or not, without permission is trespassing, plain and simple.

Gary Naturist

01-05-2003, 05:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Karoline:
[QB] If my teenage daughters who have grown up in a naturist household came across a nude guy unexpectedly in a quiet street they would be pretty shocked and I would be livid. That sort of thing gives us all a bad name. There are right places and wrong places to go buff and a road or street or somebody elses garden is the wrong place.[QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Karoline: your first post -- welcome, and thanks for your comments.

I presume that your daughters would be shocked because they aren't used to seeing a nude person in the street. However, if we nudists are to expand our nudist world, someone has to be the first to try out new things. People may be shocked the first time. But not so much the second time, and less the third, ...

As an aside, my neighbor told me that her teenage daughters used to see me sunbathing nude in my back yard and thought that it was "cute".

I'd like to emphasize one point here. It is my view that people who are nude in public should be engaged in some legitimate activity that is not sexual, threatening or intruding on anyone's personal space, and that the nudity should be incidental. (Example: I'm retrieving the neighbor's paper and, oh by the way, I didn't bother putting on any clothes to do so.)

It is your opinion that such activity gives nudists a bad name. It's my opinion it does a little bit to extend the scope of nudist activity.

You believe that there are right and wrong places to be nude, and so do I. The difference is that my range of "right" places is larger than yours.

Who speaks for nudists -- you or me? Well, neither of us has the mandate. However, it is nudist activists like me who are more likely to expand the scope of tolerated/accepted public nudity. I'll admit that activists are more likely to offend some people and may even be the cause of some setbacks. However, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Gary

Trailscout

01-05-2003, 05:43 AM

Bob,

I don't get to watch the news much nor do I read the newspaper on a regular basis. Can you provide me any links on the Internet to this case? (the one regarding public nudity)

I am assuming that you aren't making this up merely to illustrate a point.

Hokienudist

01-05-2003, 05:52 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Bob,

I don't get to watch the news much nor do I read the newspaper on a regular basis. Can you provide me any links on the Internet to this case? (the one regarding public nudity)

I am assuming that you aren't making this up merely to illustrate a point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think what he was talking about was a hypothetical situation in a case like we are talking about. At least i THINK he was?

You got quiet an imagination Bob, must be from all the Harry Potter stuff, /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif LOL

nudist_in_Tn

01-05-2003, 08:22 AM

OK now here is my 2 cents worth, here in Tennessee in my town the woman who drives the garbage truck (yes I said woman) signed a warrant on me for indecent exposure for merely closing my front door to quieten my barking dog while I was nude, I was arrested and had to post a bond to be released to appear at a later court date, whereupon hearing the circumstances the judge dismissed the case and repremanded the woman for signing the warrant. after the hearing out in the hall the woman said to me "Im so sorry, I don't know what I was thinking that day" /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

01-05-2003, 10:07 AM

Bob, an alternative outcome to your scenario, as it would be more likely to occur over here.

Gary walks down his street nude at 4am. He is seen by the milk man and he reports it to the police. Gary is visited. He tells the policemen he is a naturist and he didn't mean to offend anyone. No real harm done so Gary gets a warning not to repeat this and no formal action is taken.

Gary walks down his street nude at 5am. This time a paper boy sees him and reports it to the police. The same police officer visits him and this time he formally interviews him. He is reported for summons for indecent exposure. The local press run a bit of a story on Gary, showing a picture of him from behind with his face turned towards the camera, smiling. The Crown Prosecution Service advise the police to caution him for indecent exposure, so this time he just gets a formal warning, and his fingerprints taken at the local police station.

Gary walks down his street nude at 6am, and is seen by a woman at a bus stop who reports this to the police with her mobile phone. The police arrive and catch Gary still out and about in the nude. He is arrested and taken to the police cells. He is charged with indecent exposure, given bail and released. A reporter from a national newspaper gets the story and runs a feature on him. He's a star! They report that he's a genuine nudist and they quote his views on being nude in public. A month later he is convicted by the magistrates of disorderly behaviour and fined ?200.

Gary walks down his street nude at 7am. He is seen by two schoolgirls who are shocked by his behaviour. One of them recognises him. They run home and tells the father of one of them - a big guy with a nasty temper. He goes to Gary's house and punches him. The police are called and both the big guy and gary are arrested. This time the police get statements from EVERYBODY who has seen Gary, and he gets charged with outraging public decency. The national press get a hold of the story and a rival paper decides to run a "spoiler" on Gary. They dig up some old girlfriend of his, and persuade her (with fat wad of cash) to say that he was a "perv" and was "kinky". They publish the story alleging that Gary was actually targeting the schoolgirls to expose himself to them. He appears in the Crown Court and pleads Not Guilty. On the advice of his barrister he bargains a plea on a lesser charge of indecent exposure. He is given a 3 month suspended prison sentence, his name is placed on the sex offender's register, and he is subject to an Antisocial Behaviour Order to keep away from children under 16, and not to venture outside his home unless fully clothed on pain of imprisonment. The Daily Hogwash reports: "PERVERT TOLD TO COVER UP! - Self-confessed exhibitionist Gary Bloggs was today warned by a judge that if he exposed his behind to children again, he would find himself behind bars....." It would mention his connection with naturism in the context of it being a front for his sinister activities. A reporter would tell his story about his own venture into the world of naturism, and tell how it is really full wife-swappers, voyeurs and other unsavoty characters. People would READ and BELIEVE this stuff, and the image of naturism would have been badly tarnished.

In spite of the fact that Gary said he made sure nobody saw him he says he wants to "de-sensitize" people about seeing nudity( /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif ).

Thanks, Gary, but I don't WANT to be "de-sensitized". I might want to de-sensitize you to the delicious (in my opinion) flavour of seaweed by putting the stuff into your house's drinking water, but what right have I got to do that?

If you put on a dressing gown or a pair of shorts to go onto a street or into your garden you will risk offending nobody. If you go naked into a street - a place that belongs to everybody - you are risking offending many people and you are risking anger, accusations (some of which may be false) and ultimately retribution, official or otherwise.

In my opinion what you did was wrong as well as dangerous.

Stu

fns

01-05-2003, 10:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nudist_in_Tn:
OK now here is my 2 cents worth, here in Tennessee in my town the woman who drives the garbage truck (yes I said woman) signed a warrant on me for indecent exposure for merely closing my front door to quieten my barking dog while I was nude, I was arrested and had to post a bond to be released to appear at a later court date, whereupon hearing the circumstances the judge dismissed the case and repremanded the woman for signing the warrant. after the hearing out in the hall the woman said to me "Im so sorry, I don't know what I was thinking that day" /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Great story, and glad to hear you were vindicated. Why are some people so much in a hurry to judge someone else on such innocent behaviour? At least she acknowledged her mistake. Nude is not lewd, amen.

Bob S.

01-05-2003, 06:18 PM

First, Trailscout, yes, all that was out of my imagination. Well, everything except for the Disney controlling the universe thing. That part is true. But wouldn't it be cool to see Barbara Walters do a topless interview? /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hokie, I am actually starting Book #3. "The Prisoner of Azkaban". I just hope the movie is better than the previous movie. Terrible ending. Kind of like "ET" without the final goodbye.

stu, my experience was describing a scenario that could take place in the US. You are describing the UK. Two different judicial systems. There also seems to be some lack of respect or laws regulating the press if they can pay someone for a story and make up false allegations in your scenario.

Also, in your scenario, there were only facts on the case. What about the reactions of the general population? Surely they would not all be in agreeance with your point of view. Even I admitted that there were protestors in my scenario. Come on, try to see from both points of view.

I am curious, what are the legal avenues for appealing a verdict in England? This is a legitamite question.

Bob S.

01-05-2003, 06:53 PM

I found a naked man in the street once.... almost ran him over with my car because it was nighttime out and he was laying right in the road. I stopped and put my headlights on him, got out and went closer so I could see him. He wasn't conscious and I didn't want to leave because I was afraid somebody would run him over so I kept blowing the horn till a neighbor came out and I told her to call 911. In a few minutes the ambo got there and they took him off. Never did find out what happened to him.

MaxUK

01-06-2003, 09:43 AM

Stu,

Once again you hit the nail on the head, for me at least. The scenario was a little far fetched maybe but was entirely possible, and that's the scary thing. People don't realise what harm a little 'freedom' like that could do to the naturism cause.

Max

01-06-2003, 02:04 PM

Bob,

"There also seems to be some lack of respect or laws regulating the press if they can pay someone for a story and make up false allegations in your scenario."

You wouldn't believe what our press are like. Just ask Rik or Max! I deal with journalists in my job and some of the stuff I read that I'm supposed to have said just makes me dispair. There are very few that I have any trust in. Their job is to sell papers and some would say or do just about anything. Having said that, you have only got to read some of the responses here to things other people think I said that I didn't!.

"Also, in your scenario, there were only facts on the case. What about the reactions of the general population? Surely they would not all be in agreeance with your point of view. Even I admitted that there were protestors in my scenario. Come on, try to see from both points of view."

Bob, I did try to inject some balance in the early part (take another look) but I didn't want to write an entire novel in my posting much as I am tempted (I never seem to get my stuff published these days! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) I know that the reality would be far more complex and there would be proponents as well as opponents if my scenario were reality.

"I am curious, what are the legal avenues for appealing a verdict in England? This is a legitamite question."

And an interesting question /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ! Dependant upon what was initially charged, the matter would either go to a magistrates court or the Crown Court - the latter being the higher court. If dealt with by magistrates an appeal would lie with the latter if the issue at stake was one of fact, whereas if it was a question of law (case stated) the appeal would lie with the Queens Bench Division of the High Court. Got it so far? Good! Beyond these courts would lie further appeals first to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, and ultimately to the House of Lords (not the full House, just the seven what we call Law Lords. This is our highest court in the land). Now comes the frightening part from my point of view. If an appellant decided that the issue was one of human rights, they could apply to have the case heard before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and a decision by that court would overrule all domestic courts and have ramifications for the whole of western Europe. It frightens me because some of the judges on the European Court are woolly-headed liberals who make some pretty astounding and radical judgements. It would not surprise me at all if, when presented with an appeal from a nudist, they directed that the wearing of clothing ANYWHERE is an entirely personal choice, and to require people to be covered up in public is a breach of their basic human rights. If that happens you people will have won a massive victory and I'll have lost (Oh! My God! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ). I would either have to move to a country outside Europe with strict anti-nudity laws or seek some help in overcoming my aversion to nudity - neither being something I want to do! Let's hope the ECHR never get to hear such a case!

Stu

Irishelf

01-06-2003, 02:45 PM

From the time I've been a naturist, I've been both more and less active about promoting it; when I lived in the UK, I used to discuss it at work a far amount. Everyone I knew, knew I was a naturist, and over (a fairly short amount of) time realised that this didn't make me some sort of weirdo or pervert. Over time naturism became an everyday topic of conversation, jokey but with me not at me. Talking about naturism with non-naturists & being naked with non-naturists are two hugely different things though, as the risk of causing offensive is minimal on the one hand, and in many places highly probable on the other - certainly in Ireland very few people I know know me to be a naturist (probably just my housemates), as I realise that I now work for a very conservative company and that even discussing naturism would cause offense to some people; and thus cause problems for me at work. To promote naturism in Ireland will be harder for me, in that while I won't mind being (a bit) controversial, I don't want to cause offense or embarrasment. Perhaps this will change when I know the people I work with a bit better (and know what I can get away with better), we'll soon see. Anyway though, there are (IMHO) huge parameters in how to promote naturism, but it's probably true that bad publicity sticks, good publicity is all too soon forgotten - and I'd prefer naturism to be seen positively

Rik

01-06-2003, 03:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It frightens me because some of the judges on the European Court are woolly-headed liberals ..."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why do you assume they're woolly-headed just because they're liberals?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
It would not surprise me at all if, when presented with an appeal from a nudist, they directed that the wearing of clothing ANYWHERE is an entirely personal choice, and to require people to be covered up in public is a breach of their basic human rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seems entirely reasonable to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If that happens you people will have won a massive victory.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, it would be a victory for human rights - that includes you Stu.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I would either have to move to a country outside Europe with strict anti-nudity laws or seek some help in overcoming my aversion to nudity - neither being something I want to do!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So why exactly don't you want to overcome your irrational aversion to nudity? Did you read those 205 reasons I mentioned before? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Let's hope the ECHR never get to hear such a case! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong again! Let's hope they do!!!!

Rik

bendigonudey

01-06-2003, 06:47 PM

For all you advocates of confrontational public nudity for its own sake, can I recommend

www.streaking.org (http://www.streaking.org)

Enjoy!

01-07-2003, 06:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Bob, an alternative outcome to your scenario, as it would be more likely to occur over here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or more likely how it would occur in Stu's mind. I highly doubt that your exagerrated version is close to the norm. Vincent would not be walking free if we believed you.

You are such a negative guy.

01-07-2003, 09:24 AM

"Or more likely how it would occur in Stu's mind. I highly doubt that your exagerrated version is close to the norm. Vincent would not be walking free if we believed you."

You don't live over here Cyndiann, I do. Max does too and he can see some truth in what I'm saying. I know enough about English law to know that Vincent's acquittal was to do with him being charged with the wrong offence. Just THINK about it. Why do you think he has gone quiet lately (it's getting on for 2 years since his original behaviour came to notice)? Because he has been warned by the judge (and no doubt by his own legal team) that if he continues he'll find himself in prison. He also attracted a fair amount of scorn from some papers. I have NO doubt that if he had kept up his idiotic and offensive behaviour he would have found himself the object of public scorn.

"You are such a negative guy."

I like things the way they are when it comes to public nudity - it's illegal. I want things to stay the way they are. And, with the tightening up of the law, it looks like I'm going to get my way. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Is that positive enough for you?

Stu

Rik

01-07-2003, 03:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
You don't live over here Cyndiann, I do. Max does too... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...and me!!! <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I know enough about English law to know that Vincent's acquittal was to do with him being charged with the wrong offence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is this by the same trusty police force of whom you said only a few days ago that when it comes to knowledge of the law you'd trust them more than you'd trust solicitors? Surely not! <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Why do you think he has gone quiet lately (it's getting on for 2 years since his original behaviour came to notice)? Because he has been warned by the judge (and no doubt by his own legal team) that if he continues he'll find himself in prison. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, the judge did not threaten him with prison. That would have been prejudging any future trial he may face. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>He also attracted a fair amount of scorn from some papers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please replace word "scorn" with "attention". <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I like things the way they are when it comes to public nudity - it's illegal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sigh! Repeat after me "nudity is not illegal: it is accompanying actions which are illegal"

Rik

Angel

01-07-2003, 08:25 PM

Rik says: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Sigh! Repeat after me "nudity is not illegal: it is accompanying actions which are illegal" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's true AFAIK in England .... and here in the US, too.

Colorado state statutes say:

18-7-302 - Indecent exposure.

(1) A person commits indecent exposure if he knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.

Simply nudity in the course of going about life is rarely considered "likely" to cause affront or alarm.

We have an awful lot of outdoor enthusiasts here. Camping, hiking, mountain biking, and trail walking are some of the top hitters in the state's tourism industry. And it is not at all unusual, if you're hiking early in the morning in the backcountry, to spot a camper washing up - nude or topfree. One of our area National Parks has a seven-day admission pass (the only one you can get) - obviously the people on these extended backcountry treks are not all going to simply stay filthy until they go home. Would it be better for everyone to swim in our beautiful cold, clear lakes and streams ... leaving behind filth, soap and shampoo, than for them to wash up with biodegradable soap in front of a fire and a pot of warm water? And don't even suggest taking the pot of warm water into a tent ... if you've ever tried that, you know what a *dampening* experience that can be on your whole excursion! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Growing up in Oklahoma, ALL the public swimming pools banned "cut-offs" due to cotton fibre blockage of the drains. That led to everyone having to wear lycra swimsuits, even though many people have bad reactions to the synthetic fabric. If they'd allowed nude swimming, there'd have been not only no drain blockage, but no irritated skin.

As a teenager, I went on a trip to South Padre Island, Texas. One of the inkeepers there told us to watch out for jellyfish, and warned that they tended to get caught up in swimsuits. I've read since that nude swimmers *rarely* have problems with jellyfish (I have no idea though if they're the same kind of jellyfish - the ones at Padre were Portugese Men O' War).

There are times when nudity is appropriate "off the reservation" (since you don't like "ghetto").

Just *think about it*, is all we're asking. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Too tired to type tonight!

Gary Naturist

01-08-2003, 01:18 AM

Angel: Re the Portuguese Men O'War (Man O'Wars?). My wife and I were at Donkey Beach on Kauai, up until recently a clothing-optional beach. We were somewhat surprised that we had the beach all to ourselves.

We went into the surf nude to play. While I was body surfing, I felt a stinging sensation and reacted by rolling over to get away from the source. I got out of the water to find the tentacle of a Man O'War wrapped around my back and legs. (For those unfamiliar, it has a teardrop-shaped body about the size of a small plum and a thin, wispy tentacle about 6 feet long.)

'Twas extremely painful! When I tried to peel it off, it came away in short sections. My wife had read somewhere that urine would neutralize the poison, so she peed on the affected parts of my body! It did help (the ammonia content), as did rubbing sand on the affected areas.

When we checked the beach, we saw dozens of these things. I guess that they had floated in while we were in the water. We found out later that this is a common problem for beaches on the east side of Kauai during the summmer -- the reason why the beach was deserted that day.

Re the beneficial effects of swimming nude -- this helps reduce the effect of a parasite called sea lice, which gets caught up in bathing suit material and causes severe itching (also called swimmer's itch). In recent years, I have read about outbreaks in Florida and BC. One of the public health departments helpfully pointed out that not wearing a bathing suit when swimming would prevent the problem.

Gary

Angel

01-08-2003, 05:49 AM

Eek, Gary!

I hadn't really researched jellyfish since (this was 1984), but read up a bit on them after your post. All I can say is I'm glad none of the darn things found me! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(OK, that and I'm glad I haven't lived near an ocean beach since - haven't had the chance to be re-exposed!)

01-08-2003, 09:42 AM

Angel,

"Simply nudity in the course of going about life is rarely considered "likely" to cause affront or alarm."

Does that mean if you stood naked on a street corner reading a newspaper that would not constitute behaviour likely to cause affront or alarm? It certainly wouldn't be tolerated here, Angel.

"We have an awful lot of outdoor enthusiasts here. Camping, hiking, mountain biking, and trail walking are some of the top hitters in the state's tourism industry. And it is not at all unusual, if you're hiking early in the morning in the backcountry, to spot a camper washing up - nude or topfree."

If that happened here you would almost certainly be ordered to cover up at the very least - unless you were in a naturist area, of course.

"Would it be better for everyone to swim in our beautiful cold, clear lakes and streams ... leaving behind filth, soap and shampoo, than for them to wash up with biodegradable soap in front of a fire and a pot of warm water?"

I've done the very same thing myself in a lake many years ago. The difference is that I went in wearing shorts - took the shorts off when the water was upto my chest - washed myself (without soap) - put the shorts on again and came out of the water. Even if an entire convent of nuns had passed they wouldn't have seen anything remotely shocking /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"And don't even suggest taking the pot of warm water into a tent ... if you've ever tried that, you know what a *dampening* experience that can be on your whole excursion!"

I agree with that one!

"If they'd allowed nude swimming, there'd have been not only no drain blockage, but no irritated skin."

I've suffered with sensitive skin all my life - I break out with dermatitis at the drop of a hat and have to take care with what I wear. There are plenty of fabrics that be worn for swimming without causing irritation or drain blockages.

"As a teenager, I went on a trip to South Padre Island, Texas. One of the inkeepers there told us to watch out for jellyfish, and warned that they tended to get caught up in swimsuits. I've read since that nude swimmers *rarely* have problems with jellyfish (I have no idea though if they're the same kind of jellyfish - the ones at Padre were Portugese Men O' War)."

Oooh! I don't like jellyfish - especially not big, poisonous ones like those.

There are times when nudity is appropriate "off the reservation" (since you don't like "ghetto").

"Just *think about it*, is all we're asking."

You know I always think about what you say. I'm not afraid to re-evaluate my own views if someone makes a convincing argument. Since coming here I've certainly had plenty of food for thought. Keep on feeding, Angel /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

01-08-2003, 02:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB
I know enough about English law to know that Vincent's acquittal was to do with him being charged with the wrong offence. Stu[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually it had to do with the fact that other than a police officer who testified he wouldn't have wanted his wife or children around when Vincent was arrested, the Crown Prosecution Service was unable to produce a single witness who whould testify to being offended by his nudity. In other words no one really cared that much.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bob S.

01-08-2003, 08:55 PM

"We have an awful lot of outdoor enthusiasts here. Camping, hiking, mountain biking, and trail walking are some of the top hitters in the state's tourism industry. And it is not at all unusual, if you're hiking early in the morning in the backcountry, to spot a camper washing up - nude or topfree."

"If that happened here you would almost certainly be ordered to cover up at the very least -unless you were in a naturist area, of course."

stu, if a camper saw a fellow camper showering sans clothes in the early morning in the open, do you really think that they would "order" the person to cover up? And even if they did, do you think they would?

Although I am not a hiker or much of a camper, I can imagine that most people would not be so put off at the sight of another naked person if they were showering in a camping area (not an official campground). After all, showering is a natural thing to do and it is done naked. Also, when camping, what did you do about answering the call of nature? Did you use a tree? Bring a port-a-potty? Have an RV that had its opwn bathroom?

Angel,
"That's [public nudity] true AFAIK in England .... and here in the US, too."

Maybe in some states, but definitely NOT in Arkansas.

"Simply nudity in the course of going about life is rarely considered "likely" to cause affront or alarm."

Unfortunately, right now it would. But the "alarm" would be more from the unexpectedness of the sight rather than the sight itself. If someone were to step into the wrong bathroom, they would experience the same "alarm." Also, if someone were on a beach and someone lost their swimsuit in the waves, the alarm factor wouldn't be there.

My question would be how many nudists would be alarmed about seeing a naked man or woman in a public area outside of a nudist venue? I would probably be alarmed to see it at first, but would eventually concentrate more on what they were doing rather than their state of dress.

Bob S.

Gary Naturist

01-09-2003, 12:34 AM

Bob S: Would you be alarmed, or just surprised?

In my case, I would be surprised. I would go over to ask the person and ask what's going on. If I liked their reason for being nude, I might just join him/her.

