Naked man arrested for causing 'an alarm'

[usuallylurk]

duplicate message.

[usuallylurk]

Let's look at both Martin Luther King and James Farmer. Martin Luther King did not initially approve of the Freedom Rides.

(snipped for brevity)

Ah, the old, shopworn "nudism is a civil right" analogy.

First of all, it isn't.
Second, these people were seeking equality under the law, and felt - as MOST Americans did - that they were entitled to it. And the Constitution had been amended a century earlier to guarantee those rights, they were demanding them.

Third - please, please do not mingle the actions of Dr. King, Malcolm X, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisolm, Gloria Steinem, and others who fought for equal rights with those very, very few who want to be able to walk around naked in public without any consequences.

The right to vote, to equal access to education and private and public facilities, equal pay for equal work, and so on -- for large segments of American society, should not be lumped in with someone's desire to walk around town with his or her pants down.

That dog don't hunt.

[nimrod]

Some dogs also wear clothes now and then - I wonder what they think about it?

Why is my owner abusing me like this?

[nimrod]

Yes - in groups, on private property, and they chose to NOT flaunt their nudity or force it on others. They didn't walk through the center of town to make their point, they chose to engage in nudism either on their own property, or in places where it was tolerated and accepted.

They didn't "make their point" through exhibitionism.

This guy is not an exhibitionist, he did not do this for sexual gratifacation, I do not think he has a phycosexual disorder, nor trying to attract attention to himself, just being in public nude does not make it exhibitionistic behaviour.

I am sure that there were some that thought what the first pioneers were doing was wrong, exhibitionistic and flaunting even if not directly in the public eye, there are still some that think that way and want to ban all nudity. Take San Onofre as an example, even though few if any of the general public see the nudity there, people would still complain just because it is there and now no longer tolerated as it was by the state.

Also what of the evolution of nudity? What of the self appointed pioneers that are willing to expand nudity and make it more accepting? If you rather stagnate and reinforce the idea that nudity needs to be hidden that is your choice. I can not see how it is helpful to totally distance yourself from those who are doing no harm by being naked and are being prosocuted, publically and legally, doing so will also reinforce the idea that all public nudity is wrong and/or exhibitionistic in nature.

What this guy did was not the smartest thing, but the reaction to it is worse. Do not distance yourself from the situation, engage people and question them why they think it was wrong if they bring it up, try to get them to think about their prejudice against nudity. Unless you think nudity should always be hidden no matter how innocent.

[Baron Lake]

usuallylurk, to your tag line: "....social (!) nudism? DO IT NOW" you should add: "in an approved by me location"
Oh what would we do without folks like you to tell us what's Correct and how to live our lives. (Be nice to try it someday)

[usuallylurk]

usuallylurk, to your tag line: "....social (!) nudism? DO IT NOW" you should add: "in an approved by me location"
Oh what would we do without folks like you to tell us what's Correct and how to live our lives. (Be nice to try it someday)

I will tell you that the middle of Main Street is NOT approved by me...

I guess if you feel that walking naked down the middle of a city street is fine, then go ahead and do so. Just remember the consequences of such actions.

[Sanslines]

Not quite. 61 is "older" by some standards, but it's the thought process that's young. No, I haven't forgotten. If I had, I wouldn't have stayed in nudism for 32 years.

Based upon some of your replies, you appear to have lost the connection with youth. Age is a number. Old age thoughts can occur at any time. Perhaps there is still truth to the adage "Trust no one over 30"

Older people won't, either. How old is the current "hero" of some posters in these boards, Stephen Gough? According to Wikipedia, he was born in 1959, which would make him around 52. One-time activist / publicity-seeker Vincent Bethell was reported to be in his late 20s when he did his thing around 2000-01, but he has seemed to fade from the scene.

Let's clarify: The vast majority of younger people will not fully conform to society standards. The vast majority of older people will. Generation differences are a fact otherwise young people would just be a rubber stamp of older people and there would never be any change. Young people need to establish their own way in the world - hopefully you have not forgotten this.

At my age, you CAN rebel! This is probably why you find so many older people at nudist venues -- camps, resorts, and skinny dipping holes -- and a dearth of twenty-somethings.

