Trouble for a skinnydipper

[Newddude]

I have been a member for a while but don't post too much. Saw this article in the local sunday paper and thought it was interesting the support the poor man got. Its too bad he didn't put up a fight in court...

Trouble for a skinnydipper
September 25, 2005

BY SUSAN AGER
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Finally, decades of skinny-dipping have caught up with Jim Wetherbee.

Just shy of his 83rd birthday, during one of those scorching weeks in July, Jim wrapped a big beach towel around his waist, put on his cap and drove three miles from his home, along quiet country roads, to Leelanau State Park.

He walked 20 minutes from the parking lot through the woods to the water, then walked another 10 minutes south on the sand until he was so far from the other beach-goers that he couldn't see their faces.

He unwrapped his towel, strode naked into the cool relief of Lake Michigan, swam a bit, then stretched out to bake a bit.

He often models for art students at a local college and he likes an all-over tan.

Plus, he says, nakedness in the sun is one of life's free delights.

The ranger arrives
He stirred from his reverie, though, to see a state park ranger in full uniform, plus cap, trudging down the beach in his direction.

"Put on your pants, sir," the ranger said when he was within earshot, to which Jim replied, "I don't have any pants."

Looking back, Jim might have improved his chances if he had at least pulled his towel over his privates when he first spied the ranger.

By the time they hiked back to the parking lot, a sheriff's deputy had arrived. He took down the details of Jim's identity and threatened to put his name and picture on an Internet list of child molesters.

(The deputy didn't return several calls seeking his version of the story.)

Then, Jim says, the deputy waved him off, saying, "Get out of here. Just go home."

Two weeks later, an arrest warrant appeared in Jim's mail, charging him with obscene and disorderly conduct -- the only such charge filed all summer in Leelanau County, Michigan's little finger, which is ringed with shoreline.

Prosecutor Joe Hubbell told me, "He made no effort to cover up, and people with children saw him and were offended."

The judge sets the fine
In court the next morning, without an attorney, Jim pleaded guilty. That disappointed his wife, his two sons, their wives, and many other residents of the area who consider careful skinny-dipping to be a God-given right.

Jim explained, "I was guilty. Why pay the fine and pay an attorney?"

Jim's wife, Marilyn, a retired elementary school teacher, accompanied him when he met with a court officer who would recommend his sentence, which could range up to $500 or 90 days in jail.

Jim did not tell the probation officer that it was his third time that week skinny-dipping on that beach.

Nor did he quip, as he wanted to, "You just stopped a 33-year crime spree. Nipped it in the bud."

But when the probation officer said, "You know what you did is wrong," Jim's wife piped up: "It's not wrong. It's just illegal."

Last week a judge in Leland fined Jim $100 plus $340 in court costs, then teased him from the bench, "I don't suppose I'll be seeing you again."

Jim said out loud, "I can guarantee it."

Then he thought to himself, "They've made an old man out of me overnight."

[Newddude]

I have been a member for a while but don't post too much. Saw this article in the local sunday paper and thought it was interesting the support the poor man got. Its too bad he didn't put up a fight in court...

Trouble for a skinnydipper
September 25, 2005

BY SUSAN AGER
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Finally, decades of skinny-dipping have caught up with Jim Wetherbee.

Just shy of his 83rd birthday, during one of those scorching weeks in July, Jim wrapped a big beach towel around his waist, put on his cap and drove three miles from his home, along quiet country roads, to Leelanau State Park.

He walked 20 minutes from the parking lot through the woods to the water, then walked another 10 minutes south on the sand until he was so far from the other beach-goers that he couldn't see their faces.

He unwrapped his towel, strode naked into the cool relief of Lake Michigan, swam a bit, then stretched out to bake a bit.

He often models for art students at a local college and he likes an all-over tan.

Plus, he says, nakedness in the sun is one of life's free delights.

The ranger arrives
He stirred from his reverie, though, to see a state park ranger in full uniform, plus cap, trudging down the beach in his direction.

"Put on your pants, sir," the ranger said when he was within earshot, to which Jim replied, "I don't have any pants."

Looking back, Jim might have improved his chances if he had at least pulled his towel over his privates when he first spied the ranger.

By the time they hiked back to the parking lot, a sheriff's deputy had arrived. He took down the details of Jim's identity and threatened to put his name and picture on an Internet list of child molesters.

