Equality & human rights

[Kari P]

In the discussion about Stu's law proposal the naturist side has tried to point out that the principle "just be out of sight, then it is OK" represented by Stu doesn't reflect true toleration. Our side has tried to draw a parallel between this attitude with racism with little success - Stu hasn't seen our point yet.

Let's try with different parables. First think what makes the comparison to racism lame. It's that skin color is a permanent property of a person who can do nothing to it, and on the other side we can keep our clothes on. Yes, we can dress when we are seen nude by people who object nudity and require us to cover up. So, why we don't always want to do it?

A naturist group may have found a place they have felt as a good place to be naked, in our natural state. And then someone comes who says they aren't allowed to be naked there. Depending on the place and situation the naturists may do what was asked, but sometimes the claim appears to them plainly unjust. This is the case if the other person makes the claim having a true option to choose another place, not exactly the place which was already occupied by naturists.

The question is about the right to occupy a place without having to move when someone asks it with no good reason. This sounds as a basic human right. But people like Stu would still deny it because the naturists are doing something that they find disgusting, while the naturists themselves find the same thing - being naked - as a very natural thing. And they have made their choice of place with an honest purpose to be out of sight of other people.

A good parable, which could open Stu's eyes to see the discrimination, has the following properties:

People are doing something that many other people, a supposed majority, find disgusting, and to themselves the same thing is the most natural. What they do, is not such that they couldn't help with; they have a choice to behave in their natural but non-accepted way or in another way which is generally accepted.

One wish more: A right for someone to stop what is going on and demand the people to switch into the accepted mode, would so clearly be discriminative that a modern country respecting human rights would not admit it in law.

The parable looked for can come from e.g. exercise of a religion (praying according to a ritual). I am not an expert in religions, so I don't use this one.

I come with an example where the human right in question is the right to speak one's own language. Not an ordinary spoken language but the sign language used by deaf people, because this is a very different way to speak and offers many analogies. I am sure that many people would not find the use of sign language as disgusting, but still try to imagine it were so.

For the deaf people "speaking" their sign language is natural, it is their true mother tongue. (Being naked is as natural to naturists.) With the aids of modern technology they have another ways to communicate with people, they can e.g. type their words into a keyboard connected to a display device. (Naturists can wear clothes, which are a human invent.) Even this modern option available the deafs surely find it impractical and prefer sign language especially when communicating with each other. (Naturists prefer nudity to clothes when there is no good reason to use them. Especially they want to be nude in the company of each other.)

What if someone finds the use of sign language repugnant? And not only someone but a majority of people? Is it still a human right of the deaf people to use their own language, or is it morally acceptable that when someone finds them using it, that someone had a legal right to demand them to use the aids of modern technology for their mutual communication, or to stop their communication totally?

Please make another and better comparisons!

Kari P

[Kari P]

In the discussion about Stu's law proposal the naturist side has tried to point out that the principle "just be out of sight, then it is OK" represented by Stu doesn't reflect true toleration. Our side has tried to draw a parallel between this attitude with racism with little success - Stu hasn't seen our point yet.

Let's try with different parables. First think what makes the comparison to racism lame. It's that skin color is a permanent property of a person who can do nothing to it, and on the other side we can keep our clothes on. Yes, we can dress when we are seen nude by people who object nudity and require us to cover up. So, why we don't always want to do it?

A naturist group may have found a place they have felt as a good place to be naked, in our natural state. And then someone comes who says they aren't allowed to be naked there. Depending on the place and situation the naturists may do what was asked, but sometimes the claim appears to them plainly unjust. This is the case if the other person makes the claim having a true option to choose another place, not exactly the place which was already occupied by naturists.

The question is about the right to occupy a place without having to move when someone asks it with no good reason. This sounds as a basic human right. But people like Stu would still deny it because the naturists are doing something that they find disgusting, while the naturists themselves find the same thing - being naked - as a very natural thing. And they have made their choice of place with an honest purpose to be out of sight of other people.

A good parable, which could open Stu's eyes to see the discrimination, has the following properties:

People are doing something that many other people, a supposed majority, find disgusting, and to themselves the same thing is the most natural. What they do, is not such that they couldn't help with; they have a choice to behave in their natural but non-accepted way or in another way which is generally accepted.

One wish more: A right for someone to stop what is going on and demand the people to switch into the accepted mode, would so clearly be discriminative that a modern country respecting human rights would not admit it in law.

The parable looked for can come from e.g. exercise of a religion (praying according to a ritual). I am not an expert in religions, so I don't use this one.

I come with an example where the human right in question is the right to speak one's own language. Not an ordinary spoken language but the sign language used by deaf people, because this is a very different way to speak and offers many analogies. I am sure that many people would not find the use of sign language as disgusting, but still try to imagine it were so.