Gary

Angel

01-09-2003, 05:13 AM

Stu quoted Angel: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"We have an awful lot of outdoor enthusiasts here. Camping, hiking, mountain biking, and trail walking are some of the top hitters in the state's tourism industry. And it is not at all unusual, if you're hiking early in the morning in the backcountry, to spot a camper washing up - nude or topfree." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And responded: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If that happened here you would almost certainly be ordered to cover up at the very least - unless you were in a naturist area, of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately, due to the clothes-mindedness that exists, you probably wouldn't have a chance to "order" someone to "cover up" in those circumstances - they'd do it as soon as they saw you approaching. It's called "courtesy".

We wouldn't, however, cover up because we'd been caught doing something "wrong", but out of consideration for *your* sensibilities.

As a smoker, I wouldn't expect to smoke in a non-smoking friend's house or car, and often wouldn't even smoke in their presence, simply out of consideration. As a non-smoker, I wouldn't expect a smoking friend to *stop* smoking in their own home or car simply because I was there, although it would be appreciated if they didn't smoke in my presence - but it would be their call, as it would be their space. Seems much the same to me. We act out of courtesy for others a great deal of the time, but when people socialize, they take each others' preferences into consideration.

Substitute "drink alcoholic beverages" for smoking in the same example - some people are morally opposed, or recovering alcoholics, or alcoholic beverages are against their religious beliefs - I wouldn't personally choose to drink in their presence, especially without discussing it first. Yet if those same people attended a gathering at my home at which alcoholic beverages were being served, I'd expect them to simply abstain, without attempting to inflict their own viewpoints on others.

You might argue that drinking and smoking are legal while nudity is *not* ... but that's not always the case. Many towns here have enacted ordinances banning smoking outside the individual's home, and various laws limit alcohol consumption (especially in public). But that's *not* the point.

The point is acting with courtesy toward others ... if you were hiking in the backcountry at 6 a.m. and spotted someone just getting up and ready for the day, the onus of courtesy would be on *you*, to mind your own business and let the other person wash and dress in peace.

As a European, you expressed surprise at the numbers someone else pointed out for shoreline available and population that uses the shoreline: if you haven't been over here to the U.S., you really won't have any idea how vast our inner wilderness can be. I would expect you'd be able to see my campsite from a mile or more away - MUCH too far for you to be able to determine my state of dress, let alone be offended by it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And if you did choose to approach my campsite, out of need for supplies or directions or simple human company - please realize that you'd be intruding on *my* space, and it would be highly discourteous (even offensive!) for you to barge into my (temporary) home and try to inflict your views and preferences on me.

Angel
-----
Who was it who said "Europeans think 200 miles is a long way, and Americans think 200 years is a long time"? Perspective. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

01-09-2003, 05:24 AM

Stu said"Does that mean if you stood naked on a street corner reading a newspaper that would not constitute behaviour likely to cause affront or alarm? It certainly wouldn't be tolerated here, Angel.

It already has.... that is why our dear friend Vincent walks free right now. Nobody would testify against him and say they were offended.

Look, there have been polls done in both England and the US, polls done by reputable firms in a neutral way. The polls both showed that the great majority of everyday people are not against nudity and don't find it nearly as horrible as you do.

You have criticised the polls and then included your own info gotten from friends, family and co- workers. I doubt that you were as neutral as those polls were in getting information.

You sound like a broken record Stu. Got anything new to say? Got anything nice to say? There is no point in bringing concise, logical points to you because you ignore them or try to tell us what we say doesn't count or matter or that you know more than we do and most hilarious of all that most people believe as you do. We know better.

You thoughts are not logical, your habit of ignoring matters in your own life is annoying (like saying your kids were unaffected by your mental state over nudity). When people have major problems with issues like you do it is not possible for children not to pick up on that. Wake up and look at what you are doing!

nudist_in_Tn

01-09-2003, 06:26 AM

Gosh, I wish it were possible where I could stand on a corner naked and read my paper, to me that would be a dream come true. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

01-09-2003, 09:56 AM

Bob,

"After all, showering is a natural thing to do and it is done naked."

Yes, but people normally take showers in private. They have showers at swimming pools and people normally go in them wearing swimming costumes.

"Also, when camping, what did you do about answering the call of nature? Did you use a tree? Bring a port-a-potty? Have an RV that had its opwn bathroom?"

Some campsites over here do have toilets. If you are in a remote place then you can answer the call in the open, but it only takes a moment and you take great care to ensure that you can't be seen by anyone. That's not the same as nude hiking etc.

"Unfortunately, due to the clothes-mindedness that exists, you probably wouldn't have a chance to "order" someone to "cover up" in those circumstances - they'd do it as soon as they saw you approaching. It's called "courtesy"....."

I totally agree. This is all I'm asking for. And I respect those naturists for being considerate in that way. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"I would expect you'd be able to see my campsite from a mile or more away - MUCH too far for you to be able to determine my state of dress, let alone be offended by it. And if you did choose to approach my campsite, out of need for supplies or directions or simple human company - please realize that you'd be intruding on *my* space, and it would be highly discourteous (even offensive!) for you to barge into my (temporary) home and try to inflict your views and preferences on me."

Look, if , there is virtually no chance of anyone seeing you naked then there's no problem in my book. But, when in a place that's open to everyone, the onus is upon the naturist to ensure that he or she can't be seen by others who might be offended by the sight.

Cyndiann,

"It already has.... that is why our dear friend Vincent walks free right now. Nobody would testify against him and say they were offended."

I have worked in the legal field for 25 years and I have a pretty good idea how it works. The offence for which Vincent was indicted was an extremely old, obscure and serious charge. The decision to charge him with this "common law" offence, dating back centuries and carrying a maximum of life imprisonment, would not have been made by the police officer who arrested him. Nor would it have been made by the custody sergeant at the police station, nor even the inspector responsible for file preparation. It will have been made by the Senior Crown Prosecutor under advice from leading counsel (a senior barrister), based upon information that the defendant does this sort of thing all the time. Now, going back to the arresting constable - his grounds for arrest would have been to "prevent a breach of the peace" or under the general provisions of section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. When making the arrest the last thing on his mind would have been to go around asking members of the public if they had been offended, and then taking their names and addresses. At the forefront of his mind would have been to remove Mr Bethall from the streets! I have said all along that he was charged with the wrong offence. He was. Had I been the prosecuting counsel I would have advised that he not be charged with any offence, but rather be put before a magistrates court with an application for an antisocial behaviour order (requiring a much lesser standard of proof than for any criminal charge). Magistrates - usually middle-aged, middle class, conservative people, would almost certainly have agreed that his conduct was "antisocial" (which is VERY widely defined), and put an order on him to remain clothed in public. If such an order was granted and he breached it then he could realistically expect a substantial prison sentence.

"Look, there have been polls done in both England and the US, polls done by reputable firms in a neutral way. The polls both showed that the great majority of everyday people are not against nudity and don't find it nearly as horrible as you do."

You know my views on polls. First ask yourself who commissioned these polls and why. Then examine the precise questions that were asked - e.g. "Do you find nudity offensive?" - yeah, most people are going to answer "NO". But stand naked outside their 8 year old's school stark naked and they'll soon show you just how offensive they do find nudity! I agree that most people don't view nudity as adversely as I do, but that doesn't mean to say people would be happy to encounter naked people generally in public places.

"You have criticised the polls and then included your own info gotten from friends, family and co- workers. I doubt that you were as neutral as those polls were in getting information."

You're right, Cyndiann. I am just as biased in my way as you are in yours. It's hard not to be. I would have more respect for a poll if it were commissioned and carried out by some truly independent research body - like a university for example - thus giving it the status of empirical evidence.

"You sound like a broken record Stu. Got anything new to say?"

Perhaps most of it has been said, but people keep on coming back here and responding to my posts so I think we're still breaking new ground.

"Got anything nice to say?"

If you haven't seen me saying anything nice, and conceding points from time to time, then you haven't been reading my posts.

"There is no point in bringing concise, logical points to you because you ignore them or try to tell us what we say doesn't count or matter or that you know more than we do and most hilarious of all that most people believe as you do. We know better."

What I know about is English law and our judicial system. There is a lot I've learned about naturism from people like Bob, Rik, Max, Angel etc. Cyndiann, I really do believe that most people don't want to encounter nudity in public parks, beaches and other areas of recreation. There are plenty of naturists as well as non-naturists who agree with me about that. But I can't PROVE that most people find it offensive because there's no empirical evidence either way. I am therefore reliant upon non-scientific evidence from the attitudes of people I know and speak to and my own intuitive common sense.

"You thoughts are not logical, your habit of ignoring matters in your own life is annoying (like saying your kids were unaffected by your mental state over nudity). When people have major problems with issues like you do it is not possible for children not to pick up on that. Wake up and look at what you are doing!"

I wish you could meet and talk to my kids about this issue - as I have done recently. My older two are keen on sports and swimming, and just don't have any embarrassment about getting showered or changed in front of their peers. My youngest is only seven and I expect she'll turn out the same. If I thought for one second I was causing THEM a problem, then I'd do something about it double quick!!! What bugs me Cyndiann is that I actually don't think there is THAT much that we disagree about. It boils down to where nudity should be allowed. We both agree that it should be allowed on naturist beaches, private premises and inside peoples homes. We both (I assume) agree that the present facilities for naturists are few, and they tend to be inaccessible and scandalously poor, and that it WRONG! You are entitled to better than that. But I just ask you, out of consideration for the sensitivities of others, to refrain from being naked in places where you might cause offence or shock to non-naturists.
Most naturists I've spoken to don't have a problem with that. You do. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Stu

01-09-2003, 12:58 PM

"You're right, Cyndiann. I am just as biased in my way as you are in yours. It's hard not to be. I would have more respect for a poll if it were commissioned and carried out by some truly independent research body - like a university for example - thus giving it the status of empirical evidence."

The US poll was carried out by a company that does only that, they do polls, and had no hidden agenda. The poll was not done so that we could prove anything to anyone, it was done to gain real information.

01-09-2003, 01:09 PM

" When making the arrest the last thing on his mind would have been to go around asking members of the public if they had been offended, and then taking their names and addresses. At the forefront of his mind would have been to remove Mr Bethall from the streets!"

Doesn't matter.... he had gone nude on several ocassions and very publicly. It was news, everyone was aware of what he had done. They had plenty of time for someone, anyone to come forward to say they had been offended and they didn't. Without a complaintant there was no case. Where were all your nude hating friends Stu? LOL!

01-09-2003, 02:17 PM

"The US poll was carried out by a company that does only that, they do polls, and had no hidden agenda. The poll was not done so that we could prove anything to anyone, it was done to gain real information."

The only poll I'm aware of was commissioned by the British Naturists Association. I'm not aware of this US poll - perhaps you can enlighten me. Besides, attitudes here and in the US may be different.

"Doesn't matter.... he had gone nude on several ocassions and very publicly. It was news, everyone was aware of what he had done. They had plenty of time for someone, anyone to come forward to say they had been offended and they didn't. Without a complaintant there was no case. Where were all your nude hating friends Stu? LOL!"

Cyndiann, I had NEVER heard of this particular character before the court case. I regard Vincent as a selfish person who disregarded other peoples feelings. But this was not a murder case and there would be no "appeal for witnesses who were offended to come forward". That would be silly. The Crown Prosecution Service would have assumed they had enough evidence to justify the charge based upon what the policeman told them. If the CPS had bothered to read recent caselaw on the old crime of "outraging public decency" they wouldn't have charged him with that offence in the first place. His acquittal was due to the wrong offence being cited on the indictment, simple as that. You will notice that he's not been in the news since this case. I wonder why??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have a lot of respect for naturists, even if I can not really understand their motivation. I have no respect for Mr Bethall, who I do not regard as a naturist at all.

Stu

Rik

01-09-2003, 03:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I have no respect for Mr Bethall, who I do not regard as a naturist at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nor does he so at least you agree on something. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

01-09-2003, 09:43 PM

" His acquittal was due to the wrong offence being cited on the indictment, simple as that. You will notice that he's not been in the news since this case. I wonder why???

For the third time, his aquittal was because they didn't have offended people to testify. You have a habit of ignoring anything you can't logically debate. He was held for 5 months before the trial started, way more than enough time to gather witnesses. You cannot tell me he wasn't in the news when he was arrested. He could not be charged with another crime because they didn't apply.

Gary Naturist

01-10-2003, 12:25 AM

I gave some further thought to why I crossed the road nude to pick up the neighbor's paper when they were away, and narrowed it down to two possibilities:
1. Seeking a new nude experience to record in my mental record book, or
2. Doing a slow-motion streak.

I have come to the conclusion that it was reason #1 -- seeking a new experience.

And speaking of new experiences, I just came in (5 am) from shovelling a few inches of snow off the front walk while nude except for thick socks.

Gary

Rik

01-10-2003, 08:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If the CPS had bothered to read recent caselaw on the old crime of "outraging public decency" they wouldn't have charged him with that offence in the first place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What recent caselaw are you talking about?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>His acquittal was due to the wrong offence being cited on the indictment, simple as that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>His aquittal was due to the fact that he was innocent. If you are so adamant that the wrong law was used to try to convict him why is it that you support the prosecution of non-sexual public nudity under the proposed Sexual Offenses Act? Surely that must also be a wrong law.

Rik

01-10-2003, 09:42 AM

"For the third time, his aquittal was because they didn't have offended people to testify."

I know that. I agree that they didn't have people to testify. And why not? Well, just think about it. Mrs Public is in the street and is shocked at the sight of a naked man parading about. The next thing is that a police van comes along, grabs the man, puts him in the van and off they go. Mrs Public thinks "Aren't our policemen wonderful!" and quietly goes on her way. She never gives a second thought to the possibility that at some future date a Crown Court case will fail because she didn't think it necessary to visit the local police station just to tell the cops how offensive she found the whole thing. I work in the legal field, I find nudity extremely offensive, and yet I wouldn't dream of doing that either. They have enough trouble getting people to come forward to act as witnesses for murders, rapes and robberies. The police wouldn't have even considered asking the public to come forward and give statements about being offended by some silly streaker. They wouldn't have thought they needed such evidence because, had he been indicted for some lesser charge, the policeman's account of the incident would have been quite sufficient. Now do you see what I'm saying? In actual fact the offence of "outraging public decency" requires much more that just causing shock and offence - it requires "disgust" (which the law regards as a much stronger emotion.

"He was held for 5 months before the trial started, way more than enough time to gather witnesses."

Cyndiann - Vincent is not Jack the Ripper. He will have been held "on remand", NOT for the purposes of the police looking for further evidence. The police will have put their statements in describing what they saw, the Crown Prosecution will have looked at the papers and said "That's fine. We've got all the evidence we need, now let's go to trial". Well, we know they hadn't done their job properly. The CPS should never have pursued that charge in the first place - especially without complaints from members of the public.

"You cannot tell me he wasn't in the news when he was arrested. He could not be charged with another crime because they didn't apply."

I'm telling you EXACTLY that. I buy and read The Times every day, and the first I ever heard about Mr Bethall was the report of his acquittal. The police certainly didn't ask for "disgusted" witnesses. They wouldn't have thought for a moment that they needed any. There are several other (lesser and more appropriate) offences that he could (and perhaps should) have been charged with. That way he would have been tried before magistrates rather than a jury, and he would almost certainly have been convicted. Or, better still in my opinion, made subject of an Antisocial Behaviour Order.

Rik,

"What recent caselaw are you talking about?"

I was reading about some cases at work just recently. Can't remember the name but I'll dig it out after the weekend. Basically what they tell us is that in a case of "outraging public decency" the prosecution must prove that people weren't merely offended or even shocked, but were "disgusted" by the behaviour.

"His aquittal was due to the fact that he was innocent."

The jury decided the prosecution case against him for the particular charge was not of the standard required to safely convict. I think they were right. Because he wasn't charged with, or convicted of, anything else, then in law he is indeed innocent. But please don't imagine that this case indicates that being naked in the street is perfectly lawful. The judge warned him about that.

"If you are so adamant that the wrong law was used to try to convict him why is it that you support the prosecution of non-sexual public nudity under the proposed Sexual Offenses Act? Surely that must also be a wrong law."

Why must it be the wrong law? The common law and the new legislation are quite different animals, Rik. I do actually agree with you upto a point. I think that non-sexual public nudity should be punished under public order legislation rather than treated as sex offences. It's more akin to disturbing the peace than to sex crimes.

Stu

01-10-2003, 03:14 PM

" I agree that they didn't have people to testify. And why not? Well, just think about it. Mrs Public is in the street and is shocked at the sight of a naked man parading about. The next thing is that a police van comes along, grabs the man, puts him in the van and off they go. Mrs Public thinks "Aren't our policemen wonderful!" and quietly goes on her way. She never gives a second thought to the possibility that at some future date a Crown Court case will fail because she didn't think it necessary to visit the local police station just to tell the cops how offensive she found the whole thing. I work in the legal field, I find nudity extremely offensive, and yet I wouldn't dream of doing that either. They have enough trouble getting people to come forward to act as witnesses for murders, rapes and robberies. The police wouldn't have even considered asking the public to come forward and give statements about being offended by some silly streaker. They wouldn't have thought they needed such evidence because, had he been indicted for some lesser charge, the policeman's account of the incident would have been quite sufficient. Now do you see what I'm saying? In actual fact the offence of "outraging public decency" requires much more that just causing shock and offence - it requires "disgust" (which the law regards as a much stronger emotion.

Are you saying your police over there are incompetent? Here it is common procedure to gather evidence, including testimony, in any crime situation. The articles I read didn't say they didn't think witnesses weren't necessary for a conviction, they said there were no witnesses that were disgusted. You have a habit of twisting things to look as though you are right when you aren't.

Angel

01-10-2003, 03:42 PM

Stu: you keep talking about how "it's against the law" and we "should not break the law because it won't forward our cause" [paraphrasing].

Ponder this:

Once upon a time there was a woman. She worked very hard and paid her bills promptly. One day she sat down in an area in which she was allowed only if no "majority" people wanted to use the area. She could have gone to the area reserved for her kind, but she was tired and didn't want to walk any further than she had to.

Soon enough, along came one of the majority. She was told she could not be in the area any longer, because it was offensive to the majority. She was tired of being told that her kind was offensive, and finally fed up with this, she refused to move. Quietly, without confrontation. As a result, she was arrested by those who felt she had no right to sit where she was.

In the year following, both "majority" folks and other people in the so-called "offensive" group boycotted, insisting she had a right to sit where she did. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this on appeal. She has the right to sit where she wants today as the result.

The "offensiveness"? The "majority" did not like looking at her skin.

Her name? Rosa Parks
http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/parks01.html

THIS is why we think it's okay to break "bad" laws. It works.

Bob S.

01-10-2003, 10:17 PM

"Yes, but people normally take showers in private. They have showers at swimming pools and people normally go in them wearing swimming costumes."

But we are talking about the open wilderness. How many hikers are going to pack a large privacy screen with them? We are talking about someone who happens upon someone who is showering amongst the trees.

"If you are in a remote place then you can answer the call in the open, but it only takes a moment and you take great care to ensure that you can't be seen by anyone. That's not the same as nude hiking etc."

But there is still that chance that comeone could pass by. You would be exposed (especially women). And it is not meant to be the same as nude hiking. I am just providing reaonable times when one would be exposing oneself while hiking/camping.

"Unfortunately, due to the clothes-mindedness that exists, you probably wouldn't have a chance to "order" someone to "cover up" in those circumstances - they'd do it as soon as they saw you approaching. It's called "courtesy"....."

"I totally agree. This is all I'm asking for. And I respect those naturists for being considerate in that way."

But couldn't non-nudists also be considerate and forgive the naked person for being in that state of undress? Courtesy works both ways.

Bob S.

Bob S.

01-10-2003, 10:27 PM

Rik wrote: "If you are so adamant that the wrong law was used to try to convict him why is it that you support the prosecution of non-sexual public nudity under the proposed Sexual Offenses Act? Surely that must also be a wrong law."

To which stu's response was: "Why must it be the wrong law? The common law and the new legislation are quite different animals, Rik. I do actually agree with you upto a point. I think that non-sexual public nudity should be punished under public order legislation rather than treated as sex offences. It's more akin to disturbing the peace than to sex crimes."

OK stu, you still feel the new law is right but the penalty is wrong. Don't you realize that the punishment is an intrical part of any law and itself can make a law wrong? I am assuming that you are against murder. But what if your gov't made a new law that made punishment for killing an infant public stoning? Would that law still be a good law? It makes illegal the killing of infants, doesn't it?

Bob S.

01-11-2003, 03:09 AM

Cyndiann,

"Are you saying your police over there are incompetent?"

No. If anybody is to blame I would think it was the Crown Prosecution Service. You seem to be confusing things that are, in fact, quite distinct. The REASON FOR ARREST may be (and often is) quite different from the offence charged by the police. Similarly, the offence charged may be different from the offence tried in court. As I have told you several times - it is extremely unlikely that the police ever envisaged that Mr Bethell would be charged with such an ancient, obscure and serious offence. So they treated it in the same way they would treat an ordinary indecent exposure or a breach of the peace.

"Here it is common procedure to gather evidence, including testimony, in any crime situation. The articles I read didn't say they didn't think witnesses weren't necessary for a conviction, they said there were no witnesses that were disgusted."

Do you SERIOUSLY think the police went round potential witnesses saying "Excuse me, but we want to know if you were disgusted when you saw that naked man". Pleeeeze!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Besides, if he had appeared before the court for a more appropriate offence they wouldn't have had to prove "disgust", merely that his conduct was disorderly, or that he was exposing his person etc.

I'm sure your system in the States can't be that different from our own, so let us imagine that this happened in, say, in a street in a suburb in New York City. A guy is standing reading a newspaper naked outside a busy tube station. People are pointing and drivers are sounding their horns. A cop car with comes past and sees the guy. They get out of the car and arrest him. Now, how are the cops going to treat his behaviour? Is this (a) a major crime. Tape off the streets. Take everybody's names and addresses for later statement taking to describe how disgusted they were?, or (b) a relatively minor public order incident. Get the guy off the streets, and take him down town, get him something to wear, then book him for a minor infringement or violation. Why don't you ask an NYPD cop how they would handle it? The London police dealt with this in a similar way to (b). The arresting officers would have submitted their statements within the requisite 48 hours and forgot about it. They have far more important things to do in our capital than chase around getting what they consider to be unnecessary statements from "disgusted" witnesses when, as far as they are concerned, the matter has been resolved. The next thing they know is that they are called as witnesses before the Crown Court. Their "nudist nut" has been indicted for an obscure and serious crime they've never even heard of. Well, they could put out a press appeal for witnesses. Can you imagine what the newspaper editors would say if they asked them to publish such an appeal? The Met. Police would be the laughing stock of the country.