(The deputy didn't return several calls seeking his version of the story.)

Then, Jim says, the deputy waved him off, saying, "Get out of here. Just go home."

Two weeks later, an arrest warrant appeared in Jim's mail, charging him with obscene and disorderly conduct -- the only such charge filed all summer in Leelanau County, Michigan's little finger, which is ringed with shoreline.

Prosecutor Joe Hubbell told me, "He made no effort to cover up, and people with children saw him and were offended."

The judge sets the fine
In court the next morning, without an attorney, Jim pleaded guilty. That disappointed his wife, his two sons, their wives, and many other residents of the area who consider careful skinny-dipping to be a God-given right.

Jim explained, "I was guilty. Why pay the fine and pay an attorney?"

Jim's wife, Marilyn, a retired elementary school teacher, accompanied him when he met with a court officer who would recommend his sentence, which could range up to $500 or 90 days in jail.

Jim did not tell the probation officer that it was his third time that week skinny-dipping on that beach.

Nor did he quip, as he wanted to, "You just stopped a 33-year crime spree. Nipped it in the bud."

But when the probation officer said, "You know what you did is wrong," Jim's wife piped up: "It's not wrong. It's just illegal."

Last week a judge in Leland fined Jim $100 plus $340 in court costs, then teased him from the bench, "I don't suppose I'll be seeing you again."

Jim said out loud, "I can guarantee it."

Then he thought to himself, "They've made an old man out of me overnight."

[NudeAl]

It's really too bad he didn't reach out to NAC on this it is right in their backyard and I bet he could have fought it and won had he had proper legal repressentation. I totally agree with the statement made by his wife though, "It's not wrong it's just illegal."

[barbararuth]

I am a diehard nudist, but I must agree with the police officer and the judge in this case. I do empathize with the older gentleman and I salute his desire to maintain some semblence of nudity in his life. I just do not understand why many nudists continually push the legal envelope! It serves no purpose. Inevitably, they are caught and endure fines and humiliation, not to mention lots of negative press. It further alienates nudists from the mainstream! If we are looking for acceptance and tolerance in the textile world, this is not the way to do it!

Another example: A middle-aged wife and mother gave advanced warning to the press that she was going to expose her breasts in public during Bike Week in Daytona Beach some time ago. The crowds and the press were all over it and the police were ready to cover her the moment she removed her top. She did and they did, and the media painted her and all who advocate nudity as idiots!

I know the examples of the old man and the woman are quite different, but it all proves that nothing is gained by intentionally breaking the law. There are plenty of beaches, clubs and resorts that are open and encourage nudity without the threat of legal entanglement.

[halfbare]

-----------------
I just do not understand why many nudists continually push the legal envelope! It serves no purpose.
There are plenty of beaches, clubs and resorts that are open and encourage nudity without the threat of legal entanglement.
-----------------

There were many places designated for "people of color" back in the 50s-60s, but justice was finally won in that battle because of people who pushed the legal envelope. I'm glad to hear of those who are trying to take back the freedoms we should all enjoy. I certainly don't have the guts to do it.

[Nudony]

"Pushing the envelope" is a tricky issue. If you look at topfreedom in Europe, it started out with a few women who went to the beach in the south of France, and decided they had just as much a right to be bare-chested as the men there. They were fined and hauled off to jail and called obscene. It then ultimately turned into a movement and became legal. Nude beaches have a similar history, also in the south of France. So topfreedom and clothesfree beaches wouldn't be what they are today without these "crazy" people pushing the envelope.

I myself am also chicken, so pushing the envelope is not for me. But historically, it's hard to say that it holds no value. But I also understand what BarbaraRuth is saying: why push the envelope when there are places where one can be nude without legal ramifications?
As I said earlier: tricky issue.

[hm0504]

As far as topfreedom goes, the issue is that men and women are treated differently under the law. Is this inequality justified? Topfreedomists would say no, and I would agree.

Assuming the inequality is not justified, then the question becomes whether topfreedom should be banned or not. Again, topfreedomists would say it is a good thing. Politically, I think that unless something is particularly dangerous or unhealthy, it should not be banned.

Following Nudony's post, naturists in Europe (particularly central Europe) have, by pushing the envelope, now made it evident that the right to sunbathe nude in a city park is acceptable and healthy.