For the deaf people "speaking" their sign language is natural, it is their true mother tongue. (Being naked is as natural to naturists.) With the aids of modern technology they have another ways to communicate with people, they can e.g. type their words into a keyboard connected to a display device. (Naturists can wear clothes, which are a human invent.) Even this modern option available the deafs surely find it impractical and prefer sign language especially when communicating with each other. (Naturists prefer nudity to clothes when there is no good reason to use them. Especially they want to be nude in the company of each other.)

What if someone finds the use of sign language repugnant? And not only someone but a majority of people? Is it still a human right of the deaf people to use their own language, or is it morally acceptable that when someone finds them using it, that someone had a legal right to demand them to use the aids of modern technology for their mutual communication, or to stop their communication totally?

Please make another and better comparisons!

Kari P

[DoubleRK]

I'm afraid it wouldn't do any good, he probably thinks people with tatoos should keep them COMPLETELY hidden when in public and people with many piercings should remove or cover them in public also since they probably "offend" many people.

[Bob S.]

And more importantly, why is nudity so different from anything else? Just because we have the option of wearing clothes? And the only thing we are arguing about is the where. Why should someone who sees a naked person in the locker room with no problem suddenly find that same person naked in the forest offensive? The environment has changed, that's it. People are just not used to seeing it.

Bob S.

Kari,

"The question is about the right to occupy a place without having to move when someone asks it with no good reason. This sounds as a basic human right."

Kari - who has the right to decide what is and is not a good reason? There have to be rules about when and where someone can be naked, otherwise naturists would have carte blanche, and the basic human right of non-naturists to enjoy some public places would be denied them. If there is just one nude person on a beach, and that nudity is tolerated by the authorities, then that effectively means the beach is for the time being clothing optional and anyone who is offended by the sight of nudity is prevented from enjoying it.

"But people like Stu would still deny it because the naturists are doing something that they find disgusting, while the naturists themselves find the same thing - being naked - as a very natural thing. And they have made their choice of place with an honest purpose to be out of sight of other people."

You can't build laws around trusting a minority's judgement and consideration for others. Laws have to be simple, clear and with as little scope as possible for dispute over their intention and effect. I have a friend who lives within walking distance of a fairly remote beach in Wales. He and his family bought the house for that very reason (and paid the price for that priviledge). A few local residents, mainly elderly people and young families, do enjoy the beach, as do occasional tourists, visitors etc. He tells me that the rare sight of a female tourist taking her top off causes consternation to the locals so the idea of nudity would be unthinkable!! Now what's to stop a group of two dozen or so naturists deciding to descend on that beach? When the locals arrived to enjoy the beach or just t walk their dogs etc. they would find it totally inaccessible for them. They would, from that day onward, ban their children from going there alone. Women would fear going to the beach for fear of what they would encounter. The whole atmosphere would have changed from a friendly and familiar place to a ghastly and fearful place for locals and regular visitors alike! Certainly the naturists didn't intend that - but that would be the effect nontheless.

"People are doing something that many other people, a supposed majority, find disgusting, and to themselves the same thing is the most natural. What they do, is not such that they couldn't help with; they have a choice to behave in their natural but non-accepted way or in another way which is generally accepted."

But you are STILL making the assumptions that (a) nudity is a natural thing and (b) that human beings should follow nature. I have never accepted either of those premises. By giving one person a choice of whether to be naked or not, you are also giving them the choice of whether or not people who find nudity disgusting can use that place. Choices about whether nudity is or is not permitted in particular places should not rest with individuals, who will usually base their decisions on self-interest and personal preferences, but by elected authorities that have the interests of all in mind.

"One wish more: A right for someone to stop what is going on and demand the people to switch into the accepted mode, would so clearly be discriminative that a modern country respecting human rights would not admit it in law."

Near my house their is a football field. It is marked out for playing soccer and has soccer goals. Nobody minds when the field is used for playing other games, e.g. rounders, provided footballers don't want to use it. In other words, football is the default game in that place. Rounders players could claim that they were being discriminated against, but if they did they would be told that there is another place just 30 minutes drive away that is specifically made for their game.

Human rights laws have always recognised that, with regard to public places, the authorities have every right to legislate and enforce laws that prohibit certain behaviours in those places that the majority population find unacceptable. This happens throughout all the states of Europe and I can think of no case i which this principle has been successfully challenged. The discrimination is against BEHAVIOUR and not a particular class of PEOPLE.

"What if someone finds the use of sign language repugnant? And not only someone but a majority of people? Is it still a human right of the deaf people to use their own language, or is it morally acceptable that when someone finds them using it, that someone had a legal right to demand them to use the aids of modern technology for their mutual communication, or to stop their communication totally?"

We are really having to stretch our imaginations with this analogy, Kari, and I don't think it's helpful. If the majority of people find sign language offensive then I would say that we'd have to help the deaf population to find a way of communicating that they were happy with and didn't cause offence to others. But remember, I have always said that where someone has a physical or mental impairment that makes them appear or behave in a way that causes offence, there is a responsibility on the part of the rest of us to put up with it as best we can BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HELP IT.