Cyndiann - you weren't there any more than I was. You have a simple case theory that there were no complaints because nobody was disgusted. I'm telling you that you are overlooking the reality of such situations perhaps because you've no experience of the workings of the police and criminal justice system in the UK. I have.

Angel, sorry but your analogy doesn't work in this case. Here in the UK naturists are entitled to use any public beach they like, any park, any recreation area or other amenity. No problem. All they have to do is to ensure that a relatively small part of their bodies is obscured from general view - just like everyone else does - and just like they do most of the time when at work, shopping, at the cinema etc etc. I'm sure that I see naturists all the time even though I never go to naturist places. They could even wear T-shirts proclaiming themselves ardent clothes-haters for all I care. Just so long as they keep their private bits covered when I'm around. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But people who are black, however, are black all the time. They were born black, will spend all their life being black, and will die black. They couldn't change that even if they wanted to.

There are quite a few laws here in the UK that I think are bad laws. If I feel strongly enough I can canvass support for my views and seek to persuade our legislators that they are bad laws and to change them. But my dislike of a law doesn't entitle me to break it. What you think is a bad law I might think is a good law.

Bob,

"But we are talking about the open wilderness. How many hikers are going to pack a large privacy screen with them?"

None. They just need to have a pair of shorts to hand, or better still, a sarong. The chances of being taken totally by surprise when out in the open wilderness can't be very high.

"We are talking about someone who happens upon someone who is showering amongst the trees."

Showering among the trees??? Interesting concept! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"But there is still that chance that comeone could pass by. You would be exposed (especially women). And it is not meant to be the same as nude hiking. I am just providing reaonable times when one would be exposing oneself while hiking/camping."

Bob, a couple of years ago we were on a beach near Copenhagen when we say a little girl run into the sea to her (presumably) dad. As she reached for him she slipped, grabbing his swimming trunks as she did so, resulting in his momentary exposure and a red face. Everyone chuckled - including me! That's one thing. Had he have not immediately pulled his trunks up again we wouldn't have found it so amusing.

Anyone can get caught out momentarily - we all understand that. But that's a totally different proposition to remaining naked or walking about in the nude knowing that people are going to see you and at fairly close quarters.

"OK stu, you still feel the new law is right but the penalty is wrong. Don't you realize that the punishment is an intrical part of any law and itself can make a law wrong?"

OK Bob, then for the sake of simplicity let's just say that I disagree with the proposed new law, but I want to see an alternative new law along the lines of the proposed law but called The Public Nudity Act, introducing various means of dealing with people who are naked in public outside of designated naturist areas. I would create new offences with appropriate and moderate penalties, but NOT sex offender resgistration. Does that solve the problem? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Stu

Angel

01-11-2003, 06:11 AM

Stu says: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Angel, sorry but your analogy doesn't work in this case. Here in the UK naturists are entitled to use any public beach they like, any park, any recreation area or other amenity. No problem. All they have to do is to ensure that a relatively small part of their bodies is obscured from general view - just like everyone else does - and just like they do most of the time when at work, shopping, at the cinema etc etc. I'm sure that I see naturists all the time even though I never go to naturist places. They could even wear T-shirts proclaiming themselves ardent clothes-haters for all I care. Just so long as they keep their private bits covered when I'm around.

But people who are black, however, are black all the time. They were born black, will spend all their life being black, and will die black. They couldn't change that even if they wanted to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu: It's a behaviour we're talking about, not an unavoidable condition.

To rephrase what you say above: Here in the US, blacks were entitled to use any public facility, too, as long as they stayed in segregated areas while "acting black", and were willing to be submissive to the white majority at all other times. For a nudist situation, you say they just have to cover their genitals. In a racial situation, they just had to "stay in their place", and most people didn't see what the problem with that was. All they had to do was keep behaving submissively to whites, and there was no problem.

I don't see you as comparing to the hard-line racist here, more like the member of the white majority who might say "Sure, blacks are free people too, and have the right to live like everyone else, as long as they don't get "uppity" in *my* (church, school, neighborhood, etc.), and stay in their "place". Like so many viewed blacks, you seem to view nudists as second-class citizens.

If the comparison to race relations doesn't work for you (and, living in Europe, you don't have the front row view of the American Civil Rights battle that some of the rest of us have had) - try religion.

Hypothesize that you're an ardent Baptist. You might say "I don't care if someone is (Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarian, Wiccan, Catholic, etc.), as long as they keep their strange opinions and beliefs to themselves just like everyone else does - and just like they do most of the time when at work, shopping, at the cinema etc. I'm sure that I see (Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarian, Wiccan, Catholic, etc.) people all the time even though I never go to (Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarian, Wiccan, Catholic, etc.) places. They could even wear T-shirts proclaiming themselves ardent (Jewish, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarian, Wiccan, Catholic, etc.) for all I care. Just so long as they keep their opinions to themselves when I'm around.

Unfortunately for you, in that situation, the right to freedom of expression is constitutionally protected (in the US, anyway). And the goddess-worshipper has just as much right to speak of her beliefs in your presence (even if you find it morally objectionable or personally uncomfortable) as you do to speak in her presence of your three-headed god's doctrine.

My point here is that nudists have the right to fight for their civil rights, just like any other persecuted or minority group. In the long run, we may win or lose, but the right to *fight* is an American principle.

Now I'm going to get coffee and come reread this post to see if it makes sense. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

01-11-2003, 06:35 AM

"Cyndiann,

"Are you saying your police over there are incompetent?"

No. If anybody is to blame I would think it was the Crown Prosecution Service. You seem to be confusing things that are, in fact, quite distinct. The REASON FOR ARREST may be (and often is) quite different from the offence charged by the police. Similarly, the offence charged may be different from the offence tried in court. As I have told you several times - it is extremely unlikely that the police ever envisaged that Mr Bethell would be charged with such an ancient, obscure and serious offence. So they treated it in the same way they would treat an ordinary indecent exposure or a breach of the peace."

The charge doesn't matter. Here it is basic police procedure to take names of witnesses, something learned in beginning classes in police academies. They give them to prosecutors and investigators so they can prosecute and investigate. You are saying your police are incompetent and don't do that?

"Here it is common procedure to gather evidence, including testimony, in any crime situation. The articles I read didn't say they didn't think witnesses weren't necessary for a conviction, they said there were no witnesses that were disgusted."

Do you SERIOUSLY think the police went round potential witnesses saying "Excuse me, but we want to know if you were disgusted when you saw that naked man". Pleeeeze!!

They don't do the interviewing.... they leave that for whomever is making the case, gathering evidence, the investigators. Nobody does that in the UK?

Besides, if he had appeared before the court for a more appropriate offence they wouldn't have had to prove "disgust", merely that his conduct was disorderly, or that he was exposing his person etc.

He wasn't disorderly and it isn't illegal to be nude.

I'm sure your system in the States can't be that different from our own, so let us imagine that this happened in, say, in a street in a suburb in New York City. A guy is standing reading a newspaper naked outside a busy tube station. People are pointing and drivers are sounding their horns. A cop car with comes past and sees the guy. They get out of the car and arrest him. Now, how are the cops going to treat his behaviour? Is this (a) a major crime. Tape off the streets. Take everybody's names and addresses for later statement taking to describe how disgusted they were?,

Yes! They will get the names of witnesses. Very basic police procedure.

or (b) a relatively minor public order incident. Get the guy off the streets, and take him down town, get him something to wear, then book him for a minor infringement or violation. Why don't you ask an NYPD cop how they would handle it? The London police dealt with this in a similar way to (b). The arresting officers would have submitted their statements within the requisite 48 hours and forgot about it. They have far more important things to do in our capital than chase around getting what they consider to be unnecessary statements from "disgusted" witnesses when, as far as they are concerned, the matter has been resolved. The next thing they know is that they are called as witnesses before the Crown Court. Their "nudist nut" has been indicted for an obscure and serious crime they've never even heard of. Well, they could put out a press appeal for witnesses. Can you imagine what the newspaper editors would say if they asked them to publish such an appeal? The Met. Police would be the laughing stock of the country.

Hey if they did it right the first time they'd have those names huh?

Cyndiann - you weren't there any more than I was. You have a simple case theory that there were no complaints because nobody was disgusted. I'm telling you that you are overlooking the reality of such situations perhaps because you've no experience of the workings of the police and criminal justice system in the UK. I have."

I didn't dream it up, I got that straight from articles written by nudist publications, particularly an article written in Nude and Natural, a magazine with a high reputation for reporting accurately. I'm telling you that they have a picture on the cover with Vincent sitting up on a lightpole, with police tape around the area and police calmly standing nearby. I'm telling you that if they didn't take names they haven't done their job.

I think you'd argue with a tree if it was in your way rather than walk around it.

01-11-2003, 06:38 AM

Press release for the poll on nudity:

DATE: October 31, 2000
SUBJECT: NEF/Roper Poll 2000

To All Naturists:

The Naturist Education Foundation has issued the following
press release for wide distribution. Operators of lists and
bulletin boards are encouraged to post it.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, October 31, 2000

NATURIST EDUCATION FOUNDATION ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF NATIONWIDE
ROPER POLL ON SKINNY-DIPPING AND NUDE SUNBATHING

OSHKOSH, Wisconsin - A new nationwide poll commissioned by the
Naturist Education Foundation (NEF) and conducted by the
independent Roper-Starch organization indicates that Americans
overwhelmingly approve of nude sunbathing on beaches set aside for
that purpose.

In the scientific sampling conducted last month by Roper, 80
percent of those polled said they believed people who enjoy nude
sunbathing should be able to do so without interference from
officials as long as they do so at a beach that is accepted for
that purpose. The approval rating for nude beaches is up from the
72% that was registered in a poll with identical questions taken
by Gallup in 1983.

The NEF/Roper Poll 2000 was conducted on September 21, 2000, and
included 1,010 adult U.S. residents. The poll has an error risk of
5%.

Responses to other questions in the poll suggest that more than 51
million Americans have, at one time or another, skinny-dipped or
sunbathed nude in mixed-gender groups. Poll respondents were
evenly split on the question of whether a portion of public land
should be set aside for nude recreation, as it often is for other
special recreation interests like snowmobiling, surfing and
hunting.

"That's a tremendous difference from the numbers in the 1980's,"
noted NEF Chair Bob Morton. "In the earlier poll, there were
fifteen percentage points separating those who favored setting
aside special and secluded areas for nude sunbathing and those who
didn't. Now they're absolutely even. I believe we've turned the
corner in terms of acceptance."

The Naturist Education Foundation, Inc. is the nonprofit
educational and informational arm of The Naturist Society, an
organization with approximately 37,000 members who enjoy nude
recreation throughout the U.S. and Canada. Through the gathering
and dissemination of information, NEF promotes body acceptance and
an understanding of naturist issues.

For more information on the Naturist Education Foundation or the
NEF/Roper Poll 2000, visit the NEF web site at:
www.naturistsociety.com/NEF (http://www.naturistsociety.com/NEF)

Gary Naturist

01-11-2003, 07:19 AM

Picking up on Angel's comments about discrimination, nudists are a "visible minority". Some might say the ultimate visible minority, because all of our bodies are visible.

We nudists should be able to claim the right to non-discrimination that other visible minorities enjoy.

We should also have the right of freedom of expression. Being nude is one way for a person to express him/herself.

Freedom of expression is not restricted to private locations; public locations are included as well. So we should have the right to be nude in public.

The reason why we don't currently enjoy these rights is that nude is often equated with lewd. We have to convince the lawmakers or the courts that nude is not lewd (considerable progress has been made, but the extent is variable by jurisdiction).

Summarizing:
1. Nude is not lewd.
2. Nudists should benefit from non-discrimination laws as do other visible minorities.
3. Nudists should be allowed freedom of expression, in public, just as everyone else does.

Gary

01-11-2003, 08:45 AM

Angel

"Stu: It's a behaviour we're talking about, not an unavoidable condition."

Exactly my point, Angel /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"To rephrase what you say above: Here in the US, blacks were entitled to use any public facility, too, as long as they stayed in segregated areas while "acting black", and were willing to be submissive to the white majority at all other times."

In a way, yes. Bear with me. When I was a small child I lived for a while in South Africa (during apartheit). For the white people, going to the (all white) bioscope (movies) was like going to the opera. Your dad wore his best suit, your mom wore her pearls and even we kids wore our best Sunday dresses, hats and shoes. When the film was showing, everyone maintained absolute silence. Not even a cough! Once I went into a cinema used by blacks. There it was quite different - people wore whatever they wanted, there was cheering and shouting during the action etc. A completely different atmosphere - not better or worse - just different. I don't think the blacks would have enjoyed the white cinema any more than the whites would have enjoyed the blacks' cinema.

Now, if a white person went into a black cinema should he complain at the standard of attire or raucous behaviour of the black patrons? Of course not. But if a black goes to a white cinema would he be justified in behaving in exactly the same was as he would in a black cinema? Or should he accept that there are differences and that he should conform to the behaviour that most patrons wish to see.

I'm not suggesting that naturists act "submissively" towards textiles - just that they refrain from nudity on non-nudist beaches.

"I don't see you as comparing to the hard-line racist here, more like the member of the white majority who might say "Sure, blacks are free people too, and have the right to live like everyone else, as long as they don't get "uppity" in *my* (church, school, neighborhood, etc.), and stay in their "place". Like so many viewed blacks, you seem to view nudists as second-class citizens."

That's not fair. You can get as "uppity" as you like, so long as you keep your private parts out of view when on a non-designated beach etc. You might value the right to chew gum. Well you wouldn't be allowed to chew gum publicly in Singapore. When you are in Thailand you shouldn't expose the soles of your feet to others - especially in public. We all have to conform to the cultural norms whether we personally see them as logical or not.

"Unfortunately for you, in that situation, the right to freedom of expression is constitutionally protected (in the US, anyway)."

Yes, but even freedom of expression has its limitations as to what people find acceptable and what they don't. Don't you have laws about slander and libel? What if I were to stand outside a US primary school and used a megaphone to shout obscene language? What if a group of moslems congregated in Time Square and burned the US flag along with an effigy of President Bush whilst chanting "Death to America! Death to the Jews!" You police would just walk on by, would they?

"My point here is that nudists have the right to fight for their civil rights, just like any other persecuted or minority group. In the long run, we may win or lose, but the right to *fight* is an American principle."

Of course you have the right to argue your case - and to do so publicly and without being subjected to state interference or sanction. That's a British principle, too. But breaking the law is a different matter.

Cyndiann,

"Here it is basic police procedure to take names of witnesses, something learned in beginning classes in police academies. They give them to prosecutors and investigators so they can prosecute and investigate. You are saying your police are incompetent and don't do that?"

I'm saying they don't do that because that's not how things are done here. We differentiate between "crimes" and "non-crime" offences. Generally the arresting police officer would take any statements himself. If he witnesses a public order matter (e.g. indecent exposure) or a low-level crime or antisocial act, he would normally write his own statement and that would be enough. If he hadn't witnessed the act then he probably would take statements from members of the public.

"Here it is common procedure to gather evidence, including testimony, in any crime situation."

Yes, but as I say the police officer wouldn't have regarded it as a "crime" - just a minor offence - so no need to get statements. It's not incompetance, Cyndiann, just different procedures to what happens in your country. Remember that the London police comprise 27,000 officers (compared to New York's 45,000), and our police have a far wider range of duties (e.g. we have no Highway Patrol - just police that cover the motorways). Per capita there are far fewer police here than where you are. This means that they don't have the time to take statements for every petty offence.

"They don't do the interviewing.... they leave that for whomever is making the case, gathering evidence, the investigators. Nobody does that in the UK?"

As I say, the officer making the arrest would decide whether or not he needed any statements, and if he did then he would have to go and find witnesses himself and ask them if they would give statements (and that means be willing to appear in court). Nobody has to give a statement or say what they saw - so a lot of people just don't want to get involved. They don't take statements from people witnessing minor offences if the arresting officer himself saw it. We just don't do that here.

"He wasn't disorderly and it isn't illegal to be nude."

I think you'll find that, before too long, a UK court will judge that inappropriate nudity (i.e. in public) is "disorderly" per se. Watch this space and remember who told you /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Hey if they did it right the first time they'd have those names huh?"

As I say, our police work differently to your police.

"I didn't dream it up, I got that straight from articles written by nudist publications, particularly an article written in Nude and Natural, a magazine with a high reputation for reporting accurately."

Nude and Natural? Written by naturists for naturists and mainly about naturists?
Hardly an unbiased publication I would have thought /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I'm telling you that they have a picture on the cover with Vincent sitting up on a lightpole, with police tape around the area and police calmly standing nearby. I'm telling you that if they didn't take names they haven't done their job."

And I'm telling you that in the UK that wouldn't happen. I've told you in detail why it wouldn't happen as well. You're just going to have to trust me about that.

Your poll is interesting, Cyndiann, but does it move us forward?

Stu

01-11-2003, 08:53 AM

Gary,

Amended Summary:
1. Nude is not lewd, but most people don't want to be exposed to it in public places.
2. Nudists should benefit from non-discrimination laws; and a legal requirement not to offend by inappropriate nudity is not discrimination.
3. Nudists should be allowed freedom of expression, in public, just as everyone else does, provided they don't offend others by exposing parts of their bodies that the rest of us don't want to see.

Have a nice day! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

Frank R

01-11-2003, 09:01 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB]Angel

You can get as "uppity" as you like, so long as you keep your private parts out of view when on a non-designated beach etc... We all have to conform to the cultural norms whether we personally see them as logical or not.

"Unfortunately for you, in that situation, the right to freedom of expression is constitutionally protected (in the US, anyway)."

Yes, but even freedom of expression has its limitations as to what people find acceptable and what they don't.... What if a group of moslems congregated in Time Square and burned the US flag along with an effigy of President Bush whilst chanting "Death to America! Death to the Jews!" You police would just walk on by, would they?

Yes Stu, our police would walk on by because here we do have freedom of expression, including the right to burn the flag, curse the president and shout death to the Jews. The vast majority of us don't like it but because freedom is so important to us, we are willing to allow it. In this county a large number of the changes we have made were the result of people breaking the law - like not paying taxes on tea to the English Crown. Like refusing to ride in the back of the bus. I admire those nudist who are willing to break the law to advance our cause. I may not agree with everything they do but that does not lessen what I feel for them. And in this country we have a right almost no other country has - here, we can, as a people, decide a law violates the constitution. Under our system of government, if a jury decides a law is bad, they can refuse to enforce it and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

01-11-2003, 09:32 AM

Frank

"And in this country we have a right almost no other country has - here, we can, as a people, decide a law violates the constitution. Under our system of government, if a jury decides a law is bad, they can refuse to enforce it and there is nothing anyone can do about it."

That's a double-edged sword. A jury of twelve people can overturn a carefully thought-through and drafted law that was decided upon by the elected representatives of ALL the people because it is, in their opinion, bad?

I'm not sure I like that.

Stu

Gary Naturist

01-11-2003, 10:22 AM

Frank R: In Canada freedom of expression is limited in extreme situations, the best example of which may be that it is against the law to incite racial hatred, such as by shouting "Death to [insert race here]".

Gary

01-11-2003, 07:48 PM

"The only poll I'm aware of was commissioned by the British Naturists Association. I'm not aware of this US poll - perhaps you can enlighten me. Besides, attitudes here and in the US may be different."

The two polls show about the same thing. About 80% of people don't think mere nudity is offensive.

From the British poll:
Q3 If you were walking along the coast on a hot day, and you came across a group of naked people sunbathing, swimming or playing cricket, which, if
any, of the following would you do?

Ignore them and keep walking 78%
Be alarmed and keep well away from them 2%
Go naked yourself 2%
Settle down but keep your swimming costume on 13%
Call the police because you were frightened or distressed 1%
None of these 2%
Don't know 1%

"Your poll is interesting, Cyndiann, but does it move us forward?"

It most certainly does. Both polls show that your average person does not think as you do. You have continually stated on here that most people hold your opinions and those polls prove that not to be true.

Bob S.

01-11-2003, 09:50 PM

"The chances of being taken totally by surprise when out in the open wilderness can't be very high."

Again, why can't non-nudists just accept it? Many do.

"Showering among the trees??? Interesting concept!"

Take a trash bag, or some other large container (or a product that serves such purpose, they do sell them), get water in it and tie it to a tree limb. Poke a hole in bag (or use product as directed) and take a shower amongst the trees.

"OK Bob, then for the sake of simplicity let's just say that I disagree with the proposed new law, but I want to see an alternative new law along the lines of the proposed law but called The Public Nudity Act, introducing various means of dealing with people who are naked in public outside of designated naturist areas. I would create new offences with appropriate and moderate penalties, but NOT sex offender resgistration. Does that solve the problem?"

It solves the problem for you instead of hearing you talk outr of both sides of your mouth. But I would disagree with such a law for obvious reasons.

"'m not suggesting that naturists act "submissively" towards textiles - just that they refrain from nudity on non-nudist beaches."

Nudists should just submit to the rules that non-nudists have made. That's all.

"What if I were to stand outside a US primary school and used a megaphone to shout obscene language?"

In a few states, you could be arrested for using vulgarity in public, but that law has been overturned in one state (I can't remember which one). They would probably ask you to stop, if not, arrest you for disturbing the peace.

"What if a group of moslems congregated in Time Square and burned the US flag along with an effigy of President Bush whilst chanting "Death to America! Death to the Jews!" You police would just walk on by, would they?

What they would probably do is ask if the group had a permit to do it. After all, you cannot impede the flow of traffic without specific permission from the local government. If that was not an issue, then the police would probably be there to protect the protestors from harm from others who would obviously be upset. However, in the US, we have the right to protest the govt, and say anything we want to, as long as we are not inciting others to do immediate harm or cause mass panic. The burning of the US Flag is legal over here.

"That's a double-edged sword. A jury of twelve people can overturn a carefully thought-through and drafted law that was decided upon by the elected representatives of ALL the people because it is, in their opinion, bad?

I'm not sure I like that."

But that is one of the principles of the US Constitution. That a judiciary (even a jury of our peers) can overrule a law is the best part of the Constitution. Sometimes, our representatives can get the DC (or any state capital) syndrome where they will write laws that they think is good, but oversteps their boundaries as outlined by the Constitution.

I love it!

Bob S.

Angel

01-11-2003, 10:27 PM

Bob:

You said it Oh So Well. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(I hate "me too" posts, but sometimes you just gotta!) /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

David77

01-11-2003, 11:41 PM

This is referring to Bob S's last post of 1-11-03.
I, too, very much like Bob S's well expressed and 100% accurate statement of our laws, attitudes and freedom beliefs and practices.

