Naked Rambler walks free from prison - and walks away nude

[EricNY]

That right there is all that needs to be said as to why you have a very narrow view on what is reasonable and responsible.



I have read alot of posts of yours saying how you do not want to see nudity and those that practice nudism must be segregated, that is enough for me and others here to label you anti-nudist. I see it as the same attitude as saying, "Jews are okay as long as they do not practice their religion where it would bother others", or "only wear that yamaka in the synagogue". That attitude is highly offensive to me and other nudist, any excuse about it not applying is BS because it is the same intolerence just different people. [sarcasm]But I forget, that it can not be offensive when it is said on an open forum.[/sarcasm]

First step in recovery is acceptance.

It is not offensive! I will assume that a portion of this is directed to me? The opinions expressed here are not offensive in the least! Stu is not ant-nudist he is anti-nude in public. You keep calling being nude in an appropriate venue "segregation" and you are offended that someone that feels that nudity should not be acceptable just anywhere and everywhere!


Face it Nimrod being nude in public is AGAINST THE LAW! Gough is breaking the law! Personally I do not want him nor do I feel he is a good spokesperson to promote acceptance of nudism. There is NOTHING positive coming out of his behavior, if anything he is likely harming the public's acceptance of nudity!!! How on earth anyone can express support for this man, or condone his actions is beyond me!

[Sanslines]

Just exactly what is an 'appropriate' place to be nude? People constantly toss around these rather vague terms that have different meaning to different people but refuse to specifically define what they mean.

There are many places in New York State where nudity has been tolerated for many years BUT it is still ILLEGAL to be nude in those places. Those places are traditionally isolated and self segregated by choice for many reasons - the least being that those who go to such places wish to remain hidden from legal ramifications.

If we are going to claim that we are outstanding citizens who will uphold the law no matter what, then we must stop going to any place other than a private property or residence where nudity is strictly hidden from view. Even then, history has shown that there are those who deliberately go to such places to be offended and they do indeed have the law on their side. Given all of this, we might as well say bye bye to TNS for TNS started out as a 'free beach' society but there was never any such thing as a public beach where nudity was legal. At best it was tolerated but this is not the same thing as being legal. Nudity in the USA is definitely segregated - it NEVER has been openly mixed with mainstream textile society.

[EricNY]

I have no arguments to most of what you say Sanslines.....That said What Gough is doing, in my opinion is the wrong way to go about anything positive. There are many acceptable places one can exercise their freedom to be clothes free, but I think we both know its is never going to be widely accepted in most public places. We can fight to promote new spaces, more spaces etc.....But this guy Gough is doing nothing positive from what I can see. I think I read that he walked near a school playground? To me that seems irresponsible and that hurts everyone that supports and enjoys nude recreation

As far as being segregated? I think we know that it always will be....Lets see....Smokers are now being segregated? should we fight that by smoking in schools, restaurants, how about churches? Should we smoke in church? My use of the word in my post above to nimrod was that he wants to nitpic Stu saying he is offensive by saying that nudity should be in a spot deemed legal, or at least acceptable....I am ok with that. I am ok not going to the mall nude....or not walking through public spaces nude, I am ok with not walking past a school or a playground nude....I am NOT OK with Gough doing what he is doing...It is not helping the cause

[David77]

Sanslines said

"We really need to be honest about who we 'honor'."

The quality of worth and honor intrinsic to every person

"Dignity—the quality of worth and honor intrinsic to every person—establishes basic entitlements that are the unalienable birthright of every human. It is our intrinsic legitimacy. We are worthy simply because we exist. Dignity is the threshold level of status required to meet basic human needs. It establishes the basic boundaries of humanity. Indignity—trespassing into the territory established by dignity—is the essence of insult,humiliation, and the root ofanger, shame, and hate. This trespass is the tyranny, oppression, and coercionjustice deny someone their inalienable worth. Dignity is a congruence between the respect we demonstrate and the intrinsic legitimacy of each person. All of history is the quest for dignity. We are worthy simply because we are alive; it is a cruel coercionjustice to deny someone their inalienable worth." http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/dignity.htm My Humanistic values (goal, plan, objective) includes, firstly, the inherent dignity and worth of every person of our human family. Here is a good read; THE CRIME OF PUNISHMENT - By Karl Menninger, psychiatrist http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=PVIgiqoCCskC

[usuallylurk]

As far as being segregated? I think we know that it always will be....Lets see....Smokers are now being segregated? should we fight that by smoking in schools, restaurants, how about churches? Should we smoke in church? My use of the word in my post above to nimrod was that he wants to nitpic Stu saying he is offensive by saying that nudity should be in a spot deemed legal, or at least acceptable....I am ok with that. I am ok not going to the mall nude....or not walking through public spaces nude, I am ok with not walking past a school or a playground nude....I am NOT OK with Gough doing what he is doing...It is not helping the cause

I agree with you, Eric, and, this time, Stu as well!

We also had a situation close to home here -- my neighboring state of Vermont, in the town of Brattleboro. A group of teenagers liked to hang out nude -- and the town thought, the best way to handle this, is to ignore them. So, what happened?

Their nudity went viral. And it encouraged others to come to Brattleboro and some people were walking into stores, and down Main Street naked. And, the next step was "OK, now we WILL take legal action, and put in some anti-nudity laws...."

I also saw some people come to the defense of the guy in Ontario who drove through a drive-up window nude. Tried to use the "free expression" argument. Buzzer time.