DoubleRK

"I'm afraid it wouldn't do any good, he probably thinks people with tatoos should keep them COMPLETELY hidden when in public and people with many piercings should remove or cover them in public also since they probably "offend" many people."

I have never said anything of the sort.

If somebody has tattoos that THE MAJORITY would find offensive - e.g. pornographic images or obscene words - then yes they should keep them out of sight.

Bob S.

"And more importantly, why is nudity so different from anything else?"

It's not so different from any other act that people find offensive 'out of context'.

"Just because we have the option of wearing clothes?"

Because you have the option means that you have no excuse for not doing so in circumstances in which you could cause offence.

"And the only thing we are arguing about is the where. Why should someone who sees a naked person in the locker room with no problem suddenly find that same person naked in the forest offensive?"

People do. I do. It's a cultural thing.

"The environment has changed, that's it. People are just not used to seeing it."

That's largely true. But it doesn't mean that people WANT to get used to seeing it.

Stu

[Kari P]

Stu,

"Who has the right to decide what is and is not a good reason?" These words were based on the assumption that the offended person has an option to use another place which is very near - maybe only 50 meters away from the place which was already occupied - but where the offended person couldn't see the offenders. Why to harass them just for the joy of harassment? Your law proposal allows that, and according to what you have written, you yourself would use the law just in that way.

For the most part of your post, I feel that you are just missing my points. Now you speak about nudity on a beach, which is probably an official beach. This is not a place I had in my thoughts. Think about a quiet place on a shore of a remote lake which is suitable for swimming but never designated to a beach by the authorities. Or a forest interior, or any other place in the open free nature far from civilization.

Now I know your answer: There aren't such places in your densely populated country, and if there were, they would still be not accessible to the public due to landownership and the lack of every one's right in your country (a remarkable difference between our countries). Too sad. But think still. If the offended person is another hiker (not the landowner), would he/she have a fair right to demand clothing, if choosing another place quite near could keep everyone happy?

What comes to human rights, the problem with your law proposal is that it doesn't give ANY safe places for naturists to be legally naked without the possibility of harassment, outside specific naturist venues. You say "use them" and support increasing their number, but the whole problem will not be solved this way. You should take into account that naturism is a lifestyle, not just a spare time activity.

What is the density of naturist venues you think would be sufficient? If I say there should be one within 50 km of each naturist's home, to what amount that counts - is it realizable? Probably not.

If there were one naturist beach available to me at the distance of 50 km, I still couldn't use it daily. But, under the current law, its prevailing interpretation and the current state of toleration here, I can be naked in the summer in my summer home and at the lake and the forest nearby it, my neighbors and some passers-by occasionally seeing me. I would not want a law that would criminalize my life!

"But you are STILL making the assumptions that (a) nudity is a natural thing and (b) that human beings should follow nature. I have never accepted either of those premises." Of these (a) is true, with no possibility to turn my or any other naturist's head. (b) is not true. Naturists are not saying that everyone should follow nature. We only expect minimal tolerance to our lifestyle. The meaning is that we should have places to be legally naked outdoors, just somewhere within reasonable distances from our homes. (This is not my problem. I am speaking for other naturists, e.g. those in England.)

"The discrimination is against BEHAVIOUR and not a particular class of PEOPLE." The discrimination is in this case against the lifestyle and the philosophy underlying it, so it is against the people who see nothing wrong with nudity.

"I have always said that where someone has a physical or mental impairment that makes them appear or behave in a way that causes offence, there is a responsibility on the part of the rest of us to put up with it as best we can BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HELP IT." I had at least tried to find a good analogy. See that in my example the offense was not caused by deafness itself, but by the preferred way of communication. The deafs can help the situation by using the available technical aids just as naturists can belp by wearing clothes.

"It's not so different from any other act that people find offensive 'out of context'." It's not necessary at all to find nudity offensive in the not-very-public contexts I have spoken about. It's only so that you are extremely intolerant.

"It's a cultural thing." Surely it is. Cultures can change, they do change gradually. Finland is not a naturist country, but as I have shown, there is more tolerance to public nudity in Finland than in England (if I believe you). England could come to the current level of toleration in Finland, while we (Finnish naturists) are trying to lift it to the current level in Denmark and Germany. The change is not impossible, if you believe in the idea and advocate it in the public.

But you don't believe and you don't want! It's a sad thing that you continually express your intolerance that you never can relieve. The problem here is not that you say the majority in your country is so intolerant. It is that you don't SEE the intolerance as WRONG and do nothing to CHANGE the attitudes, at least your own.

Kari P

[Bob S.]

"If there is just one nude person on a beach, and that nudity is tolerated by the authorities, then that effectively means the beach is for the time being clothing optional and anyone who is offended by the sight of nudity is prevented from enjoying it."

Is that really how you see nude beaches? That paints a negative picture of the whole thing, that others cannot enjoy it. What about non-naturists who congregate on a nude beach and use it wearing clothes? They could prevent naturists from fully enjoying their place.