Trailscout

01-12-2003, 05:05 AM

I will admit to having an agenda. I would like for people who are not nudists to see for themselves what nude recreation is like.

Most of the worries and objections that people have about social nudity vanish when they see first-hand how innocuous it is.

A friend of mine went to a city park in Denmark. He met a pretty and cheerful young woman who had stopped a while from her jogging and they sat together for a while on a park bench and enjoyed a brief conversation. She was naked from the waist up. It was a warm day and she had pulled off her top for comfort. After a while she said farewell and resumed her exercises. My friend was amazed by her ease at being partially nude in a public setting. She was not on display, nor was she seeking to cause offense. She simply removed most of her clothing for comfort. My friend is still not nudist, but he was very favorably impressed by her deportment. He had expected a publicly topless woman to be loose or slutty, but she seemed sweet and wholesome.

In addition to official toleration of public nudity, we also need a favorable shift in public attitude toward nudity.

My friend had to travel to Denmark and have the blind luck to encounter a semi-nude jogger in order to have his epiphany.

We nudists must do are part to visit the nude beaches we have, but if we are to have any hope of impacting the public favorably in a big way, non-landed nudist travel clubs must also bathe nude at secluded beaches in large numbers, float nude on rafts down rivers, strip nude to bathe in hot springs, hike nude in wilderness areas, be nude when primitive camping in national forest land, have skinny dipping sessions at lakes and rivers that are somewhat isolated but populated enough that there will be the occasional encounter with the textile world. We must also rent more health clubs for a "nude night".

Television shows should show more casual non-sexual nudity. I am beginning to see some of that.

Nudist college kids at the big universities must form nudist clubs and take exciting trips.

Eventually we will get the cultural shift toward body acceptance that we are looking for.

Nudity is not just for swingers, the counterculture, cults, or secret societies. It is a normal part of the human experience for all people everywhere.

01-12-2003, 06:38 AM

Cyndiann,

“The two polls show about the same thing. About 80% of people don't think mere nudity is offensive.”

It doesn’t show anything of the sort – as I shall demonstrate.

”From the British poll:
Q3 If you were walking along the coast on a hot day, and you came across a group of naked people sunbathing, swimming or playing cricket, which, if
any, of the following would you do?

Ignore them and keep walking 78%
Be alarmed and keep well away from them 2%
Go naked yourself 2%
Settle down but keep your swimming costume on 13%
Call the police because you were frightened or distressed 1%
None of these 2%
Don't know 1%”

This is a practical question asking what people would actually do in a given situation. It does not ask whether people think nudity is offensive and therefore tells us little about people’s attitudes. Most people I know tell me that they find nudity offensive, yet I suspect they would give the first response. Consider if the poll had asked the following question:

You are sunbathing on a popular public beach with members of your family of varying ages. The adults are relaxing and the children are playing in the sand. A party of about a dozen young college men set down a few yards away from you. To your surprise they remove all their clothing and begin to sunbathe and swim totally naked. Which of the following best describes how you would feel about their open nudity?

(a) Quite happy and unconcerned.
(b) Indifferent.
(c) Shocked and offended.
(d) Angry.

Cyndiann – I would wager that you would get a substantial majority that would answer (a) or (b). Both questions are classic examples that prove that if you want a certain answer, you just need to ask the right question.

”Both polls show that your average person does not think as you do.”

I accept that most people aren’t as anti-nudity as I am. But most people don’t want to encounter nudity in public places.

“You have continually stated on here that most people hold your opinions and those polls prove that not to be true.”

No. You are inferring wider meanings from responses to very carefully worded – in my opinion loaded - questions. The inferences you choose to draw are unwarranted and do not prove what you would have us believe.

Bob,

“Nudists should just submit to the rules that non-nudists have made. That's all.”

No. Nudists and non-nudists alike should behave in ways that don’t cause offence or discomfort to the majority of people enjoying the particular amenity. I just don’t think that’s unreasonable.

"In a few states, you could be arrested for using vulgarity in public, but that law has been overturned in one state (I can't remember which one). They would probably ask you to stop, if not, arrest you for disturbing the peace.”

What? You mean that my right of free speech is limited? Also, from your lack of response on a particular point I made, am I right in assuming you don’t have laws that give redress against defamation of character?

"But that is one of the principles of the US Constitution. That a judiciary (even a jury of our peers) can overrule a law is the best part of the Constitution. Sometimes, our representatives can get the DC (or any state capital) syndrome where they will write laws that they think is good, but oversteps their boundaries as outlined by the Constitution.

I love it!”

OK. It must work for you. I wouldn’t like to see it over here.

Trailscout

"It was a warm day and she had pulled off her top for comfort."

I know Denmark intimately. I spend several weeks there every summer. Whilst I have seen the odd topless woman on a beach, I have never seen this in a park. Last year I spent three days lounging about enjoying the sunshine in the city park in Odense, near the university, among hundreds of other people of all ages. Although a few female office workers stripped down to their bras, none were topless. Your friend's experience was highly unusual. Contrary to their reputation, many Danes are quite prudish. That's one reason I go there so often - I really feel at home /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"In addition to official toleration of public nudity, we also need a favorable shift in public attitude toward nudity."

Sorry to keep repeating my mantra - you need more, better and more accessible places for naturists. Everything has a place - including nudity.

"if we are to have any hope of impacting the public favorably in a big way, non-landed nudist travel clubs must also bathe nude at secluded beaches in large numbers, float nude on rafts down rivers, strip nude to bathe in hot springs, hike nude in wilderness areas, be nude when primitive camping in national forest land, have skinny dipping sessions at lakes and rivers that are somewhat isolated but populated enough that there will be the occasional encounter with the textile world. We must also rent more health clubs for a "nude night"."

Why? Why can't you just be happy acquiring and enjoying naturist venues? Why do the rest of us have to be included in your ambitions? People are happy to tolerate and accept naturists as people, and properly set aside naturist places. As I have said all along - if you start to encroach upon the "textile world", that acceptance will be threatened. From being seen as a harmless minority interest people will start to associate you with exhibitionists and worse!

"Television shows should show more casual non-sexual nudity. I am beginning to see some of that."

They can show what they want on TV so long as its content is properly indicated (i.e. people are warned that offensive scenes are included).

"Eventually we will get the cultural shift toward body acceptance that we are looking for."

If people are happy with the status quo then what's the point of trying to change that? I don't want to have more "body acceptance" - I'm happy as I am. Trailscout, you make it sound as though you are wanting to conduct an evangelising campaign to enlighten the ignorant textile world. Has it occurred to you that we might not want to be converted?

Stu

01-12-2003, 06:44 AM

I said to Cyndiann:

"Cyndiann – I would wager that you would get a substantial majority that would answer (a) or (b). Both questions are classic examples that prove that if you want a certain answer, you just need to ask the right question."

I meant (c) and (d) of course. Aren't I a dummy!!!

On second thoughts, don't answer that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

01-12-2003, 07:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I said to Cyndiann:

"Cyndiann – I would wager that you would get a substantial majority that would answer (a) or (b). Both questions are classic examples that prove that if you want a certain answer, you just need to ask the right question."

I meant (c) and (d) of course. Aren't I a dummy!!!

On second thoughts, don't answer that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, from the British Poll:
http://www.british-naturism.org.uk/press/noprelease.htm

"The poll showed an even higher figure, 88 per cent, agreeing that naturists are harmless while 40 per cent actually described them as sensible. And a quarter of Britons have actually had the courage of their convictions to give it a go themselves, with 24 per cent revealing they had swum in the nude and over a tenth (14 per cent) saying they'd sunbathed nude to get an all-over tan.

"Only a tiny minority, 7 per cent, said they thought naturism was disgusting, while even fewer said it should be illegal (2 per cent). And only 1 per cent of the public said they would call the police because they would be frightened or distressed to come across a group of nude people."

Stu you just argue for argument's sake. You have no good points to make, you trash our points even when we back them up with solid facts. Soon you will have pissed off enough people and gotten enough complaints to force the owners to remove you. You post without knowing what you are talking about and we tromp your assertions over and over. Why are you insisting on pushing us to hate you? Do you feel better about yourself when you log off the computer because you think you are teaching us something? The great majority of us are not buying what you are preaching. Time for the lightbulb to go off in your head to tell you we aren't budging on our beliefs and that you are just wasting our time and yours and plain ole pissing people off.

The polls aren't the garbage you make them out to be. How many posts till you realize we don't believe what you have to say?

Rik

01-12-2003, 07:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
... Time for the lightbulb to go off in your head to tell you we aren't budging on our beliefs and that you are just wasting our time and yours and plain ole pissing people off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whilst I don't feel as strongly as Cyndiann I do find myself sighing at some of the responses we get from Stu. Sometimes I just lose the will to live. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Perhaps more importantly though this whole debate has given us the opportunity to articulate our thoughts about nudity into a coherent argument. My own position has shifted although not perhaps in the direction that Stu might have wanted for I now feel more than ever that the concept of offensiveness is overblown (for still no-one can demonstrate the nature of offensiveness in relation to non-sexual nudity) and that what is really getting in the way of progress is simple acceptability. Stu and others may see these as the same thing but they're not.

Most naturists, I believe, aspire to greater acceptability of their lifestyle/philosophy (or whatever you want to call it)without the need to be segregated: maybe it's about time we stopped apologizing for our beliefs.

Rik

Angel

01-12-2003, 08:03 AM

Rik, I agree.

In trying to consider this issue logically, from a legal, moral, and ethical standpoint, I think many of us have learned a bit about the roots of our beliefs and why we object to the segregation others enforce on us.

I know that I have found a lot of information about how much progress has been made toward diminishing the prejudice toward simple nudity, and I find that very encouraging.

We all tend to try to encourage others to see what is so simple and obvious to us, even when it's gotten completely hopeless. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu is fanatically opposed to facing general acceptance of nudity, and has given his own personal, private reasons for his phobia. He's not likely to have an epiphany about it anytime soon.

The rest of us, though, can look at *real* things - not assumptions and opinions - and see laws changing in our favor.

What say we all try to focus on the positive things happening, and quit the futile argument?

01-12-2003, 08:34 AM

Cyndiann,

"Stu you just argue for argument's sake. You have no good points to make, you trash our points even when we back them up with solid facts. Soon you will have pissed off enough people and gotten enough complaints to force the owners to remove you. You post without knowing what you are talking about and we tromp your assertions over and over. Why are you insisting on pushing us to hate you? Do you feel better about yourself when you log off the computer because you think you are teaching us something? The great majority of us are not buying what you are preaching. Time for the lightbulb to go off in your head to tell you we aren't budging on our beliefs and that you are just wasting our time and yours and plain ole pissing people off."

1. There are naturists here that agree with many of the points I have made. But you are attacking me - the only textile here - and thus a minority.
2. I have been prepared to revise my own views when the counter-arguments have been persuasive enough.
3. I respond with arguments based upon logic and knowledge.

Your last response one that might be expected from a militant or fanatical person. You interpret facts in ways that suit your arguments and and dismiss alternative explanations. When this is pointed out to you, you respond in a childish tantrum, use emotive terms (pushing us to hate you) and make threats. The simple fact is, Cyndiann, you expect me to revise my views and attitudes (and I have done in some respects) whilst you are intransigent. You don't want to discuss, you want to convince, you don't meet anyone half way because you are right and others are wrong.

"The polls aren't the garbage you make them out to be. How many posts till you realize we don't believe what you have to say?"

I never said they were garbage. They just don't prove what you say they prove. If I were to answer the questions set by the British Naturism poll, I would answer in most cases as the majority answered. NOTHING in that should be interpreted as meaning that people are comfortable seeing naked people in public places. That is a fact - even if it does, as you so eloquently put it, "piss people off".

Angel,

"Stu is fanatically opposed to facing general acceptance of nudity, and has given his own personal, private reasons for his phobia. He's not likely to have an epiphany about it anytime soon."

I am strongly opposed to a general acceptance of nudity in public places. I'm not sure I like the term "fanatical" tho'.

"What say we all try to focus on the positive things happening, and quit the futile argument?"

Yes, I'll go along with that. I think this issue will continue to raise its head, though. What is needed is a proper, comprehensive and totally independent survey of public attitudes towards public nudity. Then there would no more need for any further arguments.

Stu

Rik

01-12-2003, 08:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
What is needed is a proper, comprehensive and totally independent survey of public attitudes towards public nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't tell me. You know the very person to do it! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

nudist_in_Tn

01-12-2003, 08:57 AM

Ok here goes my 2 cents worth;
Personally I don't see anything wrong with a person "myself included" being nude in any public setting or situation as long as that person is just nude and minding their own business, I would love to spend my whole life nude and not have to worry about legal issues. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Angel

01-12-2003, 09:22 AM

Stu:

Fanatical: Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fanatical

"Irrational" would be the key word: your objections are based on your own subjective fears and issues, not on the comprehensive amount of data in opposition to the stand you're taking.

Your *opinion* is that simple nudity is wrong.
The *facts* are that laws are changing - and *not* in opposition to simple nudity.

01-12-2003, 09:51 AM

Angel,

"..your objections are based on your own subjective fears and issues, not on the comprehensive amount of data in opposition to the stand you're taking."

But that's the whole point. There isn't any. Please don't quote me the polls that Cyndiann cited because, as I said, they are commissioned by interest groups and they ask very specific questions designed to get certain answers. People are then invited to read into those answers things that weren't intended - as I demonstrated. Without some proper, independent empirical research being done there is no real evidence of what attitudes of the masses really is on this issue (this is what Max is saying). We are then forced to rely upon our own intuitive common sense and knowledge of our friends, families, colleagues etc to form a judgement. I can't see why this point seems to be constantly ignored by Cyndiann and yourself.

"Your *opinion* is that simple nudity is wrong."

No it's not my opinion. I'm going to be nude myself in about 15 minutes when I take a shower. When naturists are on a beach naked that's not wrong. What is wrong, IMO, is people being openly nude in PUBLIC places. Not only do virtually all "textiles" agree with that sentiment, but also a lot of naturists do as well. What is fanatical about that?

"The *facts* are that laws are changing - and *not* in opposition to simple nudity."

You can speak from where you are and I can't comment because I don't know. What I do know is that here our government is set to tighten the laws that regulate nudity. The only "fly in the ointment" that might threaten that position is if someone takes the issue of public nudity to the European Court of Human Rights where anything could happen. If my nightmare came true, and the ECHR declared that being naked in public was a basic human right, I would have to try to find some way to overcome my dislike of nudity. Luckily there are no signs of that happening at the moment.

To save going over old ground again and again, shall we agree to differ on these points? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Stu

Angel

01-12-2003, 10:14 AM

Stu says: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Angel,

"..your objections are based on your own subjective fears and issues, not on the comprehensive amount of data in opposition to the stand you're taking."

But that's the whole point. There isn't any. Please don't quote me the polls that Cyndiann cited because, as I said, they are commissioned by interest groups and they ask very specific questions designed to get certain answers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu:

I haven't been quoting you "polls". I've been giving you references to points of law. Big difference. You say Cyndiann and I are just ignoring that ... but really, who's ignoring what?

Laws, Stu, not polls.

01-12-2003, 10:19 AM

Angel,

Forgive me, but I live in the UK. What have your US court cases got to do with me or the points I am making about public (NOT judicial) attitudes towards public nudity?

Obviously I'm missing something here.

Stu

Bob S.

01-12-2003, 11:03 AM

OK, last night I wrote out a very nice commentary to stu's amended summary of Gary's summary. Unfortunately before I posted it, and after finishing it, I had some kind of program (Netscape) error and was forced to shut down thre program. I will now try to again recreate the brilliance that I achieved in my previous failed post.

"1. Nude is not lewd, but most people don't want to be exposed to it in public places.

And most nudists do not want to be naked in all public places. You claim to understand this, but continually bring it up. What we are asking for are more places that are officially designated as clothing optional or nudist.

"2. Nudists should benefit from non-discrimination laws; and a legal requirement not to offend by inappropriate nudity is not discrimination."

No one has the right to live in an offense-free world. You may have the right to be offended at whatever you wish, but that does not mean that it must be removed.

And if you are really for that statement above that you wrote, how about replacing the words "Nudists" and "inappropriate nudity with the following terms: Women, Christians (-ity), Homosexuals (-ity), stu, etc. Now you see how discriminatory that statement becomes? Now how unrealistic are you being?

"3. Nudists should be allowed freedom of expression, in public, just as everyone else does,
provided they don't offend others by exposing parts of their bodies that the rest of us don't want to see."

There's that word again, offense. You have the freedom to talk on youtr cell phone in the middle of the street, even if others around you can hear your converdsation and find it offensive. If someone has the right to do something, it does not matter if others find offense in it, that is their problem. And if nudists gain the freedom of expression to wear whatever they please, then non-nudists will just have to live with that fact, whether they find offense with it or not.

Bob S.

Rik

01-12-2003, 11:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
What I do know is that here our government is set to tighten the laws that regulate nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No no no no no!!! The law you're referring to is the SEXUAL Offences Act which is designed to tighten the laws relating to SEXUAL offences (which is why it's called what it is). If the law is badly worded, as seems to be a possibility, it will criminilise NON-sexual behaviour (e.g. non-sexual nudity).

As someone who claims to know so much about the law I'm surprised you have so much difficulty with this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If my nightmare came true, and the ECHR declared that being naked in public was a basic human right, I would have to try to find some way to overcome my dislike of nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So why don't you just try anyway? - there's enough people here telling you that nudity is a GOOD thing.

And have you read those 205 reasons yet?

Rik

Bob S.

01-12-2003, 12:01 PM

"1. There are naturists here that agree with many of the points I have made. But you are attacking me - the only textile here - and thus a minority."

Because stu, you, the minority, are the only one who is a non-nudist. And she has also "attacked" others who do not agree with her as well. I, too, have had issues with those with whom I do not agree. Being the minority means that you must be wiiling to take the most flak.

"2. I have been prepared to revise my own views when the counter-arguments have been persuasive enough."

But you are not willing to go all the way and look into your anxiety over the naked body. You seem to only be willing to accept factual information to add to your own repertoire of knowledge, not others' views or independent polls (and yes, they are independent. Roper is not affiliated in any way to any aspect of the nudist world. Just being financed by a certain group does not mean anything. Who do want to finance such a poll, the World Health Organization?

"3. I respond with arguments based upon logic and knowledge."

And illogical fears and supposition.

"Without some proper, independent empirical research being done there is no real evidence of what attitudes of the masses really is on this issue (this is what Max is saying)."

OK, so let's agree that none of us knows what the masses think on the issue of public nudity. In that vein, you can no longer state that the majority of the people do not want to see nudity in public seeing how you have just stated that there is no real evidence. And if you continue to state that, then allow us to use our two independent polls that show the opposite to what you state.

"We are then forced to rely upon our own intuitive common sense and knowledge of our friends, families, colleagues etc to form a judgement."

And polls. We all have different friends, families, and collegues. We can take what we know of our world and come up with our own judgements. Your judgement is that most people do not want to see public nudity. I say that most people see it in the wrong light and, if they were to realize that it is a natural activity, then public sentiment would shift.

"What is wrong, IMO, is people being openly nude in PUBLIC places. Not only do virtually all "textiles" agree with that sentiment, but also a lot of naturists do as well."

Where's your empirical evidence for that? Do not bring that into the equation unless you can back it up.

"Forgive me, but I live in the UK. What have your US court cases got to do with me or the points I am making about public (NOT judicial) attitudes towards public nudity?"

At first, they may seem to have nothing to do with each other. However, we live in a global community. And right now, it seems that the US has managed to culturally contaminate many other countries, from clothing to music. And maybe even our puritanicalism (I don't care if that's not a word). Sometimes, laws that other countries enact can have a rippling effect felt around their cultural allies.

As for laws affecting cultural opinions of other countries, how did the election of 2000 (you know, Florida) here affect cultural opinions about our electoral process over there?

Bob S.

Bob S.

01-12-2003, 12:22 PM

"What? You mean that my right of free speech is limited?"

Well stu, apparently over there it verymuch is compared to what it is in the US.

And yes, although our first amandment rights are very open, there are obvious limitations.

" Also, from your lack of response on a particular point I made, am I right in assuming you don?t have laws that give redress against defamation of character?"

First stu, I am not always going to respond to every statement that you make. Sometimes, I just skip over points because they answer themselves or I just don't feel like responding too them. However, let me answer this one.

Defamation of character is illegal here. You just can't go around telling lies about someone else for either your own benefit or their detriment. You know the reasons for the law, so I will not explain it for you. I skipped this point because I considered it a rhetorical question and felt that it needed no explanation.

And please tell me how libel or slander is even close to having the freedom to be naked out in public. The first two do not offend as much as they are meant to harm the reputation of someone else as well as being freedom of speech/press issues. And yes, freedom of expression means that you can walk around the public in low hanging jeans, a baggy shirt with a picture of a marijuana leaf on it, earrings, a nosering, pierced tongue, long hair, tattoos on you arms, a backwards Yankees cap, and steel-toed boots. It states that you can dress in any way that you want. So why can't I wear the "Emperor's New Clothes"?

Why discriminate against women saying that men can go without a shirt, but females cannot? The breast is not part of the genital area. In some states (New York for one), that discrimination is now illegal and women are allowed to go around topless wherever men are allowed to.

Bob S.

Angel

01-12-2003, 04:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> "Forgive me, but I live in the UK. What have your US court cases got to do with me or the points I am making about public (NOT judicial) attitudes towards public nudity?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sorry Stu; you're always talking about the majority ... I thought you meant the majority of *people*, not just the majority of *people in the UK* (especially considering there are more people on this board living in the US than those in the UK.

I assumed that something showing the majority of people in the *US* did not share your objections would have relevance to your claims.

Silly me.

Andres6104

01-13-2003, 11:22 AM

Strange enough to me, why do so many of you US and UK people believe that common sense issues could and should always be resolved by laws and courts ? Here in continental Europe, public nudity is above all a matter of courtesy and if people don?t walk nude in dowtown shopping streets, it is because it would be considered rude, not because they are afraid of being jailed. Different unwritten standards apply to different kinds of public places. There is a lot of difference between running naked in a commercial street in daylight and sunbathing in a secluded place, even if this place is open to the general public.

I am not a naturist, but I don?t see anything especially offending in any parts of the human body. Being nude where you are not supposed to be so is just bad manners, just like coming clad in jeans and T-shirt at an elegant wedding reception. Nobody finds a topless man indecent, but I have never seen any father pick up his child at school wearing just shorts and tennis shoes, although I am sure there are no laws against that.