Is it really pushing the envelope to insist on engaging in healthy activities that one should have a right to anyway? I think not.

Today, women all over North America work outside the home in businesses and politics. Should they really be pushing the envelope like that? Why can't they be like the traditional homemaker and be content to stay at home doing house chores while leaving business, politics (including voting), and everything else to the males? (Yes, I'm being sarcastic here; just prodding barbararuth for a response! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

[Nu]

In the first part of the story, it indicates that the gentleman was so far away from others that he could not see their faces.

Later on in the story, it is noted that he was was seen by children and people who were offended.

The gentleman was just not careful enough after his swim and suntan.

For some of us; resorts, clubs, or designated nude beaches just are not close by or are too expensive to join.

I see nothing wrong with being nude in a public area, if no one else is around.
Being careful is the key.

[deejay-gee]

I would like to at this point post an English article I had to write for a course I am doing. I was severely limited for wordcount and actually ran over by almost 200, so i hope you can forgive the somewhat prosaic text. However, it gives an idea on how I feel about involuntary exposure to nudity.

The Naked Truth

Fighting for naturist rights in the UK

Comment by Darren Green

Steve Gough, “the naked rambler“, has been again arrested for indecency during his bid to hike nude from Lands End to John O’Groats. This endeavour has caught press attention but has also upset members of the public, hence Gough’s frequent court appearances.

Why is Gough doing this and does he represent naturism?

The International Naturist Federation describes naturism as “a way of life in harmony with nature, characterised by the practice of communal nudity with the intention of encouraging self respect, respect for others and for the environment“.

Despite many practitioners, naturism is largely misunderstood, perhaps because of how it is interpreted by a UK media that constantly depicts naturists as either eccentric or sex mad hedonists.

British Naturism, official body of naturists in the UK, has around 16,000 members. However, estimates suggest that for every member of BN there are ten who sunbathe, swim or partake in non-sexual nude activity without considering themselves to be naturists or nudists. So why the need for BN to exist?

The main aim of the organisation is to protect and improve areas where nudity is permitted and to encourage the lifestyle. There is a need to protect nude use of beaches against protests from prudes and the threat of property development as the beaches are often in areas away from major public use and prime for development.

Another reason why BN is a necessary to naturist rights in the UK is more sinister. The sexual offences bill has been trundling through parliament as a direct result of the media frenzy over paedophilia. A consequence of this is that measures in place to attack exhibitionists may impact directly on the freedom of naturists to partake in nude leisure activity in public places. Presently, so long as there is no overt sexual reason for a person’s nudity in designated areas they are not liable to prosecution. Under the bill, there would be no need for this person to intend shock or offence to break the law. If someone disgusted by nudity visits a nudist beach for the purpose of being offended , nudists would be at danger of arrest, conviction and being registered as a sexual offender! BN has been fighting to amend this bill and prevent it’s members from unwarranted legal action.

Mr Gough’s philosophy that nudity should be allowed in any place so long as there is no offensive intent is at odds with the beliefs of the majority of the public yet the same public tolerate the BN aim of preserving specific places for naturist use. Most users of naturists beaches are not BN members and certainly do not agree with Gough, who forces his nudity on the public as a matter of principle. BN has in the past staged naked protests but these have taken place on beaches where naturist use is threatened, not in town centres.

Mr Gough does not represent naturism any more than animal rights extremists represent animal lovers. Inflicting nudity on others is an aggressive act, no matter how well intended. UK Naturists are well served by BN, who work actively to protect the civil rights of naturists and thus the general public . It is a shame they do not have more financial support from those who benefit from their work.



Next week…why Reality TV is a load of old rubbish

[halfbare]

----------------
Inflicting nudity on others is an aggressive act, no matter how well intended.
----------------

I totally disagree. Reference Michaelangelo's statue of David along with countless other great masterpieces. These artists can hardly be considered aggressive, though they "inflicted" nudity upon their cultures at the time and we still stand in awe of them today.

Yes, some fringe of society will say that this art is "pornographic", and will ruin our children's psyches. But I believe simple nudity is no more aggressive than the Venus de Milo herself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Another example: A middle-aged wife and mother gave advanced warning to the press that she was going to expose her breasts in public during Bike Week in Daytona Beach some time ago. The crowds and the press were all over it and the police were ready to cover her the moment she removed her top. She did and they did, and the media painted her and all who advocate nudity as idiots!