We disagree on what boundaries should be used to separate the two beaches.

"They would, from that day onward, ban their children from going there alone. Women would fear going to the beach for fear of what they would encounter. The whole atmosphere would have changed from a friendly and familiar place to a ghastly and fearful place for locals and regular visitors alike! Certainly the naturists didn't intend that - but that would be the effect nontheless."

And you do not see anything wrong with the reaction of the non-nudists? That they allow nudity to control their lives so much? You claim that most people know what naturism is all about. If they did, they wouldn't have such a reaction. No one should be fearful of someone who is getting an all-over tan. That is where their stereotypes come into play. Naked men=bad perverts. Naked women=sex-crazed fiends.

"nudity is a natural thing and (b) that human beings should follow nature."

Is nudity an error in creation/evolution? (according to evolution) Did we evolve into a species that has virtually no natural defenses? If so, why and how did we survive all those generations without clothes while being hairless? I can think of nothing more natural as wearing the clothes that you were born in.

Human beings should not necessarily follow nature. They should follow human nature.

"Because you have the option means that you have no excuse for not doing so in circumstances in which you could cause offence."

But you don't agree with it in circumstances that have a small degree of possibility of causing offense. And you feel that a non-nudist has the right to pick out any place he or she wants to pick out despite his surroundings. That could lead to harassment. The naturist could move to another part of the secluded lake but the non-nudist could simply "take a walk" and request that he covers up again.

"But it doesn't mean that people WANT to get used to seeing it."

People are reluctant to accept new concepts that challenge their beliefs. Those who swear that they can see the image of the Virgin Mary in a window are unswayed by the fact that it is actually just condensation in a random pattern. But if we are to succeed in gaining more pro-naturist laws, we have to find ways to get them past thie reticence.

Bob S.

Kari

"These words were based on the assumption that the offended person has an option to use another place which is very near - maybe only 50 meters away from the place which was already occupied - but where the offended person couldn't see the offenders."

I am advocating many more recognised and authorised naturist places, both at the coast and inland. For naturists to expect such places within 50 metres from their home is totally impossible in the vast majority of cases. But under my proposition they might have to drive in their cars for no more than an hour from anywhere in the UK. Naturism is practiced by a tiny minority of people in the UK and most people findout of context nudity to be offensive. That is the reality of the situation. If you don't want to have to travel for upto one hour in your car then, if your naturist lifestyle is so important to you, you should move home to somewhere closer to a proper naturist venue.

"Why to harass them just for the joy of harassment? Your law proposal allows that, and according to what you have written, you yourself would use the law just in that way."

I have never said I would do it "just to harass them". But if I wanted to use my favourite beach with my family - and my favourite beach is a quiet beach that really IS about one hour's drive from my home - and naturists were using it - I'd as them to cover up or leave. That's not because I want to harass them, it's because I want to use this beach and it's not a naturist beach.

"Think about a quiet place on a shore of a remote lake which is suitable for swimming but never designated to a beach by the authorities. Or a forest interior, or any other place in the open free nature far from civilization."

There should be such places as you describe set aside for naturists. If this was the case there would be no need for naturists to use other remote public places - unless of course they wanted to force the rest of us to see their nudity!

"But think still. If the offended person is another hiker (not the landowner), would he/she have a fair right to demand clothing, if choosing another place quite near could keep everyone happy?"

Yes of course they would, for the reasons I have already said. The simple rule is that you should not be naked in public except in a naturist place. The ONLY exception is if you do whatever is necessary not to cause offence to non-naturists. I simply cannot see what the problem with this point is.

"What comes to human rights, the problem with your law proposal is that it doesn't give ANY safe places for naturists to be legally naked without the possibility of harassment, outside specific naturist venues".

If you want to be certain of being able to be naked without people asking you to cover up then you MUST go to a proper naturist venue. Here in the UK clothing is the normal state - not nudity.

"You should take into account that naturism is a lifestyle, not just a spare time activity."

OK, but it's a chosen lifestyle. AND there are plenty of naturists who manage perfectly well without finding it necessary to get naked away from proper naturist venues.

"What is the density of naturist venues you think would be sufficient? If I say there should be one within 50 km of each naturist's home, to what amount that counts - is it realizable? Probably not."

Perhaps for more densely populated areas, but not really for the rest of the country. And remember that 50km is a short distance if you live near a quiet road or stretch of motorway but a long way if you need to travel from one side of London to the other. I would say one hour's drive is more realistic.

"If there were one naturist beach available to me at the distance of 50 km, I still couldn't use it daily. But, under the current law, its prevailing interpretation and the current state of toleration here, I can be naked in the summer in my summer home and at the lake and the forest nearby it, my neighbors and some passers-by occasionally seeing me. I would not want a law that would criminalize my life!"

OK, so you are lucky in your country - it works well for you and I'm pleased. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"We only expect minimal tolerance to our lifestyle."