Of course, if you like walking in the countryside, you may occasionally come across a few skinnydippers in secluded places. Stu, I regret to say it is not considered normal here to run away in panic if this happens to you, and if you call the police, you will look absolutely ridiculous. Even children are unlikely to panic, because it is considered normal for them to know what a human body of either sex looks like (note that up to the age of eight, boys and girls change in the same room every week for swimming lessons at school, and everybody finds this perfecly ok). Why should there be laws to restrict (or to permit explicitely) public nudity, if courtesy is sufficient ?

01-13-2003, 11:33 AM

Bob,

We're not going to get anywhere on the issue of polls. My own experience of them is that I wouldn't trust them even if they said 99% of people found the idea of public nudity utterly repulsive. Where a poll asks such an obviously 'loaded' question as the one Cyndiann cited (where even my own wife, who really doesn't like public nudity, would have voted with the majority - i.e. just try to ignore it and keep on walking) and is commissioned by a naturist organisation, then its results must be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Let's have a university or research establishment conduct a proper survey of public attitudes to nudity. Then we'll get a truer picture.

"And please tell me how libel or slander is even close to having the freedom to be naked out in public."

Freedom of expression, Bob!

"So why can't I wear the "Emperor's New Clothes"?"

You tell me you just want the right to be naked on designated naturist beaches and are not asking for the right to be nude generally in public. Well, your wish has come true.

If I saw a man wearing a t-shirt bearing a large explicit picture of a woman committing oral sex on a man, then I would be very happy to curtail his right of freedom of expression - especially if my youngest daughter was with me.

There are limits as to how far you can go in public that might offend. To me, nudity is beyond those limits.

"Why discriminate against women saying that men can go without a shirt, but females cannot?"

Because women have got developed breasts and men haven't.

"The breast is not part of the genital area. In some states (New York for one), that discrimination is now illegal and women are allowed to go around topless wherever men are allowed to."

I'm not really in favour of that and, fortunately, that doesn't apply here. I don't get as wound up about that, though, as I would about total nudity.

"I'm sorry Stu; you're always talking about the majority ... I thought you meant the majority of *people*, not just the majority of *people in the UK* (especially considering there are more people on this board living in the US than those in the UK. I assumed that something showing the majority of people in the *US* did not share your objections would have relevance to your claims.

Silly me."

Not at all Angel. I was just puzzled about your detailed explanation of US court cases involving top-free women, whereas I was talking about the general public acceptance (or non-acceptance) of nudity. We must have had our wires crossed. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

01-13-2003, 11:43 AM

Andres - welcome to the debate.

"Of course, if you like walking in the countryside, you may occasionally come across a few skinnydippers in secluded places. Stu, I regret to say it is not considered normal here to run away in panic if this happens to you, and if you call the police, you will look absolutely ridiculous."

We're not quite as laid back about public nudity here in the UK as you are on the continent, Andres. Here, if you're going to go naked anywhere other than a designated naturist site, you'd better make sure nobody sees you. You could very well be arrested.

"Even children are unlikely to panic, because it is considered normal for them to know what a human body of either sex looks like (note that up to the age of eight, boys and girls change in the same room every week for swimming lessons at school, and everybody finds this perfecly ok)."

Again, we wouldn't think of doing that here.

"Why should there be laws to restrict (or to permit explicitely) public nudity, if courtesy is sufficient ? "

Because some people are not courteous over here, Andres. Some people don't care if they offend, and some positively TRY to offend. Others would use an absence of laws against nudity as a means of obtaining sexual gratification at others' expense. If you don't need any laws against nudity because people are courteous and considerate then you are lucky. We need ours!

Stu

Rik

01-13-2003, 12:38 PM

Andres

Thank you for your input into this debate. Despite what Stu may say there are no laws in the UK which prohibit simple non-sexual nudity. Those that get arrested do so because there is an assumption by the police (and Stu) that nudity in public is a "public order" issue and are prosecuted under public order laws. The fact that very few people who witness public nudity feel that they have been violated in any way (and there are plenty of first hand accounts to provide evidence of this - albeit not scientific evidence) does not deter the police and other do-gooders from striving to "protect" the public.

What you say exists in Belgium is exactly what I would like to see in the UK (and the USA). I have previously defined it as allowing the individual to define for themselves where nudity is and isn't acceptable in much the same way as I currently do not sing at the top of my voice in a crowded public place because I don't feel such a thing is acceptable even though it is not illegal. Despite what Stu says I truly believe that the people of both the UK and the US are quite capable of making these decisions for themselves without the intervention of the law.

Stu

"Where a poll asks such an obviously 'loaded' question as the one Cyndiann cited (where even my own wife, who really doesn't like public nudity, would have voted with the majority - i.e. just try to ignore it and keep on walking)..."

There you go again putting your own spin on things. The anctual response was "ignore it and keep on walking" - nothing about "just trying".

"Why discriminate against women saying that men can go without a shirt, but females cannot?"

- Because women have got developed breasts and men haven't.

What sort of logical argument is that? Women have also developed faces which are clearly feminine - perhaps they should be asked to cover their faces aswell. Men have devloped Adam's Apples. Women often have longer finger nails. Both sexes have similar buttocks yet still you want them covered up.

- We're not quite as laid back about public nudity here in the UK as you are on the continent, Andres.

No Stu, we're quite laid back about it. It's you that has the problem.

"Why should there be laws to restrict (or to permit explicitely) public nudity, if courtesy is sufficient ? "

- Because some people are not courteous over here, Andres. Some people don't care if they offend, and some positively TRY to offend. Others would use an absence of laws against nudity as a means of obtaining sexual gratification at others' expense. If you don't need any laws against nudity because people are courteous and considerate then you are lucky. We need ours!

Wrong again Stu. What evidence do you have to suggest that people in the UK or the USA are less courteous than in Belgium? None at all - because once again you're making assumptions based on your own irrational abhorrence of nudity. Andres said "Of course, if you like walking in the countryside, you may occasionally come across a few skinnydippers in secluded places. Stu, I regret to say it is not considered normal here to run away in panic if this happens to you, and if you call the police, you will look absolutely ridiculous." which suggests that indeed in Belgium you are just as likely to meet a "discourteous" person as in the UK.

Rik

Gary Naturist

01-13-2003, 01:25 PM

Andres: Thanks for your input. Public nudity can and should be controlled in the same way as for other types of social behavior, not by making it illegal.

In Ontario, for the past 3 years, it has been legal for women to be top-free in public. However, I have yet to see a top-free woman, except in parades during Gay Pride week. It's legal but the right is not abused.

I have no doubt tha the same would be true if nudity were declared legal. Although men are more inclined towards nudity, I doubt that there would be much problem, because of the power of public censure.

The message to all should be that nude is not lewd, but it can be rude.

Gary

David77

01-13-2003, 05:38 PM

Andres,
Thank you very much for your describing the attitudes and practices of your country regarding nudity. What you have described is very sensible. Nice to learn about it. I hope that some day we will also be more open-minded about nudity here.

Trailscout

01-13-2003, 07:20 PM

Stu,

I suppose that you are right. Few women do go topless in city parks, even in Denmark. I was not attempting to portray Denmark as one big naturist park.

I do believe that the encounter between my friend and the topless jogger perfectly exemplifies the peaceful coexistence that should occur on a much broader scale between naturists and non-naturists in public places. I would love to see episodes like this repeated thousands of times over!

Stu, you asked, "Why can't you just be happy acquiring and enjoying naturist venues? Why do the rest of us have to be included in your ambitions?..."

Well, when we put up high walls and remained in what some called "nudist colonies", many people imagined that we were doing something wrong, else we would not have been so secretive.

I am not an exhibitionist and I daresay that most of us nudists are not. I go nude for a lot of reasons, but being on display is not one of those reasons. I am a bit of an evangelist in that I believe that it is better to show people that social nudity is wholesome and good rather than merely tell them.

You also asked, "If people are happy with the status quo then what's the point of trying to change that? I don't want to have more "body acceptance" - I'm happy as I am.

When I see all the harm that compulsive clothes wearing has done to the public, I get very evangelical. I want to save as many people as possible from that warped world view.

Surely you have heard of neuroses in which the victim of some particular ailment is blissfully unaware of his mental problem. That doesn't relieve the doctor of his obligation to attempt to cure his unsuspecting patient!

Trailscout

Bob S.

01-13-2003, 07:47 PM

"Let's have a university or research establishment conduct a proper survey of public attitudes to nudity. Then we'll get a truer picture."

The Roper firm is based at the University of Connecticut, or at least their website is. Go to the address in the "public nudity" discussion to find their website.

"And please tell me how libel or slander is even close to having the freedom to be naked out
in public."

"Freedom of expression, Bob!"

Wrong stu! Libel is a freedom of speech issue. Slander is a freedom of press issue (do you have that over there?). Behaviour (and art) is a freedom of expression issue.

"You tell me you just want the right to be naked on designated naturist beaches and are not
asking for the right to be nude generally in public. Well, your wish has come true."

I have continually stated that all I want right now is to have more places to enjoy nude recreation, but I have also stated that I want that right for everywhere, just not as an immediate goal. So right now, my wish to be naked in designated areas is partially true. However, we still have a long way to go..."And miles to go before I sleep...And miles to go before I sleep."

"If I saw a man wearing a t-shirt bearing a large explicit picture of a woman committing oral sex on a man, then I would be very happy to curtail his right of freedom of expression -especially if my youngest daughter was with me."

But that is much different than simple nudity. That is sexual imagery. Even in art, sexual acts are not protected as first amendment speech.

"There are limits as to how far you can go in public that might offend. To me, nudity is beyond those limits."

I am shocked! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif You think nudity is beyond those limits, well, knock me over with a feather! Yes, there are limits, but those limits must follow within the word of the law, not within the opinion of the majority (two separate issues).

"Because women have got developed breasts and men haven't."

So. That is not a reason. What of overweight men? Some of them have breasts that are bigger than some women's. There are even men who have a condition in which thier breasts grow like a woman's. In older age, some men's breasts sag like their female copunterparts'.

The female breast's only function is to act as a feeding conduit for a newborn baby. Do you object to a woman breastfeeding her infant in public? That, as far as I know, is legal everywhere in the US and probably in the UK.

"Here, if you're going to go naked anywhere other than a designated naturist site, you'd better make sure nobody sees you. You could very well be arrested."

Being convicted is another thing, however.

"Because some people are not courteous over here, Andres."

Boy, you really don't think much of your fellow countrymen, do you stu?

"Some people don't care if they offend, and some positively TRY to offend. Others would use an absence of laws against nudity as a means of obtaining sexual gratification at others' expense. If you don't need any laws against nudity because people are courteous and considerate then you are lucky. We need ours!"

Again stu, offending someone else is not against the law. However, behaviour can be against the law and if someone were to "obtain sexual gratification at others' expense", then they would be carted off to jail for that behaviour. The nudity in that case would be incidental.

And why can't you see Belgium's experience, as told by another non-nudist, Andres, as what would possibly happen in the UK (or the US)? You have stated that the majority of nudists that you have met here are not like Vincent nor do they espouse his radical ways. We have even told you that most of the nudist world have distanced themselves from him and he even distances himself from us. From what I have read, you believe that most of us are content with having places designated as nudist or C/O, something you wish for us.

Knowing all of that, stu, what would assume would happen if all nudity laws were reversed as they are in Belgium? Would you suddenly see the streets flooded with naked people? Would all of the people whom you have understood to be considerate suddenly change and go crazy?

For the most part, you would probably see no change in the behaviour of the people. The Vincents are mainly around to change the law and public's perception. You have no evidence that he or others like him would proceed to live life in the nude all the time. And if they did, so what? He would simply be "that weird naked guy" still.

Most people barely utilize the rights they have now. I don't know when the last US election brought out even half of those eligible to vote. Very few women in places where they have the right to go topless actually do so. You are seeing the worst case scenario in your own mind without really thinking about what others think. How about this: Compare how many naturists there are in the UK, average number of visitors of C/O beaches and nudist parks with how many arrests for public nudity there were. Now discount all public nudity arrests that were connected with sexual behaviour, public intoxication or other chemically induced conditions, and any mentally unsound (schizophrenic, manic-depressive, etc) people. How many do you have now? What is the ratio of public nudity arrests to the number of naturists? And how many of those people who you have left in the arrested category are naturists?

Calm down, stu. It'll be OK.

Bob S.

RIVERRAT

01-13-2003, 08:26 PM

Hey guy I've been there my neighbors on both sides have seen me naked for one reason or another in my back yard, one waved the other I think was in shock, I have ventured into my back yard and a couple of times into my front yard. I guess I don't think about it, I'm naked, but then I'm always naked, I love to push the envelope, My neighbors know I'm a home nudist, I guess they tollorate me, know one has ever said anything, I've been out there for 9 years now. SCARY isn't it???

01-14-2003, 10:00 AM

Bob,

"Knowing all of that, stu, what would assume would happen if all nudity laws were reversed as they are in Belgium? Would you suddenly see the streets flooded with naked people?"

No, but one is one too many in my book, Bob. I'd be afraid to go to my local beach or park and other places just in case I encountered one such inconsiderate person. Belgium and England may be neighbouring countries, but we're as different as the US and Mexico in our cultural attitudes.

"You have no evidence that he or others like him would proceed to live life in the nude all the time. And if they did, so what? He would simply be "that weird naked guy" still."

I still wouldn't like it, Bob, and neither would millions of others.

"You are seeing the worst case scenario in your own mind without really thinking about what others think. How about this: Compare how many naturists there are in the UK, average number of visitors of C/O beaches and nudist parks with how many arrests for public nudity there were. Now discount all public nudity arrests that were connected with sexual behaviour, public intoxication or other chemically induced conditions, and any mentally unsound (schizophrenic, manic-depressive, etc) people. How many do you have now? What is the ratio of public nudity arrests to the number of naturists? And how many of those people who you have left in the arrested category are naturists?"

Bob, genuine naturists over here tend to be both very considerate of us "textiles" and also they seem to like to be among their own kind. They don't get arrested because they don't do anything wrong. The people that get arrested are either drunks, streakers or fanatics (like a certain person we've discussed earlier).

"Calm down, stu. It'll be OK."

Oh! I know it will, Bob. I'm counting on it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RIVERRAT

"Hey guy I've been there my neighbors on both sides have seen me naked for one reason or another in my back yard, one waved the other I think was in shock,"

In shock? Hmm. So matbe I'm not so unusual after all. Unexpected nudity can be shocking? Well, there you go!

"I have ventured into my back yard and a couple of times into my front yard. I guess I don't think about it, I'm naked, but then I'm always naked, I love to push the envelope, My neighbors know I'm a home nudist, I guess they tollorate me, know one has ever said anything, I've been out there for 9 years now. SCARY isn't it???"

Why don't you go around and ask them how they really feel about it? Tell them that you don't want to offend them, and, whilst you like being naked, if it REALLY upsets them then you won't do it any more? Instead of "pushing the envelope" why not try being neighbourly and considerate? They'll appreciate you for it! And they might even say they don't mind.

Stu

Rik

01-14-2003, 02:11 PM

Stu

"Bob, genuine naturists over here tend to be both very considerate of us "textiles...""

What is a 'genuine' naturist? How do you know they're considerate? Where's your evidence? How many do you actually know?

"...and also they seem to like to be among their own kind."

Yes, they're humans and they like to be among other humans.

"They don't get arrested because they don't do anything wrong."

Well some do get arrested despite not doing anything wrong, some get harassed by the police whilst not doing anything wrong.

"The people that get arrested are either drunks, streakers...."

Steakers are specifically exempt from the proposed Sexual Offences Act. How much sense does that make when a person sunbathing on a deserted beach is potentially liable for arrest and, if guilty, would be placed on the sex offenders register?

"... or fanatics (like a certain person we've discussed earlier)"

Who's that then? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Bob S.

01-14-2003, 06:18 PM

"No, but one is one too many in my book, Bob. I'd be afraid to go to my local beach or park and other places just in case I encountered one such inconsiderate person."

How about talking about psychopaths, stu? If you were to encounter a knife-wielding maniac on the street, that would be bad enough. But would you then stay at home to assure yourself that you would not encounter them anymore?

I agree that this is an extreme hypothetical, but you could meet inconsiderate people anywhere you go with behaviours that run the gamut. Some curmudgeons can loathe children, so should they just avoid every place that children may be? And on the flip side, should parents avoid all places where such curmudgeons be? Stu, it is impossible to avoid inconsiderate people. And really, you don't know how many "considerate" naturists that you encounter every day. We are all dressed and you would never know us to look at us.

"I still wouldn't like it, Bob, and neither would millions of others."

Again, so what? I'm sure that you see other behaviours around you that you consider inconsiderate. And those people are rude, too. I'm not a big fan of public displays of affection (PDAs), especially intense tongue-wrestling. I'm sure millions of others do not appreciate it as well, but you know what, we have learned to live with it and simply ignore it, or walk by.

"Bob, genuine naturists over here tend to be both very considerate of us "textiles" and also they seem to like to be among their own kind. They don't get arrested because they don't do anything wrong. The people that get arrested are either drunks, streakers or fanatics (like a certain person we've discussed earlier). "

Thank you. So you agree that most naturists wouldn't change. So why the need for extreme laws?

"Why don't you go around and ask them how they really feel about it?"

Because he has been doing it for 9 years and they have never said anything to him about it.

"Instead of "pushing the envelope" why not try being neighbourly and considerate? They'll appreciate you for it! And they might even say they don't mind."

After 9 years, this is no longer "pushing the envelope" and is now into the territory of accepted behaviour. And really, this is what I mean by non-nudists being considerate to nudists. It has worked, can work and will work. We can all live in peace together, even if some of us are naked while others are clothed.

Bob S.

01-15-2003, 02:37 PM

Rik,

"What is a 'genuine' naturist? How do you know they're considerate? Where's your evidence? How many do you actually know?"

None. Yet there are (supposedly) two million in the UK and yet I never see anybody nude in my park or on British beaches so they must be considerate.

"Well some do get arrested despite not doing anything wrong.."

I can't ever recall a naturist being arrested for practising naturism in my locality. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it must be very rare. And if they hadn't done anything wrong then presumably they could claim lots of money from the police for wrongful arrest. Funny I've never heard of that either.

"...some get harassed by the police whilst not doing anything wrong."

The police clearly perceive that they ARE doing things illegal or they wouldn't bother with them. Besides, why should the police be "anti-nudist" in general? Is there no such thing as a naturist who also happens to be a police officer? Why pick on naturists? Perhaps it's because they get a lot of complaints from members of the public.

"Steakers are specifically exempt from the proposed Sexual Offences Act."

Yes they are because there is other legislation in place that provides ample provision to deal with streakers.

"How much sense does that make when a person sunbathing on a deserted beach is potentially liable for arrest and, if guilty, would be placed on the sex offenders register?"

None whatsoever. I suspect you'll find that the police won't, as a rule, use this new law in the circumstances you describe.

"How about talking about psychopaths, stu? If you were to encounter a knife-wielding maniac on the street, that would be bad enough. But would you then stay at home to assure yourself that you would not encounter them anymore?"

Bob, someone told me that there are two million genuine practising naturists in the UK. Add to that the "nasties", i.e. all the exhibitionists, perverts and idiots who are only too happy to shock and offend others, and suddenly you have a very significant minority - and far more in number than knife-weilding psychos. Besides, the law is there to protect me from certain types of people I don't want to encounter on beaches and in parks, whether they be knife-weilding psychos or insufficiently covered sunbathers.

"Stu, it is impossible to avoid inconsiderate people. And really, you don't know how many "considerate" naturists that you encounter every day. We are all dressed and you would never know us to look at us."

Agreed.

"And those people are rude, too. I'm not a big fan of public displays of affection (PDAs), especially intense tongue-wrestling. I'm sure millions of others do not appreciate it as well, but you know what, we have learned to live with it and simply ignore it, or walk by."

But do you find it offensive - I mean REALLY offensive? Most people I know would find unexpected public nudity far more offensive tha?n your tongue-wrestlers, Bob, even if that seems illogical. Perhaps that's because most of us have indulged in a bit of that with the opposite sex when we were young and in love.

"Thank you. So you agree that most naturists wouldn't change. So why the need for extreme laws?"

Bob, what extreme laws do you perceive that I'm supporting?

"Because he has been doing it for 9 years and they have never said anything to him about it."

Perhaps they feel uncomfortable about bringing the subject up. Or perhaps they perceive that he was some sort of eccentric "nut" and they don't know how he'll react. Perhaps they don't like it but don't want to make a fuss. If he was my neighbour (here in the UK) I'd tell him nicely he couldn't do it any more. If he told me he would do it then I'm afraid he'd be getting a County Court writ seeking an injunction for private nuisance.

"After 9 years, this is no longer "pushing the envelope" and is now into the territory of accepted behaviour."

Not necessarily. As I said, the neighbours might just be putting up with it rather than cause a fuss, but they may find it quite shocking.

"And really, this is what I mean by non-nudists being considerate to nudists. It has worked, can work and will work. We can all live in peace together, even if some of us are naked while others are clothed."

Your interpretation might be right, or it might not be. Riverrat ought to check it out by talking to his "considerate" neighbours and finding out how they really feel about seeing him naked from their own homes.

Stu

Bob S.

01-15-2003, 07:03 PM

"Yes they are because there is other legislation in place that provides ample provision to deal with streakers."

So why is the govt of England considering creating a new law that further criminalizes public nudity when they could just use the law that you say they should have used on Vincent?

". Add to that the "nasties", i.e. all the exhibitionists, perverts and idiots who are only too happy to shock and offend others, and suddenly you have a very significant minority"

Those people you mention above are not the type who would be following the law anyway. They are the ones who get arrested now. And we are not suggesting doing away with any law that would decriminalize them. Their behaviour is enough to get them arrested, no matter their state of dress. Why even mention these people in connection with the two-million naturists in the UK? I thought we agreed that these people were not a part of us.

"But do you find it offensive - I mean REALLY offensive?"

I am a very laid back type of person so there is rarely anything that I find "REALLY offensive". One of the biggies are inconsiderate people, especially those who make crude jokes while not being able to be the butt of them. I also find close-minded people offensive. PDAs rank up there on my offensive behaviour, but I cannot say that it would affect the way I live my life.

"Most people I know would find unexpected public nudity far more offensive tha?n your tongue-wrestlers, Bob, even if that seems illogical."

That makes perfect sense to me. Maybe it is the unexpectedness that is the problem. How about if we start using bullhorns to signify that we are coming? Then it wouldn't be so unexpected. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Bob, what extreme laws do you perceive that I'm supporting?"