I know the examples of the old man and the woman are quite different, but it all proves that nothing is gained by intentionally breaking the law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What she did in Daytona didn't break the law. Nudity as a part of political protest is legal. Mere nudity without lewdness in Florida is also legal. She did it to make them obey the law.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I just do not understand why many nudists continually push the legal envelope! It serves no purpose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haulover Beach would be a great example of what can happen when you push. Do you consider Haulover to serve no purpose? The same goes for Apollo Beach. There was also an attempt at outlawing the nudist resorts in Pasco County.

How do you think we get those nude beaches and resorts? It's not handed to us, we fought for them.

Why do you think it's necessary to have NAC and AANR's Governmental Affairs if we already have enough nude places to go?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barbararuth:
I am a diehard nudist, but I must agree with the police officer and the judge in this case. I do empathize with the older gentleman and I salute his desire to maintain some semblence of nudity in his life. I just do not understand why many nudists continually push the legal envelope! It serves no purpose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He made extreme efforts to not 'bother' people. He went far out of his way to be at a place where other people couldn't recognize his face, much less "see" anything that would "harm" them. Hardly reckless. AS for affronting others, they couldn't see his genitals, all they could tell from the extreme distance was that he was nude. They felt affronted simply because they knew he was nude, not because they could actually see his nudity - they couldn't see his 'naughty bits', but they 'knew' they were there without a protective layer of fabric to protect society from them.

I can understand him not wanting to bother fighting the ticket. But he would have had a decent chance of dismissal. Too bad.

The more people are willing to push the envelope, the more the public becomes aware that mere nudity is harmless - the sight of a bare breast or uncovered penis doesn't actually cause mental or physical harm in sane people.

-Mark

[KetchumMaine]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by halfbare:
-----------------
I just do not understand why many nudists continually push the legal envelope! It serves no purpose.
There are plenty of beaches, clubs and resorts that are open and encourage nudity without the threat of legal entanglement.
-----------------

There were many places designated for "people of color" back in the 50s-60s, but justice was finally won in that battle because of people who pushed the legal envelope. I'm glad to hear of those who are trying to take back the freedoms we should all enjoy. I certainly don't have the guts to do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There is a difference between the civil rights movement for African Americans and our fight is that it wasn't illegal to be black, and they actually HAD a place to go. Unfortunately, we haven't achieved the higher status of the African Americans yet. It is illegal for us to be who we are, and we haven't been given any places to go (on a national level).

[KetchumMaine]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Personally I applaud those with the courage to "push the envelope" to get laws changed that are unjust. If people had never been willing to do that, women wouldn't be able to vote, and African Americans would still be banned from places designated for white people.

There is a BIG difference between having a preference for something and discriminating against someone for their skin color, marriage status, or the fact that they like to be nude (natural) whenever possible.

However, I don't believe that public nudity is any closer to being accepted as anything other than an oddity at best. People who actually LIKE being nude are thought to be weird and not normal. There was a time when children could skinnydip in public places, and no one particularly cared, but now people will call the cops on a two-year-old seen nude outdoors. What is this world coming to when a nude toddler is thought to be offensive?

As for the old man, if he was sunbathing in a non-nudist area where there were children, he was in the wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As always, you make some good points. My point is, I take great offence to risking prosecution for the thoughts of another person.

[Newddude]

Well this is kind of fun, maybe I should be posting more often. One thing that I thought was neat was the positive light that the columnist portrayed for innocent skinnydipping. There were alot of details that weren't disclosed, which leads to some speculation.

Barbararuth, I guess I disagree with alot of what you said. First off, I think a little civil disobedience sometimes is a good thing. If people don't push the envelope, social progress isn't made. I don't think what he did was pushing the envelope. As others have pointed out, he went out of his way to put alot of distance between himself and the public. Pushing the envelope would be walking nude down the middle of a crowded beach.

As a Michigan resident, I can tell you that there are not many places one can go nude without fear of consequences. You might be a little spoiled with so many resorts and beaches in Florida but Michigan has a handful of resorts and all but one or two are now closed now for the season. No official nude beaches exist even with our immense coastline.