Yes at your age you CAN rebel but most DO NOT rebel. There really is a huge difference in a protected camp or resort versus a skinny dipping hole. Most young people do not like rules, regulations, and being told what to do and not to do by older people. Older people remember the "good old days" when they were young, full of energy, and had ideas and visions of changing the world. Most older nudist people today would prefer to enjoy the lounge chair at the local nudist club while waiting for the next social security check to arrive.

A bit of a problem here, Sanslines. Young people don't join organizations like AANR, to be sure. Older people don't either, or they're staying away (or dying off). If you've looked at AANR membership numbers of late, you'd know that.

If you also look at AANR memberships and take a good look around any AANR club, you would know that the majority of AANR members are older and usually retired. They have the time and money to spend at AANR clubs. Because of this, they should be the core group for AANR. BTW, AARP members should also get an AANR membership discount. If you have been to any AANR club lately, you would also know this.

BUT -- those "young skinny dippers" aren't to be found ANYWHERE. Sure, CFI can get them together for a video -- but I assure you, if you go to a nude beach, or a nude gathering -- you're not going to find very many, with very few exceptions.

Oddly enough - at the resort/club where the Canadian Naturist Festival was held, there were people of all ages there. Haven't seen that in a number of years.

But if you go to the Ledges, you won't find a lot of young people there, either. Or any nude venue.

Does Black's Beach count - where there really are people of all ages. There are places where younger people are to be found, you just need to go out and look for them.

Agreed, except those youngsters won't get involved with ANY nudism, at all.

I discussed one of the major reasons why. Let's clarify - youngsters do not want to get involved with ORGANIZED nudism. They will be nude at a time and place of their choosing and do not want older people telling them when and where.

Oh I certainly did rebel. I don't criticize everything that is, whatever the hell you think is "appropriate nudism". Now appropriate BEHAVIOR -- that's something else. Walking naked by a school, driving through a Mickey Ds drive-up in the nude, is inappropriate BEHAVIOR.

But the reason I'd object -- people in the general public tend to associate us with these self-appointed "pioneers" with nudists. They do not help.

This is to be contrasted -- CONTRASTED, mind you -- with, say, civil rights and gay rights pioneers, who had not only the law of the land on their side, but reason, and public sympathy. Martin Luther King had supporters in all quarters. He reasoned, and engaged in high-profile civil disobedience, along with hundreds, and sometimes thousands of others. Stephen Gough ain't MLK.

Please, don't stereotype me as an old guy who doesn't understand. I **DO** understand politics, public opinion, and the art of persuasion in business and in politics.

And I do understand that a nudist park operator, or those who lobby for, or patronize a well-organized nude beach or venue, have a better chance of success of getting nudism accepted, or at worst, tolerated in the mainstream -- than some guy who walks around town naked or goes through Tim Horton's drive-up window with his pants down.

I don't think so. There aren't any nudist youngsters to criticize, even if I were in the mood to do so.

I'm not criticizing youngsters. I'm criticizing bad behavior. As I said, Gough is in his 50s. But if he were 75, I'd still criticize him. The guy who was arrested for walking nude near a school was not "youthfully rebelling" -- he was behaving badly.

Inappropriate nudism is the practice of nudism or being nude in 'inappropriate places'. Most nudists have heard about the constant reminder of 'being nude in appropriate places' as this phrase is widely used by nudist organizations. However, it is a very vague and somewhat meaningless term because what is inappropriate to one person is appropriate to another.

Society only associates nudity, nudism, nudists, "self appointed pioneers", and any one else who is nude and clearly engaged in criminal activity because this is how the media portrays anything nude. "Self appointed pioneers" do not help the image but they alone are not the entire problem - the problem is with the media.