The new Sex Offenses Act. But since you state that you don't support it because of the punishment, then I am not stating that you are supporting it. I was simply asking what the need for the new law was.

"Perhaps they feel uncomfortable about bringing the subject up. Or perhaps they perceive that he was some sort of eccentric "nut" and they don't know how he'll react. Perhaps they don't like it but don't want to make a fuss. If he was my neighbour (here in the UK) I'd tell him nicely he couldn't do it any more. If he told me he would do it then I'm afraid he'd be getting a County Court writ seeking an injunction for private nuisance."

If they can't tell him to cover up themselves, they have had the right to call the authorities. But so far, they haven't. Maybe they have just gotten over it.

Now for a question for Riverrat: How is your relationship with your neighbors outside of your nudity? Are they cordial to you? Do they seem to be apprehensive around you? Do you think that they just don't care? Give us more info if you wish.

Bob S.

Rik

01-16-2003, 03:06 AM

Stu

"How much sense does that make when a person sunbathing on a deserted beach is potentially liable for arrest and, if guilty, would be placed on the sex offenders register?"

You said: "None whatsoever. I suspect you'll find that the police won't, as a rule, use this new law in the circumstances you describe."

Then why bother to draft a law which criminalizes innocent activity? I am not comforted by your suspician that the police won't "as a rule" use the law in these cicumstances - I would be much happier to see the actual wording of the law ensure that it cannot be used in these circumstances.

"After 9 years, this is no longer "pushing the envelope" and is now into the territory of accepted behaviour."

You said: "Not necessarily. As I said, the neighbours might just be putting up with it rather than cause a fuss, but they may find it quite shocking."

Equally they may be putting up with it because they don't find it shocking. Agreed they may not like it any more than they might not like to see a beat up car parked out on the road, or they may find it odd/eccentric or whatever, but if they were shocked by it then surely they would do something about it - I'm sure you would and you often claim that most people think the same as you.

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, such as Gary's, to suggest that people aren't nearly as shocked as you might imagine. If you ask people would they be shocked at the sight of nudity you may well get many people saying "yes" but confront them with actual nudity and the shock (if ever it existed) dissipates very rapidly.

Rik

01-16-2003, 12:27 PM

"So why is the govt of England considering creating a new law that further criminalizes public nudity when they could just use the law that you say they should have used on Vincent?"

I think to modernise and clarify existing laws so that nobody can possibly entertain any doubts that public nudity is illegal. Streakers are ALWAYS detained and at best removed and sometimes charged with offences even though what they do is momentary. Streakers don't hang around public places being naked.

"(regarding exhibitionists, perverts etc) Why even mention these people in connection with the two-million naturists in the UK? I thought we agreed that these people were not a part of us."

I'm not mentioning them in connection with naturists, but the simple facts are that firstly these people are out there, and secondly they would happily exploit any relaxation of our laws for their own gratification.

"That makes perfect sense to me. Maybe it is the unexpectedness that is the problem. How about if we start using bullhorns to signify that we are coming? Then it wouldn't be so unexpected."

The way to ensure you're not unexpected is to keep yourselves on the right sides of the "WARNING! YOU MIGHT ENCOUNTER NUDITY BEYOND THIS POINT!" signs that I advocate.

"The new Sex Offenses Act. But since you state that you don't support it because of the punishment, then I am not stating that you are supporting it. I was simply asking what the need for the new law was."

The only need for a new law is so that there can be no doubt what is, and what is not, permitted in public places. People like Mr Bethell has raised some doubts in some quarters - including contributors to this board. A new law could rectify that.

"How much sense does that make when a person sunbathing on a deserted beach is potentially liable for arrest..."

I don't have a problem with "potentially" because I have no doubt the police would use this with some discretion (if allowed to do so). The new law isn't intended to criminalise the person who strips on a "deserted beach" and I don't believe it would be used as such. But go to a popular (non-naturist) beach, or even a less popular one and fail to cover up when others approach, and then you just might find yourself on the wrong end of the law.

"..and, if guilty, would be placed on the sex offenders register?"

Yes. That would be grossly excessive for simple nudity. I'm on your side about that.

"Then why bother to draft a law which criminalizes innocent activity? I am not comforted by your suspician that the police won't "as a rule" use the law in these cicumstances - I would be much happier to see the actual wording of the law ensure that it cannot be used in these circumstances."

You and I have different ideas about what constitutes "innocent activity". Wilfully being naked in a public place in causing or potentially causing offence is not innocent in my book.

"...but if they were shocked by it then surely they would do something about it"

People often don't like to fall out with neighbours - especially if they're good in other ways. It wouldn't hurt to "sound them out" though, would it?

"I'm sure you would and you often claim that most people think the same as you."

On this topic I'm convinced that they do.

"There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, such as Gary's, to suggest that people aren't nearly as shocked as you might imagine. If you ask people would they be shocked at the sight of nudity you may well get many people saying "yes" but confront them with actual nudity and the shock (if ever it existed) dissipates very rapidly."

Rik, I can give you masses of anecdotal evidence that most people don't want to encounter public nudity. The fact that people aclimatise themselves to things that would at one time shock them isn't necessarily a desirable thing. One example of this could be the how we have grown accustomed to, and de-sensitised towards, the portrayal of violence on TV, films, video games. I don't regard that as a positive change at all.

Stu

Rik

01-16-2003, 01:36 PM

Stu

You said in the context of the proposed Sexual Offences Act: "The only need for a new law is so that there can be no doubt what is, and what is not, permitted in public places."

And then you said: "I have no doubt the police would use this with some discretion (if allowed to do so). The new law isn't intended to criminalise the person who strips on a "deserted beach" and I don't believe it would be used as such."

And then: "That [being placed on the Sex Offenders Register] would be grossly excessive for simple nudity.

Ok, so you admit that simple nudity is not a sex offence for if it was then there should be no argument that those who are nude in public should be punished in accordance with the normal punishment for sex offenders.

So if it's not a sex offence where is the logic in including it in a SEXUAL offences act?

IF the wording of the Act criminalizes simple nudity then simple nudity is criminal. So why would the police or the courts fail to prosecute criminals who are clearly in breach of the law?

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the thinking behind the proposed law as it will help to catch people sexually abusing children for instance, who under current law do not escape detection but escape prosecution. I also accept that it is not the intention of the act to criminilize existing nudist activity. But Stu, is definitely not a law to "...modernise and clarify existing laws so that nobody can possibly entertain any doubts that public nudity is illegal" even if that may be an outcome which you and others consider desirable. The existing laws used against people who appear nude in public will remain in force and will NOT be modified - I've read the White Paper and seen copies of correspondence from the Home Office so I understand the intent. What concerns me is not so much the intent but the WORDING of the law for that is what will be used (or abused) to make criminals out of naturists.

Maybe a year or two down the line the Sun Newspaper will mount a campaign of 'name and shame your local nudists' for surely they must be harbouring paedophiles. All the good intent will count for nothing then if the police can be seen rounding up nudist families on a deserted beach in North Wales.

You said:"Rik, I can give you masses of anecdotal evidence that most people don't want to encounter public nudity."

You mean you have some first hand accounts that I can read or do you mean that it's your anectotal evidence? If it's the former perhaps you can tell me more. If it's the latter I suspect I've heard it already.

You said: "You and I have different ideas about what constitutes "innocent activity". Wilfully being naked in a public place in causing or potentially causing offence is not innocent in my book."

Well I won't argue that point again but leave you with the thought that 'nudity', public or otherwise, is not an 'activity' it's a state of being.

Rik

Rik

01-17-2003, 02:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Bob said:"So why is the govt of England considering creating a new law that further criminalizes public nudity when they could just use the law that you say they should have used on Vincent?"

You said: I think to modernise and clarify existing laws so that nobody can possibly entertain any doubts that public nudity is illegal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know I responded to this in my previous post but you appear to be deliberately misleading people here to support you own views. The following is an extract from the standard response being given out by the Home Office to letters received from people concerned about the impact of the proposed Sexual Offences Bill on the pursuit of naturism.

"The purpose of the forthcoming Sexual Offences Bill is to modernise, clarify and strengthen sex offences legislation. The new offence of indecent exposure is needed to enable the appropriate punishment of those who expose their genitalia in order to cause alarm or distress to others."

Note the words 'in order to cause alarm or distress'. So this law is not needed to remove "any doubts that public nudity is illegal" for only in certain circumstances would it be illegal. The govenrment has stated elewhere that this new offence of "indecent exposure" is intended to make it easier to criminalise flashers.

The Home Office response goes on to say:

"The public order offences, which are currently used to regulate public nudity, did not form part of the Sex Offences Review; they are not being amended and will remain on the statute books. We do not expect the introduction of the indecent exposure offence to have any impact upon the way in which nudity in public is currently regulated by the police."

I can't say I'm thrilled at the government's position because it still seems to assume that in some circumstances non-sexual public nudity can be dealt with as a sexual offence but I am encouraged that, despite the wording of the White Paper (in regard to 'regulated environments'), the Home Office is publicly declaring that it is not the intention of the new law to supercede the existing public order laws, because existing public order laws do not specifically criminilize nudity even though they are used (or misused) against nudists.

I will be more comforted if the actual wording of the bill is in line with the Home Office intentions.

Rik

With apologies to non-UK members for prolonging this very UK specific issue.

01-17-2003, 11:45 AM

Rik,

"Ok, so you admit that simple nudity is not a sex offence for if it was then there should be no argument that those who are nude in public should be punished in accordance with the normal punishment for sex offenders."

I agree.

"So if it's not a sex offence where is the logic in including it in a SEXUAL offences act?"

There isn't one. Simple nudity should not be a sex offence.

"IF the wording of the Act criminalizes simple nudity then simple nudity is criminal. So why would the police or the courts fail to prosecute criminals who are clearly in breach of the law?"

Because there are many types of offence. I regard simple nudity in public as a minor public order offence and believe it should be punished as such. There is a gentleman in Southampton who faced trial today under section 5 or the Public Order Act 1986 for simple public nudity (I think his name was Gough). That is, in my view, an appropriate charge.

"But Stu, is definitely not a law to "...modernise and clarify existing laws so that nobody can possibly entertain any doubts that public nudity is illegal" even if that may be an outcome which you and others consider desirable."

The one part of the law that I welcome is that part which states that nudity in "designated nudist areas" is specifically exempted. Any lawyer worth his corn will cite that when dealing with a public nudity case to show that Parliament intended it to be an offence to be publicly naked elsewhere. It has what we call a "persuasive implicature".

"The existing laws used against people who appear nude in public will remain in force and will NOT be modified - I've read the White Paper and seen copies of correspondence from the Home Office so I understand the intent. What concerns me is not so much the intent but the WORDING of the law for that is what will be used (or abused) to make criminals out of naturists."

Relax, Rik, it won't be. You'll see.

"Maybe a year or two down the line the Sun Newspaper will mount a campaign of 'name and shame your local nudists' for surely they must be harbouring paedophiles. All the good intent will count for nothing then if the police can be seen rounding up nudist families on a deserted beach in North Wales."

The police are, in my experience, decent fellows with bags of common sense. They'll use the new law with a great deal of circumspection and discretion.

"You mean you have some first hand accounts that I can read or do you mean that it's your anectotal evidence? If it's the former perhaps you can tell me more."

Anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. We get it from our own experiences and those of others who share theirs with us.

"Well I won't argue that point again but leave you with the thought that 'nudity', public or otherwise, is not an 'activity' it's a state of being."

It's a conscious decision to go out into a PUBLIC place unclothed, knowing that some people will take exception to is, therefore it is a behaviour. You could argue that being drunk is a "state of being". I doubt the magistrate would accept that as a defence to being drunk and disorderly.

"...The public order offences, which are currently used to regulate public nudity, did not form part of the Sex Offences Review; they are not being amended and will remain on the statute books. We do not expect the introduction of the indecent exposure offence to have any impact upon the way in which nudity in public is currently regulated by the police."

So what are you worrying about? Go naked in public and you'll get arrested and fined (etc) for precisely the same offences as before. No problem /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Forget the new offence if you like.

"..the Home Office is publicly declaring that it is not the intention of the new law to supercede the existing public order laws, because existing public order laws do not specifically criminilize nudity even though they are used (or misused) against nudists."

Rik, the current laws work perfectly well. The aberration that occurred when some adventurous prosecutor wanted to show off his knowledge of obscure common law offences in the Bethell case does not change the overall picture that public nudity can be dealt with under public order legislation. It is antisocial behaviour and should be treated as such.

Stu

Rik

01-17-2003, 01:26 PM

Stu

"It's a conscious decision to go out into a PUBLIC place unclothed, knowing that some people will take exception to is, therefore it is a behaviour. You could argue that being drunk is a "state of being". I doubt the magistrate would accept that as a defence to being drunk and disorderly."

Being drunk is not a crime - it's the disorderly bit which attracts the attention of the police. Being nude is not a crime but behaving offensively is.

"Rik, the current laws work perfectly well."

So why the need to "modernise and clarify"?

"It is antisocial behaviour and should be treated as such."

So you agree with me that the proposed new law is, or rather should be, irrelevant in respect of non-sexual offences such as non-sexual public nudity. Phew! Got there at last. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

steevo

01-17-2003, 02:14 PM

Did anyone catch the Jay Leno show last night? He mentioned an air lines offering nude flights. I don't think he got whole picture, he thought there would be one nude person in with a bunch of textiles.
First of all is right about this? Is there such an air lines offering nude flights? He is usually serious about these things.
If so this is a BIG STEP!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Frank R

01-17-2003, 03:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by steevo:
Did anyone catch the Jay Leno show last night? He mentioned an air lines offering nude flights. I don't think he got whole picture, he thought there would be one nude person in with a bunch of textiles.
First of all is right about this? Is there such an air lines offering nude flights? He is usually serious about these things.
If so this is a BIG STEP!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I remember reading about it. It is not an air lines but a single flight of nudist going from Houston to somewhere in Mexico. The bad part is you have to be texile impaired getting on and off but the trip itself may be made in the nude. Before you ask, the airline employees will remain clothed.

Rik

01-17-2003, 03:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
There is a gentleman in Southampton who faced trial today under section 5 or the Public Order Act 1986 for simple public nudity (I think his name was Gough). That is, in my view, an appropriate charge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not quite. He was charged with "behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress contrary to the Public Order Act 1986" not "simple public nudity" as you suggest.

He had been arrested whilst cycling nude and walking nude in a shopping centre I think.

My understanding of today's events are that he arrived at the court on his bicycle naked and was stopped by police from entering the courtroom. He was arrested for causing a breach of the peace but this was later changed to breaching his bail conditions which is a perfectly valid charge as his bail conditions included that he should not uncover his genitals in public. The police obviously thought better of charging him with being nude in public.

The magistrate would not allow him into court but her argument was not that he was nude but that he was inappropriately dressed. She apparently said something to the effect that if he'd turned up in a T-shirt and shorts he still wouldn't have been allowed in court.

The case was heard without him being present (as he was at the police station). There were a couple of witnesses for the prosecution one of whom had seen him cycle past his window and was concerned of the effect it might have had on children but was unable to say whether there were any children present. Another witness said that an elderly woman had "look flabberghasted" and the arresting police officer was unable to recall whether or not Gough was carrying a placard at the time of his arrest.

The defence barrister spoke for two hours in her summing up and quoted recent caselaw and Human Rights rulings. The magistrate decided to defer pronouncing judgement until the 7th February presumably to give her time to review all the submissions.

It remains to be seen whether he is found guilty or not. On the face of it there are grounds for optimism (on his part at least) but who knows which way the cookie will crumble?

Rik

luvnaturism

01-17-2003, 03:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by steevo:
Did anyone catch the Jay Leno show last night? He mentioned an air lines offering nude flights. . . .
First of all is right about this? Is there such an air lines offering nude flights? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A travel agency (I think it's Castaway Travel) has reserved an entire resort near Cancun for a nude week. They have also chartered a flight from Miami to Cancun, and that charter flight is clothing optional. It's a first, but it's not regularly scheduled service.

01-17-2003, 09:02 PM

I saw this ad in Friday's USA Today. It said-- "Want to make some history? You can and without any clothes on.
What's being billed as the first nude airline flight takes off from Miami International Airport on May 3, destined for Cancun.
Once the plane reaches cruising altitude, passengers will "enjoy their flight, clothes-free," according to the Web site. Just for the record, the pilots and flight attendants will be clothed.
Castaways Travel in Houston, which specializes in nudist vacations, has put together the package. "My wife and I have talked about this for years," Castaways' Jim Bailey says.
The $499 round-trip fare includes a towel to sit on. Once in Cancun, the group heads an hour south to the Eldorado Resort and Spa for a clothing-free week for an additional $770 (already sold out) to $1,050 per person."

Bob S.

01-17-2003, 10:33 PM

"I'm not mentioning them (exhibitionists, perverts etc) in connection with naturists, but the simple facts are that firstly these people are out there, and secondly they would happily exploit any relaxation of our laws for their own gratification."

Yes they are out there and how often are they charged with simply being naked in public? Their BEHAVIOUR is what gets them in trouble. Flashing is a sexual crime; public sex/masturbation is a sexual crime; molesting someone else is a sexual crime. How would the relaxation of public nudity laws have any effect on them?

"The only need for a new law is so that there can be no doubt what is, and what is not, permitted in public places. People like Mr Bethell has raised some doubts in some quarters - including contributors to this board. A new law could rectify that."

But you stated that they used the wrong law to try to prosecute Vincent. Why not just have the standard for prosecutors that they use the other law that you feel Vincent should have been prosecuted? Why the need for more clarification of a law that already exists but that prosecutors don't use?

"People often don't like to fall out with neighbours - especially if they're good in other ways. It wouldn't hurt to "sound them out" though, would it?"

Communication between neighbors is never a bad idea. But according to Riverrat, they have never sounded out to him, either. Imagine this: If you put up some statue out in your backyard that you liked but that others could see as an eyesore and never heard one peep from your neighbors about it, what would you assume that he felt about it? That he loathed it? That he liked it? That he was indifferent to it?

9 years have passed. That's about 3,289 days. This neighbor's silence has spoken volumes to Riverrat. It has said that either he accepts his nudity or merely tolerates it. If he found his neighbor's nudity to be offensive, nine years is a long time to keep ones feelings in check, especially when what his neighbor is doing could be technically illegal.

"The fact that people aclimatise themselves to things that would at one time shock them isn't necessarily a desirable thing."

No. And I agree with you that becoming desensitized to violence is bad. But people have also become desensitized to sexual nudity as it is prevelant in movies and some TV shows. I understand that you don't think that being desensitized to nudity is good, but you do accept that it is possible.

Even you could become desensitized to it. Heck, that is the most common form of treatment for phobic people. Acrophobes get over their fear of heights by climbing up a large building and looking ouit a window. Aviaphobes get over their fear of flying by boarding an airplane and flying. It would probably take you longer than most people to become desensitized to it, but it is possible.

The only thing that is holding back people is their way of thinking. If they could be shown that nudity is not something that should be looked at in a bad light, beit sexual, simply illegal, religious reasons, then most people would probably accept it. Raising children in a culture where nudity is not bad and in fact, a natural part of being, will result in near total acceptance of nudity in future generations. Culture is what matters.

"With apologies to non-UK members for prolonging this very UK specific issue."

No problem Rik. I am enjoying myself, and in fact, could you post the URL of the proposed law and the "White Paper"?

Bob S.

Bob S.

01-17-2003, 10:45 PM

"Did anyone catch the Jay Leno show last night? He mentioned an air lines offering nude flights. I don't think he got whole picture, he thought there would be one nude person in with a bunch of textiles."

I heard it and he did get the whole picture. I believe he was just being faceitious by saying that sitting next to a fat man is one thing, but a fat naked man is another. His "that's not an elbow" joke was a bit distasteful, but that's the kind of humor that his audience likes.

He also made a joke about the new Desert Shadows Inn "nude bridge." Now with that, I am not sure if he was being faceitious or just uninformed. He joked about collecting tolls and receiving a "warm quarter" (Where has that been?). This bridge, from what I understand, will be a pedestrian bridge and absolutely tolless.

The nude flight was also talked about on "The View" this morning (Friday, Jan 17). That led into a discussion about Barbara Walters finding herself at a topless beach, although she never removed her top.

Bob S.

01-18-2003, 02:38 AM

"Not quite. He was charged with "behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress contrary to the Public Order Act 1986" not "simple public nudity" as you suggest. He had been arrested whilst cycling nude and walking nude in a shopping centre I think."

Rik, it was the fact that he was naked that got him arrested under section 5. As far as I know he wasn't doing anything else antisocial.

"He was arrested for causing a breach of the peace but this was later changed to breaching his bail conditions which is a perfectly valid charge as his bail conditions included that he should not uncover his genitals in public. The police obviously thought better of charging him with being nude in public."

Rik, the "breach of the peace" as a reason for arrest was probably unlawful. An older police officer might have been thinking back to the days when that old common law power was a sort of catch-all for occasions where somebody was doing something wrong but it didn't quite fit. A number of cases in recent years have re-defined a breach of the peace and it is now necessary for there to be an element of violence on the part of the person arrested. Causing a breach of the peace isn't actually an offence at all! If he is eventually convicted of section 5 then that should tell you that one magistrate at least considers that being nude in public is, of itself, "disorderly conduct" that is "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". As I'm sure you know, decisions in magistrates court can not be cited as binding precedent.

"There were a couple of witnesses for the prosecution one of whom had seen him cycle past his window and was concerned of the effect it might have had on children but was unable to say whether there were any children present. Another witness said that an elderly woman had "look flabberghasted"..."

So people DO find public nudity disturbing. That's what I've been saying all along /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"The defence barrister spoke for two hours in her summing up and quoted recent caselaw and Human Rights rulings."

I would bet the defence barrister hasn't been able to show that being nude in public has been decided to be a fundamental human right.

"It remains to be seen whether he is found guilty or not. On the face of it there are grounds for optimism (on his part at least) but who knows which way the cookie will crumble?"

True.

Bob,

"Yes they are out there and how often are they charged with simply being naked in public? Their BEHAVIOUR is what gets them in trouble. Flashing is a sexual crime; public sex/masturbation is a sexual crime; molesting someone else is a sexual crime. How would the relaxation of public nudity laws have any effect on them?"

I can tell you that, Bob. I've had professional experience in dealing with some of these. If it were to be publicly declared that merely being naked in a public place was lawful, then some of these people would stand outside primary schools stark naked. Others would display themselves from their windows naked for the benefit of passing schoolchildren, or elderly people. They would goad the police with "You can't touch me for it!", or there would be endless arguments about whether or not he had an erection, or was he scratching his private parts or masturbating? This doesn't happen now, but these sick characters are out there - and they to are very keen to "push the envelope".