The fact that he has been doing it for 30+ years tells me that he has been careful and not drawing attention to himself. I would have liked to seen this go to trial. The claim by the police of offence seems dubious to me. If it went to trial, it would have forced them to prove there was an actual complaint. I thought it was positive the support he received from his wife and kids but sad that they took away his spirit and turned him into an old man.

[KetchumMaine]

I have been swimming nude in the various rivers in my area all summer long. I have experienced only s few interruptions by textiles, but without adverse reaction. Now that children are in school, and the water is much cooler, I swim at various swimming holes. There is little chance of my being seen, as nobody tends to visit swimming holes in the fall. However, I contend that as long as I maintain proper behavior, I should be able to use the swimming holes anytime I wish. skinnydipping is a time honored tradition.

The human body comes in two styles; male and female. Every human male is essentially the same, as is every human female. So why should the presence of body hair cause us to be mandated to cover up? Some would say that it is to keep from offending others. But, the others who would be offended have learned to be offended through society's screwed up norms. Why should I have to cover up to keep other people from thinking lustful thoughts? It is they who sin through their thinking, not I.

Here in Maine, we have a discriminatory law which makes it illegal for males to be nude in public, but not women. This is because the law refers only to genitals. Female genitals are primarily inside. All I ask for is equal rights.


So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

[usuallylurk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by halfbare:
-----------------
I just do not understand why many nudists continually push the legal envelope! It serves no purpose.
There are plenty of beaches, clubs and resorts that are open and encourage nudity without the threat of legal entanglement.
-----------------

There were many places designated for "people of color" back in the 50s-60s, but justice was finally won in that battle because of people who pushed the legal envelope. I'm glad to hear of those who are trying to take back the freedoms we should all enjoy. I certainly don't have the guts to do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK - I'm sorry, but the argument comparing nudists to African-Americans battling segregation is so much of a reach that it's laughable.

Nudism is a recreational choice. It is not a religious belief. While some claim it is, neither of the two major national orgs will touch that one because they proclaim to have members of nearly every faith in their fold.

Plus, we do NOT have the laws of the land, the state, the municipalities on our side. African Americans did - the 14th Amendment, many Supreme Court rulings beginning in 1950, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and various other supporting legislation -- and also the fact that by the 1960s, most Americans wanted, and even demanded an end to institutionalized segregation.

Nudists are not in the same status. Public Nudity is not a protected form of speech, although some will insist that it is.

It's rather sad, but for us to argue that blacks did it in the 60s, gay/Lesbians in the 90s, and now it's our turn -- uh, that won't fly.

[Bob S.]

"I just do not understand why many nudists continually push the legal envelope! It serves no purpose."

Yeah. Rosa Parks and the black activists continually pushed the envelope and look where it got them!

"There are plenty of beaches, clubs and resorts that are open and encourage nudity without the threat of legal entanglement."

Define Plenty, halfbare. I know of only a few official CO beaches and a scattering of unofficial ones whose existence is threatened with every election or perv who uses it.

As for parks/resorts, there are a bit more of those than beaches, but a lot of people are not within an hour's drive of one. Even a two-hour drive. Or a three hour drive. There aren't even any in Kansas or Arkansas. Why should they suffer.

Comparing the number of places designated "Colored Only" in the Jim Crowe era to the number of beaches, parks/resorts nowadays is comapring apples to steaks. Nearly every place in a city had this segregation. Nudist locations are too few and far between.

Nudists have to be careful about how far ro push the envelope. It has to be enough to make strides but not enough to cause backlash. And realize that most of what nudists do every year is defending what rights we have now.

Just as a black man could be beaten up for merely looking too long at a white wonan during Jim Crowe, a nudist can be placed on the Sex Offender's list merely for being naked in the wrong place, even if he is not bothering anyone.

Bob S.

Since some of you seem to have a problem with what I wrote, I have deleted it. Sorry that it was so offensive; I didn't mean for it to be. I thought I was making a point about people pushing the envelope to accomplish things and make changes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nudism is a recreational choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


For you maybe....

for me it's my life and how I live. Trying to pin your personal definition on all of us really isn't fair.

[FireProf]

We couldn't agree more Cyndiann. Nudism/naturism is our lifestyle. It's the way we live while at home and as much as possible away from home.