You already have that from the remainder of the public. And the reason you have it is because naturists in the UK are generally considerate towards the feelings of non-naturists towards nudity. People will tolerate, or even actively support, more facilities for naturists. But they won't generally tolerate seeing public nudity in the places they use.

"The meaning is that we should have places to be legally naked outdoors, just somewhere within reasonable distances from our homes. (This is not my problem. I am speaking for other naturists, e.g. those in England.)"

I agree.

"The discrimination is in this case against the lifestyle and the philosophy underlying it, so it is against the people who see nothing wrong with nudity."

The European Court of Human Rights would not class that as discrimination and neither would I. Any section of the public could claim the same thing - e.g. Nazis, paedophiles, drug addicts etc - and then claim protection for their 'lifestyle choice'. What the law prohibits is certain behaviour in public places, NOT a class of people from entering or remaining in those places. There is a huge difference in law between discrimination regarding people (illegal if it is a characteristic about themselves which is inherent) and discrimination about behaviour (which is legal).

"It's not necessary at all to find nudity offensive in the not-very-public contexts I have spoken about. It's only so that you are extremely intolerant."

I don't accept that I'm intolerant - but I don't see why I shouldn't be able to use public places free from any risk of experiencing serious offence. And I'm far from being alone in that respect.

"It's a cultural thing." Surely it is. Cultures can change, they do change gradually."

Cultures are constantly changing, yes, but minorities have no right to demand or try to force such changes out of self-interest onto an unwilling majority. At the moment our culture finds public nudity unacceptable. Unless and until it changes you just have to live with that reality.

"Finland is not a naturist country, but as I have shown, there is more tolerance to public nudity in Finland than in England."

I have never been to Finland and, I believe, you have never been to England, so we'll just have to take each other's word for it, won't we. Besides, you know the situation regarding Mr Gough. Would he have been treated any differently if he had tried to walk nude from, say, Oulu to Helsinki?

"England could come to the current level of toleration in Finland..."

I could, but some of us would resist that.

"while we (Finnish naturists) are trying to lift it to the current level in Denmark and Germany."

And what do the Finnish non-naturists make of that? Besides, I guess from that remark you have never been to Denmark. I have spent a considerable amount of time in that country (I was there just 10 weeks ago!) and I can assure you that you are hardly any more likely to see a naked adult person on a typical Danish beach (other than a clothes-optional), or in a Danish park etc than you would be here in England.

"But you don't believe and you don't want!"

That's true. I don't want.

"It's a sad thing that you continually express your intolerance that you never can relieve. The problem here is not that you say the majority in your country is so intolerant. It is that you don't SEE the intolerance as WRONG and do nothing to CHANGE the attitudes, at least your own."

If I don't want something to happen in my own country then that's my choice and I am at liberty to say so. If I don't speak out then others will and my wishes won't become known nor accounted for, so I can't complain. What do you suggest I do? Just tolerate the intolerable - put up with what I find to be disgusting behaviour in public places that I pay for and had previously enjoyed using? Or stay at home and keep my family away from quiet places to prevent them encountering this vile behaviour?

No way, Kari!

Stu

[Bob S.]

" For naturists to expect such places within 50 metres from their home is totally impossible in the vast majority of cases."

Did you misread what Kari wrote? It is something that I wrote to youy elsewhere. Basically, why can't the non-nudist move away from where the nudists are? Why should he have to ask him to cover up when there is free space on all sides of him, including out of eyeshot?

"But if I wanted to use my favourite beach with my family - and my favourite beach is a quiet beach that really IS about one hour's drive from my home - and naturists were using it - I'd as them to cover up or leave. That's not because I want to harass them, it's because I want to use this beach and it's not a naturist beach."

Again, if you saw this family enjoying their time naked and they were the only ones there, why the need to set up your towels right there next to them? That is asking for offense.

"Any section of the public could claim the same thing - e.g. Nazis, paedophiles, drug addicts etc - and then claim protection for their 'lifestyle choice'"

Nazis have the right, at least here, to set up shop and advocate theri opinions. To deny them use of public facilities that are used for other political groups would be discrimination. We have a saying here in the USA: "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." As long as they are not advocating violence, there is nothing wrong with it.

Pedophiles cannot claim lifestyle choice as their lifestyle causes physical harm to our most innocent and vulnerable members of society. Sex-based crimes cannot be protected.

There is a question about legalizing certain drugs. But some drugs are so harmful and dangerous to the user that they must be banned for public safety.

Bob S.

[Duneman]

I'm getting exhausted just reading all the posts on this debate!!

Personally I think most folks have spent too much time debating this topic with these two individuals?!?

As people who say "they are not interested in the naturist lifestyle," they sure spend a lot of time on this site!

And obviously, someone who finds a bare female breast repulsive, would not enjoy naturism.

I would not give them any more time...... and just move on!?

