I'll cross that road when I come to it

[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

[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

[Rik]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

I agree with Stu on this one.

[Rik]

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

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]

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

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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>What others? There were none.

[Bob S.]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Stu

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

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

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.

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

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

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

stu said: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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]

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]

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]

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.]

"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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let's hope the ECHR never get to hear such a case! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong again! Let's hope they do!!!!

Rik

[bendigonudey]

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

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

Enjoy!

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

"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]

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

Rik says: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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]

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]

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!)

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

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

"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]

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]

Stu quoted Angel: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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"><font size="-1">quote:</font><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

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]

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

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

"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.

" 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!

"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]

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

" 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]

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]

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

"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

" 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]

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.]

"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.]

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.

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 SER