For us, this has nothing to do with recreation, having a hobby or is it a pass time. I say this as my wife is behind me ironing her clothes for work tomorrow naked. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

but to get back on topic....

I wish we could have been some help to this man. He seem to do everything he could do be discreet. It's too bad those that reported him found it necessary to make it their business to alert the police instead of being adult about it and asking the man to either go further down the beach or cover up because of their children.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I agree. My love of being nude is not recreational. Watching TV is recreational. Listening to music is recreational, and a lot of other things I like to do. However, being nude is a VERY important part of my life since I'm almost always nude. I only put clothes on to go to the store or other places I need to go. At home I am NEVER dressed.

[EuropeMan]

As long as nudists are satisfied to be restricted to exercise their nudity in closed areas (designated/allowed beaches, resorts, clubs, etc) they actually promote the view that public nudity is weird, as it must be isolated from others' view.

I have much more to say about "offense by nudity" than for the time I have now, but sometimes I have the impression that only the nudists believe that the others are offended. That they are surprized, not willing to do the same, or rejecting due to illegality, yes. Or saying that others would be offended...

[halfbare]

----------- Bob S. wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Define Plenty, halfbare. I know of only a few official CO beaches and a scattering of unofficial ones whose existence is threatened with every election or perv who uses it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
-----------

Sorry Bob S. - I was only quoting what BarbaraRuth said and I don't know how to do that so the quote shows up correctly. I don't have any close CO places either, and I don't have the time or inclination to travel hours to find one. I'm with you on this one. I wish I were able to skinnydip in the local swim areas freely.

[Ben_m]

There are a few things about this story (as reported) that just don't quite make sense to me. I guess I'm not entirely certain what to make of all of it. But, I do know that when I go to great lengths to avoid encounters with others (which I do), were a legal issue to result, I would NOT just roll over and play dead. In fact, I've already had a discussion about it (while we were enjoying some nude time in a pool, lol) with a local naturist attorney who has defended many in such circumstances.

As reported, I just don't understand what all happened in this case, or exactly why, because not all of it makes complete sense to me.

[bishop5508]

I don’t understand why people feel the need to force their views on others… The problem is that a majority of Americans feel public nudity is unacceptable / weird, and it is illegal unless otherwise stated (from what I understand). I think the gentleman in the article should have been more prepared i.e. taking some clothes with him if he was going to break the law... If you want nudity to be more acceptable then we should work together to let people know what the naturist lifestyle is like, encourage people to try it out, and then change the law…. We live in a society where the views of the majority can become law so we should do what we can the change those views, not make them think they are right. I know that when I try to force my views on people I am generally met with resistance… Please remember that the general public has no idea about the naturist lifestyle, so naked person in public = something wrong.. Just my thoughts on the subject…

[bishop5508]

To be clear on my last post…. I would love to see society be more acceptable of naturists, I think there should be many more clothing optional areas…. My wife and I have to drive an hour and a half to go to a hot springs (MAR is too much$$)… I merely think that the other people on that lake also have the right NOT to see a naked man, or at least know they may encounter one. Who’s right?

[barbararuth]

I have read all the responses regarding this topic since I posted my opinion on this topic and it seems quite obvious that your responses uniformly agree that pushing the legal envelope IS the way to encourage and effect changes in the law. I assume that those who posted agree that intentionally breaking the law is justification for change as well. I understand your point although I disagree with your methods.

It would do my heart good to effect wide-spread acceptance of social nudity and to encourage the growth of more clubs, more resorts and more beaches to accomodate the growing nudist population in every state, not just Florida. I still believe that this can happen through deliberate lobbying from nudist organizations, extensive marketing from nudist groups and clubs and a greater sense of awareness through positive persuasion, not negative and intentional lawful dissobeyance. This effort is not being done! It is possible that pushing the legal envelope might work in certain areas.. with certain issues.. but I am not sure that widespread social nudity is one of them.. at least not in the states.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bishop5508:
I don’t understand why people feel the need to force their views on others… The problem is that a majority of Americans feel public nudity is unacceptable / weird, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, the majority don't feel it's unacceptable.

From the Naturist Society's Roper Poll (http://www.naturistsociety.com/magazine/detail.jsp?id=42):

" I proudly cite the Roper Poll that says 80 percent of the American public favors allowing nude sunbathing at beaches set aside for that purpose."

Public beaches....