[GAR]

This could work to get non nudist to see things from our eyes. If the laws were reversed and they had areas where they could go to be and not see anyone nude. Like a clothed area. Workes for me.

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Duneman:
I'm getting exhausted just reading all the posts on this debate!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry about this. I will write only one reply to Stu, and I hope it will be the last on my side.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Duneman:
Personally I think most folks have spent too much time debating this topic with these two individuals?!?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean Stu and Rocket? Rocket has gone. Stu has never been as bad in the way of writing and shows at least some understanding of naturism. Not a hopeless case, I have thought, and this is why I have kept the dialog going.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Duneman:
As people who say "they are not interested in the naturist lifestyle," they sure spend a lot of time on this site!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a paradox. I haven't understood what are Stu's motives to write here, obviously spending daily hours at this forum reading, writing and checking things. Maybe he could explain it to us.

Stu, are you making fun of the debate? In reality you could be much more open to nudity and could have already been "converted" a bit, but you just play your original role, because you are addicted to this conversation - true? If you say "yes", it's the end of the debate but I could still thank you for your writing and wouldn't think anything bad about what you have done.

Kari P

[Kari P]

Stu,

"For naturists to expect such places within 50 metres from their home is totally impossible in the vast majority of cases." You forgot the prefix kilo.

"if I wanted to use my favourite beach with my family - and my favourite beach is a quiet beach that really IS about one hour's drive from my home - and naturists were using it - I'd as them to cover up or leave." I accept this if the naturists had taken a central place on the beach in everyone's view. But not, if they were at the edge of the beach area or outside of its official borders, and you checked the whole area to be sure there are no nudes, found them, asked them to cover up or leave, and you had a possibility to reserve your place on the beach somewhere far from them, in the best case even not seeing them. If you do this, it is clearly harassment.

"There should be such places as you describe set aside for naturists. If this was the case there would be no need for naturists to use other remote public places - unless of course they wanted to force the rest of us to see their nudity!" Is it really necessary to define the clothing compulsory/optionality status for each area? You could never concede that exercising naturism is OK in a secluded place where no one with a great probability will see it?

"The ONLY exception is if you do whatever is necessary not to cause offence to non-naturists. I simply cannot see what the problem with this point is." Read once again with thought everything that has been written by naturists (not Rocket) in this and the previous law discussion. You should see and admit that your law can be used very unfairly to naturists. The law should not give weapons to those who want to harass them.

"Here in the UK clothing is the normal state - not nudity." It's this way in Finland, too. But nudity is tolerated more. You also could tolerate it a bit more, for instance in the most secluded places.

"OK, but it's a chosen lifestyle." All lifestyles are chosen. Some of them are visible in the appearance of a person in a way that can offend someone, and most lifestyles are still tolerated. There is no such right as a right not to be offended.

"I would say one hour's drive is more realistic." OK. This sounds good. But still I would ask for toleration of nudity in private areas (back yards etc.) visible to others.

"Any section of the public could claim the same thing - e.g. Nazis, paedophiles, drug addicts etc - and then claim protection for their 'lifestyle choice'." You should see the difference between crimes and nudity, criminals and naturists. If nudity is the only crime, it is not a crime at all.

"why I shouldn't be able to use public places free from any risk of experiencing serious offence." Just be tolerant to different people. The offence and its seriousness is between your ears. You can do something to it if you want.

"you know the situation regarding Mr Gough. Would he have been treated any differently if he had tried to walk nude from, say, Oulu to Helsinki?" Very probably yes, if he was walking only on the roads in the countryside.

In the spring I heard and read news about a male streaker in Helsinki. The news didn't tell if he was arrested, only that people seeing him were concerned about his (physical, not mental) health because the weather was cold.

You are welcome to Finland. But be aware: you CAN see nudity at the lakes, even visibly from main roads. (My wife reported a case to me when I was driving, I didn't see it myself. Though she is against my nudity at home, she didn't tell the thing in a way that had shown that she had been offended. It was a normal thing to her, nothing criminal.)

"I could, but some of us would resist that." You really could (come to the level of tolerance in Finland)? Fine! Why you don't do it? OK, you could, but you don't want.

"Besides, I guess from that remark you have never been to Denmark. I have spent a considerable amount of time in that country (I was there just 10 weeks ago!) and I can assure you that you are hardly any more likely to see a naked adult person on a typical Danish beach (other than a clothes-optional), or in a Danish park etc than you would be here in England." I have been there as a child, but as an adult I haven't travelled much. I read your conversation with a Danish naturist, where the fact was not disputed that officially almost all beaches in Denmark are clothing-optional. This tells something about toleration.

"Or stay at home and keep my family away from quiet places to prevent them encountering this vile behaviour?" Think and rethink, accept that it is not vile, tell it also to your family.

Kari P

Bob

?Basically, why can't the non-nudist move away from where the nudists are? Why should he have to ask him to cover up when there is free space on all sides of him, including out of eyeshot??