"But you stated that they used the wrong law to try to prosecute Vincent. Why not just have the standard for prosecutors that they use the other law that you feel Vincent should have been prosecuted? Why the need for more clarification of a law that already exists but that prosecutors don't use?"

They do use other laws. The case I've been discussing with Rik shows another, far more appropriate, offence that is prosecuted for public nudity. But no-where in the law does it mention "nude" or "naked", so it would be helpful if it did so there would be no need for long, drawn-out court cases where lawyers spend hours trying to define what is meant by "lewd" or "alarm" or "disorderly". If the law stated that it is an offence to display your genitals or naked buttocks in a public place in circumstances whereby passers-by are likely to see you, then Mr Bethell and Mr Gough would have been fined and discharged.

"Imagine this: If you put up some statue out in your backyard that you liked but that others could see as an eyesore and never heard one peep from your neighbors about it, what would you assume that he felt about it? That he loathed it? That he liked it? That he was indifferent to it?"

I had a letter last year from a neighbour's solicitor complaining about the height of some trees in my back garden. In the letter it stated that these trees, which were planted in 1985, have been the source of some concern to them since they grew to over 3 metres high - about 10 years ago! The annoying thing is that I see my neighbour two or three times a week and she's never mentioned them. Had she done so I would have had them pruned down immediately. Now I have asked her to tell me if she finds them too high again and if she does then I'll reduce them immediately. People harbour resentments for years until one day they decide they've had enough and then they over-react. It's best to communicate.

"No. And I agree with you that becoming desensitized to violence is bad. But people have also become desensitized to sexual nudity as it is prevelant in movies and some TV shows. I understand that you don't think that being desensitized to nudity is good, but you do accept that it is possible."

Yes of course it's possible - but as you have agreed, it isn't necessarily a good thing.

"Even you could become desensitized to it."

Yes I could. But I don't want to. I'm proud to be a prude! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"It would probably take you longer than most people to become desensitized to it, but it is possible."

If I ever decide that I want to change the way I feel towards nudity I'm not sure how I'd go about it. I'd probably talk to you guys. But don't hold your breath!

Stu

Rik

01-18-2003, 04:01 AM

Stu

"Rik, it was the fact that he was naked that got him arrested under section 5. As far as I know he wasn't doing anything else antisocial."

Yes, there seems to be an assumption that mere nudity is antisocial BUT he was arrested for being anti-soial, not nude. My point is that despite the fact that you know full well that simple nudity is not, in itself, illegal you continually use language which suggests that it is. If you want to see what anti-nudity laws then have a look at what some of the US laws say.

"the "breach of the peace" as a reason for arrest was probably unlawful. An older police officer might have been thinking back to the days when that old common law power was a sort of catch-all for occasions where somebody was doing something wrong but it didn't quite fit."

Hang on, I thought you said you trust the police to know the law better than laywers. Perhaps he was the same one police officer who arrested Gough on his way to court in October for "indecent exposure" (the charge was clearly heard on video footage at the time but later dropped).

"As I'm sure you know, decisions in magistrates court can not be cited as binding precedent. "

Which is why these things need to be tested in the Crown Court before a jury.

"So people DO find public nudity disturbing. That's what I've been saying all along "

One person said that someone else looked flabberghasted and another said that they were concerned about someone else (hypothetical children) but didn't say what that concern was. Hardly proof that the 'majority' are offended. Have you noticed how so often people who speak out against nudity always seem to be speaking for someone else?

"In the letter it stated that these trees, which were planted in 1985, have been the source of some concern to them since they grew to over 3 metres high - about 10 years ago! The annoying thing is that I see my neighbour two or three times a week and she's never mentioned them."

But surely you sounded your neighbour out before you allowed the trees to grow to such an anti-social height? Sounds like common sense to me.

"The case I've been discussing with Rik shows another, far more appropriate, offence that is prosecuted for public nudity. But no-where in the law does it mention "nude" or "naked", so it would be helpful if it did so there would be no need for long, drawn-out court cases where lawyers spend hours trying to define what is meant by "lewd" or "alarm" or "disorderly". "

So we need new laws to help ease the workload of lawyers?!! The proposed Sexual Offences Bill would be helpful if it described, in the context of simple nudity, exactly what is meant by sexual behaviour so that those who may be accused of it have a clear understanding of what behaviour is and isn't illegal. Obvioulsy I don't know how the bill will be worded but the white paper makes no attempt to define this.

"If I ever decide that I want to change the way I feel towards nudity I'm not sure how I'd go about it. I'd probably talk to you guys"

Well you have been talking, but I'm not sure you've been listening. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob,

There's quite a lot of information out there. Try a search for "recommendation 54" or "Sexual Offences Bill" and you'll come up with a number of web sites. Heres one I found this morning:
http://www.combes.swinternet.co.uk/rec54/detail.htm

Rik

01-18-2003, 05:12 AM

"Yes, there seems to be an assumption that mere nudity is antisocial BUT he was arrested for being anti-soial, not nude. My point is that despite the fact that you know full well that simple nudity is not, in itself, illegal you continually use language which suggests that it is."

Rik, let us imagine that this man did exactly what he did, except that he had been wearing a pair of swimming trunks. Would he have been arrested? Would he have been charged? His nudity is the reason that he finds himself on the wrong side of the law. The only "antisocial" thing he has done is to be nude in public - as far as I know. If the courts take that line then it effectively means that being openly naked in public is, for all intents and purposes, a criminal offence.

"Hang on, I thought you said you trust the police to know the law better than laywers."

They often do. I think you'll find that most older lawyers don't realise that a breach of the peace is now requires a different sort of evidence to justify an arrest. Keeping up-to-date with our continually changing laws is a struggle for all branches of the legal profession, including the police, and even for legal academics.

"Perhaps he was the same one police officer who arrested Gough on his way to court in October for "indecent exposure" (the charge was clearly heard on video footage at the time but later dropped)."

That would have been a perfectly lawful ground for his arrest, so the officer was perfectly correct. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But what a person is arrested for is not necessarily the same as what a person is ultimately charged with, as I have said before.

"Which is why these things need to be tested in the Crown Court before a jury."

Firstly, even decisions by Crown Court juries are not binding on subsequent trials. Secondly, the relevant offences here are triable summarily only - there is no right of trial before a jury. If you want a higher court decision it would have to go up to the Queen's Bench Divisional Court by way of case stated, then to the Court of Appeal and finally to the House of Lords.

"But surely you sounded your neighbour out before you allowed the trees to grow to such an anti-social height? Sounds like common sense to me."

Planting trees in one's garden is something that practically everybody does. Hardly the same applies to going out into your garden stark naked knowing that others can see you.

"So we need new laws to help ease the workload of lawyers?!!"

No. We need a new law that says that you can't expose certain parts of your body in public places so that nobody is in any doubt - be they lawyers, judges, naturists, policemen, nervous gymnophobes, people who post on here, or Mr Vincent Bethell. If it's explicit then there's no argument. It's illegal. Do it and you'll be punished. That's what I mean by clarification.

I also think you'll find that one limb of the new law will contain the phrase "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". If a High Court decides that being naked in a popular public place is likely to give rise to any of these emotions in any person who MIGHT be present, then that will end this once and for all.

I'm not in favour of this new law, Rik, I think it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But I still think the nut needs cracking.

Stu

nudeM

01-18-2003, 05:56 AM

I hate to break the barrier, but I think after reading Stus' responses on TWO different threads, seems nobody is going to change his feelings towards nudity. I think it is time to move on. Everytime Stu makes another comment, he uses up half the page, and basicaly, still says the same thing. I'm in favor of moving along with other subjects. I'm not condoning his views, but each and every time he makes a response, the SAME VIEW KEEPS POPPING UP. I admire his input, but after reading his objections on two different threads, seems to me he just ends up reapeating himself. Thanks Stu, but let's move on. Any objections?

01-18-2003, 08:02 AM

That's fine by me, NudeM. Perhaps we have flogged it to death now.

Stu

Rik

01-18-2003, 08:59 AM

I agree too but let's just have one more pop at him! But don't feel obliged to respnd Stu.

"They often do. I think you'll find that most older lawyers don't realise that a breach of the peace is now requires a different sort of evidence to justify an arrest. Keeping up-to-date with our continually changing laws is a struggle for all branches of the legal profession, including the police, and even for legal academics."

The police knew that Steve Gough would turn up at the court nude - he told them he would. You would have thought that perhaps they might have anticipated what offence he might be likely to comit seeing as how they got it wrong on the previous occasion. But maybe I'm, maligning them: perhaps they all got together in the local nick beforehand and collectively came up with the idea of charging him with a completely outadated and irrelevant law. Hmm! Good old British Bobbies - bless 'em all. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

01-18-2003, 10:14 AM

Rik,

We're getting muddled now. Mr Gough has been arrested several times for different things. If he was arrested the last time for indecent exposure then that is a perfectly legitimate grounds for arrest. It's old (1847), but still relevant.

On the first occasion (as I understand it) he was arrested for causing a breach of the peace. Any police officer trained before 1998 would have been taught that practically any antisocial act that might cause others to violently resent him would provide sufficient grounds to arrest in order to prevent a breach of the peace. One particular case effectively changed that ruling and the implications of that didn't filter down even to the legal profession until very recently. Now if you look at the vast range of laws that the poor old cops have to get their heads around (everything from murder to under-age drinking, heavy goods vehicle plating certification to procuring an abortion, poaching pheasants to company fraud. You want to have a look at the latest police exam manuals - but don't drop them on your feet!!!) it's not surprising that some local bobby wasn't quite upto speed on one case decision of a law going back to 1361!

Stu

Rik

01-18-2003, 11:42 AM

Stu

"We're getting muddled now"

Not me! I'll explain again. Steve Gough was arrested YESTERDAY in the reception area of the court for breach of the peace and was taken to Southampton Central police station. The police KNEW he would arrive naked for he had told them. They would also have been aware that news reporters would be present. So the "local bobby" who made the arrest didn't just happen to be there at the same time as Gough arrived - he was sent there because the local police force KNEW that Gough was likely to arrive naked.

You would have thought that perhaps between them the local police force could have worked out exactly what offence was likely to occur and ensure that the local bobby could be entrusted to get it right. But no. They arrest him for breach of the peace but within hours had changed their minds and charged him instead with breaching his bail conditions.

What makes it even more farcical is that on the last occasion Gough was due to appear in court (last October) he again turned up to the court naked and again had told the police of his intent. At that time the arresting officer arrested him for "indecent exposure" but that charge was later dropped - presumably on the basis that there was no hope of securing a conviction not least perhaps because the TV news video footage showed that far from being insulted by Gough's nudity (as would be required for a conviction), those witnessing it were amused by it (unless of course they always register outrage and disgust by smiling).

"You want to have a look at the latest police exam manuals - but don't drop them on your feet!!!) it's not surprising that some local bobby wasn't quite upto speed on one case decision of a law going back to 1361!"

Well we're all human and I have no problem with people getting things wrong (even you /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) but if the police appear so able to get things wrong (twice!)despite having had ample opportunity to prepare and get it right, then what chance do poor unsuspecting nudists have when faced with a local plod who simply doesn't know his stuff. Indeed it is this attitude of the police doing what they THINK is right rather than doing what is ACTUALLY right than causes some naturists to feel unfairly harassed.

Rik

01-18-2003, 01:56 PM

Rik,

"Steve Gough was arrested YESTERDAY in the reception area of the court for breach of the peace and was taken to Southampton Central police station. The police KNEW he would arrive naked for he had told them. They would also have been aware that news reporters would be present. So the "local bobby" who made the arrest didn't just happen to be there at the same time as Gough arrived - he was sent there because the local police force KNEW that Gough was likely to arrive naked."

Rik, I wasn't there and I suspect you weren't either. If you weren't then you aren't in a position to know either exactly what happened or the reasoning behind it. The best either of us can do is to make educated guesses. I also find it quite unlikely that there would have been a "local bobby" at Southampton Magistrates Court. I mean it's hardly Ambridge, is it?

"You would have thought that perhaps between them the local police force could have worked out exactly what offence was likely to occur and ensure that the local bobby could be entrusted to get it right."

Well in the end it served the purpose - it got the man into custody and out of public view. If he feels aggreived that the wrong power of arrest was exercised then he is perfectly at liberty to have a bite at the police in the civil courts for wrongful arrest. Somehow I doubt he'll bother with that. I can just see the reaction of any half-decent County Court judge if he did!

"But no. They arrest him for breach of the peace but within hours had changed their minds and charged him instead with breaching his bail conditions."

Er...the police don't charge people with breach of bail conditions. From their point of view that is nothing more than grounds to detain someone and place them before the next available court. It is also extremely unusual to charge anyone with breach of the peace because that isn't an offence, either. It's what's called a "complaint", but when someone is arrested for a breach of the police they are normally released without charge anyway. So I think you are really nitpicking here.

"What makes it even more farcical is that on the last occasion Gough was due to appear in court (last October) he again turned up to the court naked and again had told the police of his intent. At that time the arresting officer arrested him for "indecent exposure" but that charge was later dropped - presumably on the basis that there was no hope of securing a conviction not least perhaps because the TV news video footage showed that far from being insulted by Gough's nudity (as would be required for a conviction), those witnessing it were amused by it (unless of course they always register outrage and disgust by smiling)."

Yet again you are confusing grounds for arrest for an offence with what offence is actually charged. Rik, I've told you before that they aren't the same thing. You can be arrested for being drunk and disorderly and later charged with bigamy. You can be arrested for drink driving but be charged with driving under the influence of drugs. If someone is naked in a street the first duty of the police is to get him out of sight and that's what they did. If they had pursued a charge under section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (Every person who in any street, to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers...wilfully and indecently exposes his person...commits an offence), there is no reason why they should not have secured a conviction. The only reason I can think of why they might have dropped the charge is because it's perhaps a bit too serious - a sledgehammer to crack a nut - and the police like to seem like reasonable chaps.

"Well we're all human and I have no problem with people getting things wrong (even you ) but if the police appear so able to get things wrong (twice!)despite having had ample opportunity to prepare and get it right, then what chance do poor unsuspecting nudists have when faced with a local plod who simply doesn't know his stuff."

I'm not a cheerleader for the police, but, as a general rule, they are quite knowledgeable on offences. There are exceptions and they do get things wrong, but no more so than lawyers or other professionals. If you don't believe me, go and ask an average criminal solicitor what section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 says. Then ask him how it differs from section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. Then go and ask the same of your PC Plod and see who comes out best. I know who my money is on!

"Indeed it is this attitude of the police doing what they THINK is right rather than doing what is ACTUALLY right than causes some naturists to feel unfairly harassed."

All we can ask of anyone is to do what they THINK is right. Let me ask you this question. How many times have the police harassed you for being naked on a designated naturist beach?

Stu

Rik

01-18-2003, 03:44 PM

Stu

"Rik, I wasn't there and I suspect you weren't either. If you weren't then you aren't in a position to know either exactly what happened or the reasoning behind it. The best either of us can do is to make educated guesses."

I've read first hand accounts and a news report so it's somewhat better than an educated guess.

"Yet again you are confusing grounds for arrest for an offence with what offence is actually charged. Rik, I've told you before that they aren't the same thing. You can be arrested for being drunk and disorderly and later charged with bigamy. You can be arrested for drink driving but be charged with driving under the influence of drugs."

So you mean if the police suspect someone of bigamy they'll arrest him for being drunk and disorderly, if they suspect someone of driving under the influence of drugs they'll arrest him for drink driving and if they suspect someone of being nude they'll arrest him for burglary? Now I know they're crazy! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"If someone is naked in a street the first duty of the police is to get him out of sight and that's what they did."

I thought the police were there to uphold the law not to act as nannies to the general population.

"If they had pursued a charge under section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (Every person who in any street, to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers...wilfully and indecently exposes his person...commits an offence), there is no reason why they should not have secured a conviction. "

It would have required him to 'indecently' expose his person (i.e. his penis). Whilst he was certainly exposing his person he was not necessarily doing it indecently. If you argue that the exposure is per se indecent then there would be no need for the word 'indecently' in the law.

"All we can ask of anyone is to do what they THINK is right."

Well obviously people only do what they think is right but in a case such as this, where the police (not the individual policeman) clearly had the opportunity to get it right rather than just muddle through it certainly leaves me with the impresssion that they're not as bright as you might think.

"How many times have the police harassed you for being naked on a designated naturist beach?"

None, but that is clearly irrelevant as we are not talking here about nudity on a designated beach. Or maybe you are - I find it so difficult to follow your arguments at times. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway I thought you said that you'd flogged this topic to death. Or is it that you just like to make sure you get the last word?

Rik

Bob S.

01-18-2003, 10:31 PM

"So people DO find public nudity disturbing. That's what I've been saying all along"

And we've never said that wasn't the case. If it weren't then we would not be having this argument, but you would be on your own non-nudists' forum arguing that it is wrong. The part of it that we have been arguing has been the numbers.

"If it were to be publicly declared that merely being naked in a public place was lawful, then some of these people would stand outside primary schools stark naked. Others would display
themselves from their windows naked for the benefit of passing schoolchildren, or elderly people."

stu, it is easy to realize who is doing something sexual and who is not. It is all about behaviour, behavious, behaviour and intent, intent, intent. If a police officer cannot distinguish between simple nudity and sexual exhibitionism, then they should be removed from the beat. By the same token, if a prosecutor cannot prove that the person doing such a sexual activity, then they should quit. And please stop resorting to "protecting the children." It is getting very old.

"I had a letter last year from a neighbour's solicitor complaining about the height of some trees in my back garden."

But most people would assume that a neighbor who is naked in a place where they can see him is illegal whereas planting a tree is not. And what do you think would be more "objectionable", a naked person or a tree? Now apply that to how you think other non-nudists think.

"but as you have agreed, it isn't necessarily a good thing."

In this case, I believe it can be a good thing, especially for me.

"f I ever decide that I want to change the way I feel towards nudity I'm not sure how I'd go about it."

Easy, go see a psychiatrist to understand your unusual reactions to seeing a nude body.

"No. We need a new law that says that you can't expose certain parts of your body in public
places so that nobody is in any doubt "

No, You need a new law such as that. We don't.

I also have a queation on the Mr. Gough case. When he warned the police that he was going to show up naked, why didn't they go to his house and wait for him to exit his house naked before arresting him. He warned them that he was going to commit a crime and they did nothing about it. The police did not warn the public that they may see nudity, even though he told them beforehand.

If anyone was disturbed by his nudity, wouldn't the police be partially responsible? If the police knew that someone was going to committ a crime, wouldn't they do their best to protect the public? Did they just want him to committ the crime, which would be aiding him? That is really bothering me.

Now nudem, yes, the two topics have become very similar. But why stop a good thing? I am really getting a lot out of this debate by being able to put into words my thoughts and beliefs. And stu has even mentioned that he is also getting a lot out of this debate as well. I know that we are not going to resolve this issue, but just think, when was the last time you saw in any forum two debates as long as these two with such mature debating skills and relatively few personal attacks.

Bob S.

Snoboy

01-18-2003, 11:13 PM

Me thinks the horse is dead. I'm sure that cart I saw hauled the poor thing off to the glue factory. May this subject please REST IN PEACE. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

nudeM

01-19-2003, 03:01 AM

Bob S: The last papagraph in your last post is exactly what I was talking about. Stu, Rik and yourself have managed to get to the points of your responses without any personal attacks, disagreements, but nothing personal, which I applaud you three for. My point is each and every time Stu makes a response, his point of view never changes, and he constantly repeats himself, and to that matter, eventually, everyone ends up repeating themselves at one time or another. To me, everything that was worth stated, has been stated before over and over again, just in a round-about way, and not just this thread, but on another thread as well. I just thought, instead of going on and on and on, it's time to put this subject to rest. We now know what Stus' feelings are towards nudism and he will never change his mind. I was nice to read about a non-nudist viewpoint with no personal attacks. That is all I was trying to say, let's just move on to another subject, and Stu might just pop up again on another subject. Fair enough?

01-19-2003, 10:01 AM

I'll try to keep this brief - I don't want to bore the pants off everybody else.

Rik,

If you've read first hand accounts I bet you they were the accounts of supporters of Mr Gough and not the police. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"So you mean if the police suspect someone of bigamy they'll arrest him for being drunk and disorderly, if they suspect someone of driving under the influence of drugs they'll arrest him for drink driving"

Not exactly, but there's no reason why that shouldn't happen. A police officer's decision to arrest a person is, more often than not, a split second decision taken in fairly stressful circumstances. When they get back to the station it's the custody officer's decision whether someone is charged, when they are charged, what they are charged with, whether they get bail, and if so what should be the bail conditions. This is done at leisure when all the facts are known, and, as I said, the final charge may be quite different from the reason for arrest. If someone is arrested for sring driving and taken back to the station where they are found to have cannabis in their pocket, and subsequently provide a negative breath or blood sample to drink driving, they will still face the drugs charge even though the reason given for arrest was drink driving. The Yorkshire Ripper's original arrest wasn't for multiple murder it was, as far as I can remember, for carrying an offensive weapon. I know it seems wacky to the outsider, but it is quite normal and accepted practice.

"I thought the police were there to uphold the law not to act as nannies to the general population."

Nudity in public places attracts strong feelings in many people - often hostile feelings. The police are taught that people being naked in public is not something they should ignore. They are interpreting the law as they see it and I don't blame them for that. This is why a new law clarifying the issue would be helpful.

"It would have required him to 'indecently' expose his person (i.e. his penis). Whilst he was certainly exposing his person he was not necessarily doing it indecently. If you argue that the exposure is per se indecent then there would be no need for the word 'indecently' in the law."

The wording of the Act was coined more than a century and a half ago, and then the word "indecently" was taken to have the same meaning as "openly" in the 1824 Act. This interpretation has never, as far as I am aware, been challenged. "Openly" means "with neither bashfulness nor urgency to conceal". It has long been established that to prove "indecently" should not be regarded as having the same burden of force as "obscenely" as stated in the Vagrancy Act (i.e. "indecently" doesn't need to be accompanied by a sexual context, whereas "obscenely" does).

"Well obviously people only do what they think is right but in a case such as this, where the police (not the individual policeman) clearly had the opportunity to get it right rather than just muddle through it certainly leaves me with the impresssion that they're not as bright as you might think."

They are dealing with ancient and contentious laws that rarely crop up. The solution is for Parliament to clarify the law for their benefit and ours. It shouldn't be for PC Plod to decide whether or not nudity in public is a criminal offence, that should be done by our legislators. If lawyers, judges, civil rights campaigners and even Parliament are confused, how do you expect the police to get to grips with this issue?