[TANZ]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bishop5508:
I don’t understand why people feel the need to force their views on others… … </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.
Like the "view" by some people that we should wear clothing for swimming and sunning for instance.

Naturally Kiwi

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barbararuth:
I have read all the responses regarding this topic since I posted my opinion on this topic and it seems quite obvious that your responses uniformly agree that pushing the legal envelope IS the way to encourage and effect changes in the law. I assume that those who posted agree that intentionally breaking the law is justification for change as well. I understand your point although I disagree with your methods. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the way it's been done for decades. Look back in history and you will find many laws which were changed by the judiciary branch of the government.

Also, some of what you posted wasn't illegal to begin with.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

It would do my heart good to effect wide-spread acceptance of social nudity and to encourage the growth of more clubs, more resorts and more beaches to accomodate the growing nudist population in every state, not just Florida. I still believe that this can happen through deliberate lobbying from nudist organizations, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the current climate in the US no politician will touch any legislation giving us more rights or more places to go. AANR has been trying to get someone to back legislation to make the beach as Assateague legal for some time now without success. If a politician were to openly side with nudists at this time it would be political suicide. It just isn't going to happen any time soon unfortunately.

I read about politicians in Australia and Great Britain talking about nude beaches and it's simply amazing that there is such a huge difference in public opinion from there to here.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

extensive marketing from nudist groups and clubs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They don't have the funds to do that. Since less than 2% of nudists belong to organizations that would be able to market our lifestyle it isn't going to happen either. We get a few articles here and there and that is the limit of their budgets.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">


and a greater sense of awareness through positive persuasion, not negative and intentional lawful dissobeyance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since it's a method used for most of our history I don't see it as negative. Look at how people intentionally get arrested at protests. That is using the law in the same manner.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">


This effort is not being done! It is possible that pushing the legal envelope might work in certain areas.. with certain issues.. but I am not sure that widespread social nudity is one of them.. at least not in the states. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again I ask you. How do you think the clubs and beaches we have now came about? Do you think there was no legal wrangling in the past?

[Buff Man in MI]

I sent the author of the article the following email. She replied almost immediately with a few more details that indicate to me that a successful defense of the charges was possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Ms Ager,

The following portions of your article, "Trouble for a skinnydipper, September 25, 2005", I find to be very disturbing. It smacks hugely of gross official harrassment and prosecutorial misconduct. I hope that there is more to the story, that you've omitted. I'll try to get a copy of the public records concerning this case, at some point. Perhaps the next person to be subjected to this could use it in their defense.

"He took down the details of Jim's identity and threatened to put his name and picture on an Internet list of child molesters. Then, Jim says, the deputy waved him off, saying, "Get out of here. Just go home." Two weeks later, an arrest warrant appeared in Jim's mail, charging him with obscene and disorderly conduct -- the only such charge filed all summer in Leelanau County, Michigan's little finger, which is ringed with shoreline. Prosecutor Joe Hubbell told me, "He made no effort to cover up, and people with children saw him and were offended.""

I support Mr. Wetherbee's nudist activities. I would have contributed money to a defense fund for him. The public at large have a right to use beaches and state parks, Mr. Wetherbee and myself share the view that our use of them extends to our choice to use them in our natural state. There is nothing obscene nor disorderly about our natural state as human beings. How can something that we all have in common (our bodies) be offensive? I find it to be extremely degrading to my humanity that the state considers my natural state to be obscene and the display of it in natural surroundings to be disorderly. Why should Mr. Wetherbee and myself (and other naturists or nudists) be excluded from our right to use beaches and state parks in our natural state? Do we not pay taxes? Do we not vote? Maybe we should take a page from the Religious Right's playbook and get nudist's elected to office, and make nudity legal any time any place rather than restricting our activities to less populous areas of the state and country.

As a child and now as an adult, I have viewed and heard many things that I personally consider offensive. For example the television news or newspapers leading off with the latest murder stories or shootings. For some, that is entertainment, for me it aches at my heart. Why? Perhaps I am more human and more in touch with my humanity than the vast majority, or at least the television station owners or news producers and newspaper owners or editors.

I sincerely doubt that if he walked 10 minutes further away from other beach goers that anyone would be able tell a that an 83 year old man was nude. According to your article, Mr. Wetherbee took more than the legally required number of steps to avoid offense by the other beachgoers that day.