He can. If there was space on the beach that?s what I might do. But there has to be a bottom line because arguments and disagreements will surely arise otherwise. That bottom line has to be that on naturist beaches it?s the naturists who decide the dress code, but on other beaches it?s clothes compulsory UNLESS nobody minds the presence of nudes.

?Again, if you saw this family enjoying their time naked and they were the only ones there, why the need to set up your towels right there next to them? That is asking for offense.?

It depends upon the location and circumstances. Personally I would be alarmed at naturists began using my favourite beach. Just ask yourself how naturist beaches generally come about. Is it because authorities set aside sections of beach that were previously textile only? Or do they come about by informal and unofficial use by naturists? I think it?s usually the latter and I would want to protect my nearest beach from becoming such a place.

?Nazis have the right, at least here, to set up shop and advocate their opinions.?

Things are much more tightly controlled here. If you and a few friends decided to don Nazi symbols and march down the street you would be arrested and charged for offences under our Public Order or Race Relations Acts.

GAR

?This could work to get non nudist to see things from our eyes. If the laws were reversed and they had areas where they could go to be and not see anyone nude. Like a clothed area.?

If textiles ever become a small minority as nudists are today then I might suggest that!

Kari

?You mean Stu and Rocket? Rocket has gone. Stu has never been as bad in the way of writing and shows at least some understanding of naturism. Not a hopeless case, I have thought, and this is why I have kept the dialog going.?

I am open to reason, but I don?t think you are ever going to persuade me that nudity should be permitted in public and more than I am ever going to convince you that it should remain a criminal offence.

?This is a paradox. I haven't understood what are Stu's motives to write here, obviously spending daily hours at this forum reading, writing and checking things. Maybe he could explain it to us.?

The subject matter interests me AND I enjoy philosophical debate. And I don?t spend hours here LOL! I am a very fast composer of text and quick on a keyboard. Even my lengthier replies rarely take me more than 15 minutes.

?Stu, are you making fun of the debate? In reality you could be much more open to nudity and could have already been "converted" a bit, but you just play your original role, because you are addicted to this conversation - true? If you say "yes", it's the end of the debate but I could still thank you for your writing and wouldn't think anything bad about what you have done.?

Are you serious???? LOL No, Kari, I?m not and never will be converted to nudity. I believe nudity has a place in the world but that place isn?t in streets or public places. I accept that my personal BEHAVIOUR (as opposed to opinion) regarding nudity may seem a little extreme in that I never allow anyone else to see me naked. I realise that is exceptional to my case. Nevertheless I believe that most people really prefer not to be confronted with what they regard as inappropriate nudity. And I believe that disregarding that preference normally leads to shock and offence and it should, therefore, be respected.

?I accept this if the naturists had taken a central place on the beach in everyone's view. But not, if they were at the edge of the beach area or outside of its official borders, and you checked the whole area to be sure there are no nudes, found them, asked them to cover up or leave, and you had a possibility to reserve your place on the beach somewhere far from them, in the best case even not seeing them. If you do this, it is clearly harassment.?

Please see my response to Bob, above, when he made he same point.

?Is it really necessary to define the clothing compulsory/optionality status for each area? You could never concede that exercising naturism is OK in a secluded place where no one with a great probability will see it??

Clothing optional places should always be designated as such because that will protect both naturists (from harassment by others and from the law) and from textiles (who are in serious danger from nudists). But I wouldn?t say the same for clothing compulsory places, no, BECAUSE most of these places would only be clothing compulsory IF and ONLY IF somebody objected to nakedness.

?There is no such right as a right not to be offended.?

I don?t agree. People have every right to enjoy the public places they pay for in comfort and without experiencing unnecessary distress and offence. The laws in virtually every country on earth recognises this principle to some degree or other.

?This sounds good. But still I would ask for toleration of nudity in private areas (back yards etc.) visible to others.?

The purpose of my law is to avoid offence. If you are going to allow people to be naked in their front gardens visible from the street, then you might as well allow them to be naked in the street itself. I would find that totally unacceptable.

?You should see the difference between crimes and nudity, criminals and naturists. If nudity is the only crime, it is not a crime at all.?

Causing offence to people in public places here usually does constitute a crime.

Re Mr Gough ??" Very probably yes, if he was walking only on the roads in the countryside.?


?You are welcome to Finland. But be aware: you CAN see nudity at the lakes, even visibly from main roads.?

I was actually hoping to visit Finland next August when I will be driving to Sweden. You have just convinced me that is a very bad idea.

?I read your conversation with a Danish naturist, where the fact was not disputed that officially almost all beaches in Denmark are clothing-optional. This tells something about toleration.?

Denmark has EXACTLY the law I was suggesting!!!! There are lots and lots of clothing-optional beaches. There is no specific law that says you can?t be naked on most other beaches BUT if somebody objects then you must straight away leave or cover yourself up. I?m glad you agree that this is a good law!

?Think and rethink, accept that it is not vile, tell it also to your family.?