In the Civil Rights Era, the protesters did NOT have the law on their side. The majority of people did NOT initially support them and their cause. Just look at the public polls and stats for those who supported segregation. The majority initially supported segregation and the staus quo but this majority eventually becaame a minority because civil rights activists kept pushing the issue over and over again until change was forced upon a system that did not want to change. Just look how long we had slavery and then segregation before changes were eventually made. Look how many civil rights protesters were beaten, threatened, abused, arrested, and jailed. How can you say that civil rights protesters had the law, reason, and public sympathy on their side when the facts speak differently? (They eventially foced the law and public sympathy to their side but this was after the hard work of a difficult and at times bloody struggle). Civil rights protesters perservered and forced the system to change against extremely difficult odds. This just did not happen because the majority of society woke up and saw the light as to how such discrimination was wrong.

MLK also had many supporters as well as others who had differences of opinions with MLK but worked in parallel in their own way to achive the same ultimate goal. MLK's inspiration was Ghandi who also forced change upon a system that refused to change unless forced to do so.

[Sanslines]

(snipped for brevity)

Ah, the old, shopworn "nudism is a civil right" analogy.

First of all, it isn't.
Second, these people were seeking equality under the law, and felt - as MOST Americans did - that they were entitled to it. And the Constitution had been amended a century earlier to guarantee those rights, they were demanding them.

Third - please, please do not mingle the actions of Dr. King, Malcolm X, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisolm, Gloria Steinem, and others who fought for equal rights with those very, very few who want to be able to walk around naked in public without any consequences.

The right to vote, to equal access to education and private and public facilities, equal pay for equal work, and so on -- for large segments of American society, should not be lumped in with someone's desire to walk around town with his or her pants down.

That dog don't hunt.

The dog don't hunt because you didn't understand my reply to Boreas. You are the only one who is associating MLK et al with those who walk around with their pants down. Please go back and re read my reply to Boreas as well as her intial posting. You are confusing lazy nudists who wont get up and fight to establish some basic rights to have legal access to certain areas with those who walk around with their pants down. Civil rights people worked damn hard under impossible conditions to earn their just due rights. Nudists will not come together and do the same. Hell, just look at AANR - it is the same few people over and over again who do all of the work while the majority complain that 'someone else should do this or that'. How will there ever be any change if the majority of nudists are not willing to work for it.

[naturalmanwa]

Some dogs also wear clothes now and then - I wonder what they think about it?

Mine usually wear a doggie sweater when it's cold out, and they enjoy it. Otherwise, they like to go naked like their master!

[usuallylurk]

In the Civil Rights Era, the protesters did NOT have the law on their side. The majority of people did NOT initially support them and their cause. Just look at the public polls and stats for those who supported segregation. The majority initially supported segregation and the staus quo but this majority eventually becaame a minority because civil rights activists kept pushing the issue over and over again until change was forced upon a system that did not want to change. Just look how long we had slavery and then segregation before changes were eventually made. Look how many civil rights protesters were beaten, threatened, abused, arrested, and jailed. How can you say that civil rights protesters had the law, reason, and public sympathy on their side when the facts speak differently? (They eventially foced the law and public sympathy to their side but this was after the hard work of a difficult and at times bloody struggle). Civil rights protesters perservered and forced the system to change against extremely difficult odds. This just did not happen because the majority of society woke up and saw the light as to how such discrimination was wrong.

Getting off-topic here.

On the first part of your post, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. If you think "in your face" nudity will work better than other types - then go for it.
The topic of "organized nudism" came up in the Channel 4 (UK) feature "My Daughter the Teenage Nudist". I don't know if you've seen it -- there's some truth in what you say about the younger set not being joiners -- and, AANR has done a not-so-great job of marketing itself to that younger set. But good luck with "in your face, pants off on Main Street" approach. I frankly don't think it will work.

As far as "the law of the land" - segregation was legal in some places, but the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law. It took enabling legislation to force the southern states to go along with it -- to be sure. But Dr. King fully understood the power of the national media -- and in most parts of the country, people were sympathetic to his cause. In New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., people were on Dr. King's side -- the rest of the country should treat all people as we do.... the majority of Americans - if not necessarily the majority of white southerners at the time -- were on his side.





MLK also had many supporters as well as others who had differences of opinions with MLK but worked in parallel in their own way to achive the same ultimate goal. MLK's inspiration was Ghandi who also forced change upon a system that refused to change unless forced to do so.[/QUOTE]