ME: "How many times have the police harassed you for being naked on a designated naturist beach?"

Rik: "None, but that is clearly irrelevant as we are not talking here about nudity on a designated beach."

We are, but I was just curious. A very dear friend of mine (a middle-aged hippy!) used to be an activist with Greenpeace and regularly whinged to me about the "facist police pigs". One day I asked her how many times she had been arrested. "Once" she said. "What for?" I asked. "I spat in a policeman's face and called him a #######!" The point I am making is that policemen are just farily ordinary people drawn from society. I'm sure some of them are vehemently anti-foxhunting whilst others actually practice the sport. No doubt some are naturists and some are against naturism. If you have never been harassed whilst being naked on a naturist beach whilst others who take their nudity into the wider public domain are arrested, then as far as I am concerned the police are doing their job. I just wish they'd caught the person who damaged my car!

"Anyway I thought you said that you'd flogged this topic to death. Or is it that you just like to make sure you get the last word?"

OK, Rik, go on then, you have the last word. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob

"stu, it is easy to realize who is doing something sexual and who is not. It is all about behaviour, behavious, behaviour and intent, intent, intent. If a police officer cannot distinguish between simple nudity and sexual exhibitionism, then they should be removed from the beat. By the same token, if a prosecutor cannot prove that the person doing such a sexual activity, then they should quit."

It really isn't that easy, Bob. How often is the policeman or prosecutor going to be there when this happens? We're having to rely upon what kids tell us. A person accused of any indecency towards children has got BIG problems; they are looking at facing a lengthy term in jail, registration as a sex offender, possibly losing their marriage and kids, and being marked by society as a paedophile (public enemy number 1). So they're going to fight their case big style. It happens all the time now with touches - was a touch "sexual" or wasn't it? The child themselves might not know. Bob, it sounds easy, but from my experience it really isn't.

"And please stop resorting to "protecting the children." It is getting very old."

It's also very relevant. Our kids are the most vulnerable part of our community, and the most at danger from those who are sexually disturbed.

"but as you have agreed, it isn't necessarily a good thing."

"Easy, go see a psychiatrist to understand your unusual reactions to seeing a nude body."

"No, You need a new law such as that. We don't."

Don't you want a public debate in which you can have a proper say, leading to a clear, fair and unambiguous law? Over here the law is ancient and chaotic and needs sorting out so that Rik and I know exactly what is and what is not lawful in public.

"I also have a queation on the Mr. Gough case. When he warned the police that he was going to show up naked, why didn't they go to his house and wait for him to exit his house naked before arresting him. He warned them that he was going to commit a crime and they did nothing about it."

I don't know, and I don't think anybody here does. It may have been that he did not leave his house naked, but undressed somewhere else. It may be that he spent the previous night at a friend's house. It may have been that he played a cat and mouse game with the police. It may have been that the police in his area had a far more urgent matter to attend to. Who knows?

"The police did not warn the public that they may see nudity, even though he told them beforehand."

Probably so as to minimise the publicity he received. They don't want to make him into a celebrity and then have to control hundreds of spectators.

"If anyone was disturbed by his nudity, wouldn't the police be partially responsible? If the police knew that someone was going to committ a crime, wouldn't they do their best to protect the public? Did they just want him to committ the crime, which would be aiding him? That is really bothering me."

There isn't much point in arresting him before he does it because they'd look silly. This was a "no win" situation for the police. Arrest him too soon and his lawyer complains of false arrest. Arrest him when he does it and the police are accused of allowing him to do it. Arrest him at all and the police are "harassing" someone who is merely exercising their right of freedom of expression and freedom to be themselves. Don't arrest him and the police are turning a blind eye to exhibitionists cavorting naked on the streets.

Stu

01-19-2003, 10:03 AM

nudeM

"That is all I was trying to say, let's just move on to another subject, and Stu might just pop up again on another subject. Fair enough?"

Sounds fair to me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Any ideas about where to look at next?

Stu

Frank R

01-19-2003, 11:18 AM

The police are taught that people being naked in public is not something they should ignore. They are interpreting the law as they see it and I don't blame them for that.

So we no longer need courts or juries to decide what a law means, the police will simply do it for us. The SS and the Gestapo used to do that and certainly no one objected. At least not more than once. However, in this country, (America) we still can protect ourselves from fascist governments and the idea of having the police decide what a law means is against everything our nation stands for.

01-19-2003, 12:39 PM

Frank,

"So we no longer need courts or juries to decide what a law means, the police will simply do it for us. The SS and the Gestapo used to do that and certainly no one objected. At least not more than once. However, in this country, (America) we still can protect ourselves from fascist governments and the idea of having the police decide what a law means is against everything our nation stands for."

The police HAVE TO interpret the law in the first instance, as does every law enforcement agency. If you were arrested for dangerous driving it would be on the decision of a police officer based upon his understanding of the legal meaning of "dangerous". You can always go to court and plead "not guilty" and then the decision rests with the court. It's the same with absolutely everything the police deal with in every country of the world, including America.

What on earth has that go to do with fascism?

Stu

Bob S.

01-19-2003, 05:57 PM

"To me, everything that was worth stated, has been stated before over and over again, just in a round-about way, and not just this thread, but on another thread as well. I just thought, instead of going on and on and on, it's time to put this subject to rest."

nudeM, not everything has been said. Yes, we are rehashing issues and repeating words and ideas over and over and over and over again, but the debate has not ended. What has happened is that it has gone into so many tangents that it barely resembles the original topic. Maybe what is actually needed is to start a new message thread. This one, and especially the "Public Nudity" thread, are too long. But as long as there are word to be said, we will say them.

"It really isn't that easy, Bob. How often is the policeman or prosecutor going to be there when this happens?"

Well stu, how often is a policeman arounds when a murder takes place? Or when a house is robbed? Or when there is a bar-room brawl? Or when virtually any crime is committed? It is through basic investigative policework that they figure out what happened, who did it, where they were, and all of the details. And most people can distinguish the difference between normal nudity and sexual nudity. There needs not even be any touching of the genitals. Flashing is flashing, no matter if it is done with just a flap jacket on or totally naked.

"It's also very relevant. Our kids are the most vulnerable part of our community, and the most at danger from those who are sexually disturbed."

I'm not saying that children should not be protected from thoes pervs out there. But when you constantly use children viewing nudity as an example of why we shouldn't relax nudity laws or have more severe ones, then you are using the mantra"protecting the children." That mantra has been overused by many a politicain who really has no better argument and resorts to "protecting the children" from whatever evil that the politician disagrees with, beit real or imagined. To me, using children as pawns to further your cause is despicable. I am simply asking you to stop referring to children when you post unless absolutely necessary.

"Don't you want a public debate in which you can have a proper say, leading to a clear, fair and unambiguous law? Over here the law is ancient and chaotic and needs sorting out so that Rik and I know exactly what is and what is not lawful in public."

What, this isn't a fair and open debate? I am not against the process, especially in a public forum. Far from being against it, I am absolutely 100% for it. That is the reason why I enjoy living in such a democracy. And this is one way that I have said that we should educate the public. By publicly debating such laws.

And you want the law so that it is clearly illegal to be naked in public places. What Rik and I are saying is that simple nudity shouldn't necessarily be illegal.

"The police HAVE TO interpret the law in the first instance, as does every law enforcement agency."

OK, semantics again. The police do not interpret the laws. They interpret the situation to decide if a law is being broken. The court system interprets the laws. In fact, that is what we learn here in basic government classes. The legislature writes and passes the laws, the executive branch enacts the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. The police just keep the peace based on the laws.

Bob S.

01-21-2003, 09:45 AM

Bob,

"Well stu, how often is a policeman arounds when a murder takes place? Or when a house is robbed? Or when there is a bar-room brawl? Or when virtually any crime is committed?"

The problem with this one, Bob, is that indecent exposure is a crime with no forensic evidence, the offender normally ensures there are no witnesses, and doesn't hang about afterwards. The victims are often vulnerable people such as children and as such are capable of having their evidence ripped to shreds by any barrister worth his wig. Imaging a ten year old girl being cross-examined by an articulate counsel who is trying to prove that his client was merely scratching his private parts.

"protecting the children. That mantra has been overused by many a politicain who really has no better argument and resorts to "protecting the children" from whatever evil that the politician disagrees with, beit real or imagined. To me, using children as pawns to further your cause is despicable. I am simply asking you to stop referring to children when you post unless absolutely necessary."

But it IS absolutely necessary, Bob. Most places that naturists use (and would like to use) are places of recreation - i.e. places for families - and where you have families you have children. Different parents bring up their kids in different ways and some, like my wife and myself, choose to not let them see nudity. This isn't just a pawn to win an argument, but a real issue that gives rise to strong feelings.

"What, this isn't a fair and open debate?"

This is hardly a "public" debate, though Bob. This is a debate on a naturist site between a lone non-nudist and some nudists.

"I am not against the process, especially in a public forum. Far from being against it, I am absolutely 100% for it. That is the reason why I enjoy living in such a democracy. And this is one way that I have said that we should educate the public. By publicly debating such laws."

I agree. Public debate does give rise to people gaining a better understanding of issues.

"The police do not interpret the laws. They interpret the situation to decide if a law is being broken."

OK, Bob, let us say that a new law appears on the statute book that the police are expected to enforce. What is the first thing the police are going to do? Read it. What is the second thing they are going to do? Try to work out what it means. There is a word for trying to work out what things, and that word is "interpret".

"The court system interprets the laws. In fact, that is what we learn here in basic government classes. The legislature writes and passes the laws, the executive branch enacts the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws."

No. Everybody interprets the law. Lawyers, judges, policemen, citizens.

"The police just keep the peace based on the laws."

Er..so how do they know what these laws mean? How do they know when a woman is soliciting for the purposes of prostitution if you don't let them interpret "soliciting" and "prostitution"? How do the police know to arrest someone for being "drunk and disorderly" if you don't allow them to arrive at some interpretation of what "drunk" means and what sort of behaviour could be classed as "disorderly"? OK, the police's interpretations are sometimes decided to be wrong by the courts, and thereafter they'll know what the correct interpretation should be. But the police interpret laws every day and it would be quite impossible for them to do their jobs if they didn't.

Stu

01-21-2003, 03:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Frank R:
The police are taught that people being naked in public is not something they should ignore. They are interpreting the law as they see it and I don't blame them for that.

So we no longer need courts or juries to decide what a law means, the police will simply do it for us. The SS and the Gestapo used to do that and certainly no one objected. At least not more than once. However, in this country, (America) we still can protect ourselves from fascist governments and the idea of having the police decide what a law means is against everything our nation stands for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hate to tell you this but with recent changes in governmental policies here Ashcroft can do just about anything he wants to anybody. We have people that have been locked up for months without charges being filed, without them having access to a lawyer, and with no end to their predicament in sight. Ashcroft has totally ignored our constitution with Bush's blessing. I can send you some articles written by editors of our top newspapers to back this up if you'd like. There are few people objecting to what is going on and many who don't have a clue.

Bob S.

01-21-2003, 06:36 PM

"The problem with this one, Bob, is that indecent exposure is a crime with no forensic evidence, the offender normally ensures there are no witnesses, and doesn't hang about afterwards."

If there were no witnesses, then there was no "indecent exposure." Flashing offers no forensic evidence, but they are usually caught because of witnesses. Police commonly use circumstancial evidence when there is no direct evidence linking them to a crime.

"Imaging a ten year old girl being cross-examined by an articulate counsel who is trying to prove that his client was merely scratching his private parts."

And this is where nudist children have an advantage. They would not be so shocked at seeing a naked man. They would also be able to distinguish between scratching and something sexual. And plus, this happens all the time even today. How do flashers who openly masturbate get convicted?

"But it IS absolutely necessary,"

I agree that we should always protect the children. I can't think any right thinking people who disagree with that statement.

"Bob. Most places that naturists use (and would like to use) are places of recreation - i.e. places for families - and where you have families you have children."

Yes. Most places that we use right now are open to families with children (although there are a few places that bar children). And we want more places that are more accessible than what we have now. You want that for us, too, so what is the problem here?

"Different parents bring up their kids in different ways and some, like my wife and myself, choose to not let them see nudity. This isn't just a pawn to win an argument, but a real issue that gives rise to strong feelings."

And I have said that you have the right to raise your children in any way that you feel is good, so long as they are safe. But you aren't just simply arguing for your own children, but for all of the children, no matter of the parenting styles. And I do hope you aren't using it to try to win your argument because I am not convinced.

You are using your argument to protect the children as a means to ban all unreasonable nudity (nudity in public). I accepted your objections better when the children weren't a part of it. You seem now to be concnetrated on keeping children safe from predators as a reason to disallow public nudity. Your statement that children are "the most at danger from those who are sexually disturbed." tells me that. But I am telling you that pervs do not care about the law. They will break any law to do what they want to do. And I do not agree that a laxer nudity law will change the conviction rates of flashers.

"This is hardly a "public" debate, though Bob. This is a debate on a naturist site between a
lone non-nudist and some nudists."

This is a forum open to all members of the world community who have access to the internet. So far, there have been 2 non-nudists who have contributed to the forum, you and our Belgian friend. I would consider this a public forum, albeit slanted more toward the nudist side.

"OK, Bob, let us say that a new law appears on the statute book that the police are expected
to enforce. What is the first thing the police are going to do? Read it. What is the second thing they are going to do? Try to work out what it means. There is a word for trying to work out what things, and that word is "interpret". "

As I said before, we are arguing on semantics. The police do read, or at least hear of a new law. Usually, the wording in a law is straightforward, or at least the intent is. The police then go out on the beat and "interpret" the situation to see if it matches the word of the law. The prosecutor then uses his judgement by reading the police report to decide if a crime has been committed and if so, what charges to bring. He then brings the defendant to court to prove his case. It is up to the judge to "interpret" the law either to convict or exonerate.

"No. Everybody interprets the law. Lawyers, judges, policemen, citizens."

Yeah, but it is only the court's interpretation that matters. Otherwise, anarchy would be the rule.

"Er..so how do they know what these laws mean? How do they know when a woman is soliciting for the purposes of prostitution if you don't let them interpret "soliciting" and "prostitution"? How do the police know to arrest someone for being "drunk and disorderly" if you don't allow them to arrive at some interpretation of what "drunk" means and what sort of behaviour could be classed as "disorderly"?"

I will reiterate myself. Police interpret situations, not laws. You are trying to say, if I am reading you correctly, that police decide what a law means and then go out "looking" for behaviour that matches that interpretation of the law. I am saying that they read a law than interpret from the behaviour if it is against that law. Virtually the same thing worded differently.

yfenni

03-19-2003, 05:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
I'm pleased with myself, so I would like to share my experience with everyone.

I live on a residential street of 50-foot lots, with houses on both sides. During 2002, I extended nudity on my property to my front yard, but only pre-dawn. Taking out the garbage, setting out the sprinkler, and even a couple of times going out on the porch to accept the morning paper from the delivery person.

I have been "caught" by neighbors a couple of times -- in one case, the guy gave me a wolf whistle; in the other, he said "nice body". (Why can't I get reactions like this from women?)

Our neighbors across the street were away for the holidays, and asked us to retrieve their morning paper. A couple of days ago when it was fairly warm and with no snow on the ground, I opened our front door (nude, of course) to pick up our own paper and thought "Why not theirs as well?".

I looked up and down the street and saw no signs of life. I also saw that, with trees and bushes denuded of leaves, I would be completely exposed to about eight houses on both sides of the street.

However, at this time of day, I feel quite comfortable being nude outdoors, for several reasons. I know that almost everyone is asleep. Also, I feel that people will be more accepting of nudity when it's dark out, and when it's only them and me -- they'll understand that I am not expecting to be seen nude.

Alternatively, because they know that some people sleep nude and may not immediately get dressed after getting up, they'll understand that someone might venture outside nude to do a minor chore like putting the garbage out.

Finally, some might guess that I am a nudist and not be surprised to see me doing something outside while nude at that time of day.

Having said all of this, I expect that if anyone were to see me walk nude onto the neighbor's property, they would have difficulty to rationalize my doing so for any reason.

I exited our house and walked across the lawn. I walked at a normal pace, determined not to turn the excursion into a streak. As I approached the street I felt very exposed because of the lack of foliage and the illumination of the streetlight positioned directly across from our house.

Crossing the street, I realized that I could be seen from quite a long distance away by anyone on our street, or passing by on a cross street. Nevertheless, I felt very comfortable in my nakedness.

I walked across the neighbor's lawn, up onto their porch and picked up the paper. Turning around, I saw that I had a very good view up of the houses on our side of the street (and vice versa).

On the return trip, I thought to myself: this feels natural -- this feels right. I arrived back on our porch and turned the doorknob. To my relief, I had not locked myself out. Mission accomplished.

Why did I do this? Why risk embarrassment if someone were to see me? Very simply, I wanted to expand the size of my nude world and to have a new nude experience. Do you relate to this?

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yfenni

03-19-2003, 05:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by yfenni:

My situation is rather different from that of Gary Naturist. However, I should like to add my own comments. I live in the English countryside. There is a house directly opposite us and our next door neighbour's house is the othe side of a wide garden and drive. From our large kitchen window we can see directly into our neighbour's garden (she is a spinster lady and ex-school headteacher). My wife and I (being retired) normally have our breakfast in bed. This I collect from the kitchen. I get up (naked, of course) and get the breakfast ready, during which time (if she were to pop over the fence as she sometimes does during the day) our neighbour could see "everything". My wife is very disturbed by my state of undress in these circumstances in case the neighbour should come across - hardly likely at about 7:30 am. My feeling, though, is: "Well, if she should come across I would simply tell her that I was in a state of undress because I would never have thought that she would be around at that time of the morning." Personally, although I think she would be taken aback, she would only laugh. The trouble is that I suspect that she would broadcast the news to her friends!

I have, on occasion, even stepped outside the back door to collect the milk. In this situation I could also (in theory) be seen by the neighbour across the road. However, she is the sort that would probably not say anything, particularly as she woud only see me from a distance.

The bottom line (sorry, no pun intended!) is this. If I am inside my own house, have I committed any offence if I am seen? (I live in the UK.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
I'm pleased with myself, so I would like to share my experience with everyone.

I live on a residential street of 50-foot lots, with houses on both sides. During 2002, I extended nudity on my property to my front yard, but only pre-dawn. Taking out the garbage, setting out the sprinkler, and even a couple of times going out on the porch to accept the morning paper from the delivery person.

I have been "caught" by neighbors a couple of times -- in one case, the guy gave me a wolf whistle; in the other, he said "nice body". (Why can't I get reactions like this from women?)

Our neighbors across the street were away for the holidays, and asked us to retrieve their morning paper. A couple of days ago when it was fairly warm and with no snow on the ground, I opened our front door (nude, of course) to pick up our own paper and thought "Why not theirs as well?".

I looked up and down the street and saw no signs of life. I also saw that, with trees and bushes denuded of leaves, I would be completely exposed to about eight houses on both sides of the street.

However, at this time of day, I feel quite comfortable being nude outdoors, for several reasons. I know that almost everyone is asleep. Also, I feel that people will be more accepting of nudity when it's dark out, and when it's only them and me -- they'll understand that I am not expecting to be seen nude.

Alternatively, because they know that some people sleep nude and may not immediately get dressed after getting up, they'll understand that someone might venture outside nude to do a minor chore like putting the garbage out.

Finally, some might guess that I am a nudist and not be surprised to see me doing something outside while nude at that time of day.

Having said all of this, I expect that if anyone were to see me walk nude onto the neighbor's property, they would have difficulty to rationalize my doing so for any reason.

I exited our house and walked across the lawn. I walked at a normal pace, determined not to turn the excursion into a streak. As I approached the street I felt very exposed because of the lack of foliage and the illumination of the streetlight positioned directly across from our house.

Crossing the street, I realized that I could be seen from quite a long distance away by anyone on our street, or passing by on a cross street. Nevertheless, I felt very comfortable in my nakedness.

I walked across the neighbor's lawn, up onto their porch and picked up the paper. Turning around, I saw that I had a very good view up of the houses on our side of the street (and vice versa).

On the return trip, I thought to myself: this feels natural -- this feels right. I arrived back on our porch and turned the doorknob. To my relief, I had not locked myself out. Mission accomplished.

Why did I do this? Why risk embarrassment if someone were to see me? Very simply, I wanted to expand the size of my nude world and to have a new nude experience. Do you relate to this?

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rik

03-19-2003, 09:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by yfenni:
The bottom line (sorry, no pun intended!) is this. If I am inside my own house, have I committed any offence if I am seen? (I live in the UK.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are currently no laws in the UK which make nudity per se illegal. Currently, people who have appeared naked in public have been prosecuted under public order offences with variable results.

In practice if anyone complains about nudity on your property to the police you may well get a visit from them if they're not too busy. The outcome is that they're likely to suggest that you don't do it again but very unlikely to prosecute under current legislation.

All this may change with the new Sex Offences Act which is currently working its way through the parliamentary process. See disussion on a separate thread.

Rik

Rik

03-19-2003, 11:16 AM

Yfenni,

By coincidence there was an article on this very subject posted on uk.rec.naturist this evening by Richard Collins who is well known for cycling nude in Cambridge. Here is an extract:

"I have had 'complaints' about me being naked in my garden reported to police from neighbours or passers-by, once ten years ago, once two years
ago and twice or more last summer - I've lost count!

On every occasion officers pay me a visit, they confirm my 'knowledge' that I have the right to live my life the way I choose, as long as I
don't do anything to deliberately attract people's attention, e.g. stand in the front garden waving at people!

I do all my gardening, including mowing the grass, naked when it's warm, and this includes the front garden. On all, but the very first occasion, I was naked when the police arrived - either still in the garden, or when answering the door. Why not? I've NOTHING to hide!

They are always respectful, polite, have a pleasant chat with me, to establish that I am not 'off my trolley' or 'intending to cause offence' - not that 'offending' someone is criminal - and they go away happy.

They always have to follow up 'reports' and sometimes it's a day or two before they get time to pop round! They do have more important things to do! They usually report back to the 'complainant' - if they leave their details that is (not everyone is prepared to do that) - and at no time has anyone wished to pursue a 'formal complaint'! That's probably
because I have not committed ANY 'offence' by my nudity!

My 'complete openness' has served me well for over twenty-five years during which time I have never had a dispute with any neighbours. I don't always know who has phoned, and never bother to ask. If they have a problem, and think it's worth referring to police for an 'official' response, that's fine by me!"

Rik