But Kari ? it really IS vile to me.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Clothing optional places should always be designated as such because that will protect both naturists (from harassment by others and from the law) and from textiles (who are in serious danger from nudists). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

What 'serious danger' would that be? The easily offended might be upset, but I wouldn't call that serious danger.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

To all who are tiring of this debate: Waa. You smell that? I thinik it's sarcasm! Just don't open it. To those who make comments about how tiring this debate is: Get a life.

I will make one concession, one that stu and I promised to do a couple months ago when people tired of another philosophical debate. I promise to keep my dissertations under 1,000 words. stu, Kari, can you both agree to that. Pare down the messages.

Now let's see how well I can do:

"If there was space on the beach that?s what I might do."

Good. You have that much common sense.

"Or do they come about by informal and unofficial use by naturists? I think it?s usually the latter and I would want to protect my nearest beach from becoming such a place."

Yes, that is the most common birth of a nude beach, the unofficial use of it comes first. And you typical of many people who claim to be for something. You are a NIMBYite. "Yes, I agree that there need to be more nude beaches, Just Not In My BackYard."

"If you and a few friends decided to don Nazi symbols and march down the street you would be arrested and charged for offences under our Public Order or Race Relations Acts."

Here, you will just be castigated from society. And I assume that you mean march as in walking down the street, not an organized march. Here, you would need permission for an organized march.

"I believe that most people really prefer not to be confronted with what they regard as inappropriate nudity."

No one does. We just disagree on what consttutes inappropriatenss.

"Clothing optional places should always be designated as such because that will protect both naturists (from harassment by others and from the law) and from textiles (who are in serious danger from nudists)."

I agree with the first part, but the textiles are in no danger from nudists. On the contrary, nudists are in more danger from textiles than vice versa. And I have always agreed with you that we should have our places designated, just not hidden.

Regarding the statement that Kari made: ?There is no such right as a right not to be offended.?

Some people are offended to see someone smoking. So can they do something about that? Can a member of the KKK claim their right not to be offended when "forced" to ride in the same bus as a Jewish person?

"Causing offence to people in public places here usually does constitute a crime."

Only if the offense is a crime. And we are saying that normal nudity should not be a crime.

"Denmark has EXACTLY the law I was suggesting!"

They also have much better tolerance for nudity.

Bob S.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We have a saying here in the USA: "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually it was the French philosopher Voltaire who said it first. Franklin and Jefferson brought it back to America. And then the Revolution came and then the Terror and then Napoleon took over and it didn't mean much over there any more. However, we thought it so important we incorporated the idea into the Bill of Rights as fundamental to our government.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here, you would need permission for an organized march. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, but they also have to have an extremely good reason to deny you the permit. The fear that people might take offense isn't adequate. That's why the neo-Nazis got to march in Skokie even though it was almost universally opposed.

[Fresh Air]

It is more ethical to accept things which can not be changed (race, disability, etc). Other things are choices. Personal choices, when dealing with nudity, religion, or political party for instance. While tolerated, these are often less accepted globally.

Fresh Air

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Some people are offended to see someone smoking.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You maybe don't know, but in many countries in Europe smoking is nowadays banned by law in public buildings. Not because of the offence smoking may create but because of health reasons. There can be separate rooms for smokers where they can exercise their vice. Sometimes the smokers' room has a glass wall. This also shows that possible offences caused by seeing smoking are not taken into account.

Kari P

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If you are going to allow people to be naked in their front gardens visible from the street, then you might as well allow them to be naked in the street itself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not asking it. But for back yards and sparsely inhabited areas the thing of nudity should have very little to do with law. The question is about being in harmony with the neighbors. They should (and in my experience they can) tolerate occasional nudity. If a neighbor is not convenient with it, he/she should talk directly to the naturist neighbor, and only in an extreme case call the police.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
?You are welcome to Finland. But be aware: you CAN see nudity at the lakes, even visibly from main roads.?

I was actually hoping to visit Finland next August when I will be driving to Sweden. You have just convinced me that is a very bad idea.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I expected this reaction from you! I am a bad tourism advertiser, aren't I?

Seriously, are you in a fear of "traffic hazard caused by nudity" ? la Gough? When driving, you should look at the road and its immediate surroundings. Even as a passenger, you don't see much and for a long time, you only catch a glimpse of probably-naked persons, and you don't have to look longer to that direction. And the happening is still rare. No good reason to not visit this beautiful country.

Kari P

[Bob S.]

Thanks for the etymology lesson regarding that phrase, oh natural one. And yes, I know that marching permits are fairly easy to attain. My point was that a group couldn't just march down the middle of a street without one.

Kari. most public buildings here are also smoke-free environs. My point was that sometimes, someone has no recourse at the offense that they feel and that they must live with it. They don't have the right to not be offended.

"I am a bad tourism advertiser, aren't I?"

Hey, you can't win them all. stu will just have to avoid the beaches.

Bob S.