There is a difference between exhibitionism and free expression.
There is a difference between exhibitionism and nude recreation.

I can see the difference. I think you do, Eric, and I know Stu does. Others can't, and there's nothing we can do about it.

[Sanslines]

I have no arguments to most of what you say Sanslines.....That said What Gough is doing, in my opinion is the wrong way to go about anything positive. There are many acceptable places one can exercise their freedom to be clothes free, but I think we both know its is never going to be widely accepted in most public places. We can fight to promote new spaces, more spaces etc.....But this guy Gough is doing nothing positive from what I can see. I think I read that he walked near a school playground? To me that seems irresponsible and that hurts everyone that supports and enjoys nude recreation

As far as being segregated? I think we know that it always will be....Lets see....Smokers are now being segregated? should we fight that by smoking in schools, restaurants, how about churches? Should we smoke in church? My use of the word in my post above to nimrod was that he wants to nitpic Stu saying he is offensive by saying that nudity should be in a spot deemed legal, or at least acceptable....I am ok with that. I am ok not going to the mall nude....or not walking through public spaces nude, I am ok with not walking past a school or a playground nude....I am NOT OK with Gough doing what he is doing...It is not helping the cause

Here is a very different side to the story. There is a single dad in upstate NY who is a very nice, decent, and caring man. He is raising his young daughter as a nudist in a nudist home. One day he took his daughter to a secluded beach where they both enjoyed the day. However, later in the day, some elderly textile people saw him and his daughter and called the police. The police came and arrested him. CPS (child protective services) was called. He would up in front of a very conservative judge who could not understand nudism and certainly believed that raising children in a nudist home is sick and a form of child abuse. Needless to say, this poor man (who had very little money) went bankrupt and lost his home in the process of hiring attorneys to prevent having his beloved daughter taken away from him.

Of course, it is easy to say that he was practicing nudity in a place that is not appropriate BUT he did try to stay away from textiles. Even with this effort he really was railroaded and abused by the legal system as it clearly is illegal to be nude on any public beach in NYS. This is a very sad but very true story.

As for Gough, I do not know what motivates this man to be constantly nude in all places and I really want to know the entire truth concerning him before I pass any judgement. I do not think that it is right to take the easy way out by throwing someone away in solitary confinement for years at a time when there may very well be a much better solution.

[Sanslines]

I can see the difference. I think you do, Eric, and I know Stu does. Others can't, and there's nothing we can do about it.

I would not be so quick to pass judgement on the rest of us who obviously do not automatically agree with you (Stu). You do not know the entire truth about Gough and yet you are condemning him. You are obviously not listening to other points and considering them carefully.

I am not associating Gough with Christ, but there are some parallels. Most conservative people did not understand Christ and did not want to understand Christ. They found it easier to form a lynch mob and scream "crucify him!". I see some of the same problem with Gough as people who do not understand him or his motivativions are ready to "crucify him" by throwing him away in solitary confinement forever and forgetting about him.

[nimrod]

It is not offensive! I will assume that a portion of this is directed to me? The opinions expressed here are not offensive in the least! Stu is not ant-nudist he is anti-nude in public. You keep calling being nude in an appropriate venue "segregation" and you are offended that someone that feels that nudity should not be acceptable just anywhere and everywhere!

Well Eric you are being paranoid here, when I respond to a post I am responding to that post and usually only that person unless more then one person as responded similarly, then I use the word people. Now, I and others do feel that forced segregation is offensive therefore Stu sugesting that nudist be forced into segregated areas is offensive to me, and others, if you do not think so, fine that is you. Do you see the difference between forced segregation and self imposed segregation? To me there is a big difference. Also you telling me that Stu is not anti-nudist will not change my mind about him or his actions, it is what I believe, the only person that can change my mind is Stu and his behaviour.

Face it Nimrod being nude in public is AGAINST THE LAW! Gough is breaking the law! Personally I do not want him nor do I feel he is a good spokesperson to promote acceptance of nudism. There is NOTHING positive coming out of his behavior, if anything he is likely harming the public's acceptance of nudity!!! How on earth anyone can express support for this man, or condone his actions is beyond me!

I do not have to face anything, I know that being nude in public is against the law, well not really here in California but I understand the point you are trying to make, and there is no reason to be so angry with me. Gough may not be the best voice for nudism, I will not defend his actions as being positive for nudism, what I do support is that he is fighting for his freedoms.

[nimrod]

As far as being segregated? I think we know that it always will be....Lets see....Smokers are now being segregated? should we fight that by smoking in schools, restaurants, how about churches? Should we smoke in church? My use of the word in my post above to nimrod was that he wants to nitpic Stu saying he is offensive by saying that nudity should be in a spot deemed legal, or at least acceptable....I am ok with that. I am ok not going to the mall nude....or not walking through public spaces nude, I am ok with not walking past a school or a playground nude....I am NOT OK with Gough doing what he is doing...It is not helping the cause

There is a difference between smoking and nudity, nudity does not cause others health problems. I am not nitpicking Stu, you seem to be misunderstanding my point between being forced into segregated places which is offensive to me and others and self segregation. I wish that I could go nude where every I chose, that does not mean that I want to excersise that right and be deliberately offensive.

[EricNY]

. I wish that I could go nude where every I chose, that does not mean that I want to excersise that right and be deliberately offensive.

Hmmm.....That is exactly what Gough is doing! He is deliberately being offensive!