Thank you for writing this article and my best wishes to you in the future.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is my paraphrased version of Ms Ager's reply to me:
Mr. Wetherbee was either 20 feet away from the other beachgoers (park ranger's estimate), or 300 feet away (Mr. Wetherbee's version). The police report does not say, apparently. The prosecutor felt he had to do something for those who felt offended. (Mr. Wetherbee suspects they were using binoculars.)

Don't binoculars need to be focused? If the were 20 feet away, wouldn't binoculars be a bit over the top.

One thing I did find humorous in the article, was this line: "Two weeks later, an arrest warrant appeared in Jim's mail..."
No wonder there are so many criminals out there, it's fairly easy to outrun the mail, isn't it? Especially with a two week head start for goodness sake. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif When is the last time you heard a mail carrier yell, "Stop! In the name of the mail!". What'll be next, FedEx delivering handcuffs and empty boxes to overnight yourself to jail in? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[NudeAl]

I belong to a group that normally trys to push the envelope a little. We go to parks and lakes out on public property and enjoy a good camp out or hike. I think this can be a good thing, to try and get across the message that simple nudity is not a rude or a lewd thing. We shouldn't have to hide behind fences or anything else for that matter. If we have gone to the trouble of finding an out of the way location to practice our pastime we should have the right to do so. I feel no shame in doing so. I have hiked nude in national forests, state parks, along lakes, and rivers etc. The encounters with textiles, however breif they were, were always of a positive nature, well okay not quiet always but about 99% of the time. I think the general public is far more accepting of nudity than we give them credit for. The only way for us to gain more public nude beaches is for someone sometime to push the envelope and give it a try. Over time more people may give it a try and sooner or later they will have one more nude beach to add to the list of nude beaches. That's the only way change happens someone has to go first and fight the good fight and get the place recognized legally. I know of no other way to get a new place accepted or designated a nude beach. I know many of us are blessed to live in areas were we can practice our pastime with no fear of breaking the law but such isn't the case in most of the US. So if many of the users of this forum are to enjoy nude recreation in the great outdoors they must run the risk of breaking the law. I say go for it and goodluck. I hope I made my point with out sounding to high and mighty. It wasn't my intention to come off that way. I just think someone has to go first and pave the way for other less courageous souls. We must continue to push the envelope or we will wither and die. We need more nude beaches and more nude resorts etc. The only way for that to happen is to get out there and make it happen and this is one way to do it.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The prosecutor felt he had to do something for those who felt offended. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Why can't prosecutors open their myopic vision a little and see all their options?

Instead of compounding the harrassment of Mr. Whetherbee, he could have done like my mother-in-law might have done years ago: tell that whining "offendee" to "Stop bothering that old man, and go sit on a tack!"

IOW, why do they always assume the complainant is always right?

[Vin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
IOW, why do they always assume the complainant is always right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. It seems that "innocent until proven guilty" has gone by the wayside in the US.

[Buff Man in MI]

Mr. Wetherbee could have gotten a higher fine and faced 90 days in jail if he'd violated this regulation in New York City, simply by sitting on a public park bench fully clothed!

NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/350554p-298973c.html)

Here is an excerpt:

"Readers want 'crazy'
park ban benched



BY TANYANIKA SAMUELS
DAILY NEWS WRITER

The verdict is in and most New Yorkers - at least those who took the Daily News' informal poll yesterday - think the law banning adults without children from some city parks is "crazy."
"This whole idea is just absurd!" wrote one angry New Yorker in response to The News' story about a woman ticketed for sitting on a park bench in a Manhattan playground.

Cops cited Sandra Catena, a 47-year-old belly dancer, on Saturday as she sat in Rivington Playground on Forsyth St.

A sign at the entrance of the playground cites several prohibitions, including: "Adults Except in the Company of Children." Catena said she did not see it."

[Bob S.]

And guess why the regulation exists for NYC park/playgrounds? To protect children from pedophiles. Really working, huh? How about just saying that children under 12 not accompanied by an adult are not allowed? The best defense against child abuse? Responsible supervision.

The people in charge of enacting that regulation in another article (don't know the URL) said that they had hoped that police would be a bit more selective regarding the people they went after.

Police profiling. Something that can be useful when applied properly.

Bob S.