Public Nudity Designated Areas

MikeJB · #1 01-07-2004, 10:27 PM

Okay I think everyone here kind of agrees that public nudity isnt a big thing on the nudism list of things to accomplish but I still think they would like it eventually and think that nudity is something harmless and something that would be beneficial to people. Now since total public nudity EVERYWHERE might be unrealistic and to some absurd right now, I think that maybe some sort of compromise would be more realistic like say allowing it in public but in more discreet areas such as parks, countryside, rural areas, etc, where its in public but its still not necessarily somehwere where a massive amount of epople are likely to encounter it and be

and also are more logical and practical areas to see it and somewhere where youd expect to see such a thing, thus making it less shocking *not that it should be anyways*. I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that that it would be more realistic for nudists and also be more understandable and something that lawmakers would be more likely to legalize than say on a busy street corner. Maybe also it could be the sort of thing where wherever a man or woman can go topless, they can also go nude, because most places that are practical for topfreedom are also practical for nudity and if you expect to see someone without a top, chances are youll accept someone nude as well, so this might be something logical to consider as well. I mean this might be something more of Stu's style, keeping it out of the public's hair for the most part but also giving nudists public nudity rights. What do you yall think and do any of you have any suggestions or additions to this idea? I would really like to know. I mean it seems that most textiles are hard to convince and the easier and more realistic we make our intentions, the more likely we could get them to accept nudity and be able to work our way up to full nude access to public areas once the public is used to seeing it in these designated public areas. I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal.

MikeJB · #2 01-07-2004, 10:27 PM

Okay I think everyone here kind of agrees that public nudity isnt a big thing on the nudism list of things to accomplish but I still think they would like it eventually and think that nudity is something harmless and something that would be beneficial to people. Now since total public nudity EVERYWHERE might be unrealistic and to some absurd right now, I think that maybe some sort of compromise would be more realistic like say allowing it in public but in more discreet areas such as parks, countryside, rural areas, etc, where its in public but its still not necessarily somehwere where a massive amount of epople are likely to encounter it and be

and also are more logical and practical areas to see it and somewhere where youd expect to see such a thing, thus making it less shocking *not that it should be anyways*. I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that that it would be more realistic for nudists and also be more understandable and something that lawmakers would be more likely to legalize than say on a busy street corner. Maybe also it could be the sort of thing where wherever a man or woman can go topless, they can also go nude, because most places that are practical for topfreedom are also practical for nudity and if you expect to see someone without a top, chances are youll accept someone nude as well, so this might be something logical to consider as well. I mean this might be something more of Stu's style, keeping it out of the public's hair for the most part but also giving nudists public nudity rights. What do you yall think and do any of you have any suggestions or additions to this idea? I would really like to know. I mean it seems that most textiles are hard to convince and the easier and more realistic we make our intentions, the more likely we could get them to accept nudity and be able to work our way up to full nude access to public areas once the public is used to seeing it in these designated public areas. I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal.

Kari P · #3 01-08-2004, 02:37 AM

quote:
I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that that it would be more realistic for nudists and also be more understandable and something that lawmakers would be more likely to legalize than say on a busy street corner.

This is exactly what I have said to Stu, many times. My suggested list of allowed places to be naked consists only of rural areas and wild nature.

quote:
I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal.

Stu doesn't accept this compromise. He says he needs total "safety". But I think the lawmakers should not count for the few people of his kind. Free nudity at least in those places where virtually no one sees it! (And on private property of course.)

Dawg · #4 01-08-2004, 08:21 AM

To me it would just make sense to say that if there is an area where a man is typically "allowed" to be shirtless then it should also be appropriate to be nude.
going into the bank nude would be frowned upon just as a guy walking in without a shirt on would be. They could change all those signes to read "No Clothes, No Shoes, No service". It just seems like common sense.

#5 01-08-2004, 09:46 AM

Mike

"I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that"

No way, Mike! The vast majority of people aren't nudists and don't go to places where nudists are. They avoid nudist places for a reason. Most beaches, parks etc should be accessible and comfortable to most people. Your "compromise" would turn the majority of public space into a haven for nudists at the expense of the rest of us. You should have MORE nudist places allocated - and then, for the most part, stay away from other public spaces unless you are prepared to keep your pants on.

"I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal."

I think you'll find that for the average prude, seeing a person naked on a public (testile) beach or in a park is every bit as unacceptable as seeing one in a town. I'm all for making a compromise but I wouldn't buy any of this - sorry, Mike, try again.

"But I think the lawmakers should not count for the few people of his kind. Free nudity at least in those places where virtually no one sees it! (And on private property of course.)"

The lawmakers in England will absolutely NOT make a law that permits nudity just because a place is remote - and the people wouldn't accept it if they tried. What they WILL accept is if naturists are as discreet as possible when using remote places. That means if approached - the nudist covers up until he is certain the approaching person/people are OK about his nudity. That's a reasonable compromise. I can then walk along any part of my nation's countryside confident that I will either not encounter nudity at all, or, if I do, it will be momentary and unintentional.

Dawg

"To me it would just make sense to say that if there is an area where a man is typically "allowed" to be shirtless then it should also be appropriate to be nude."

It's not uncommon here to see men shirtless outside pubs on summers' days siting at tables and drinking beer, or a lidos or in public parks. Nudity would be totally unacceptable in such places.

Stu

greensunshine · #6 01-08-2004, 11:23 AM

Oh, Guys we Females want this going without shirts to be equal...if it is legal for you to go topless/shirtless...we should also be allowed that same right and freedom...

And ****Note, controlling your erections should be YOUR Responsibility and NOT OURS [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif[/img]

Oh, one other thing Mike, chances of your plan as much as I would like to see it working in the places you suggest, won't work, and it isn't because of those who would do their best, it is because of those who would go beyond the limits, as proof has already shown with many of the clothing optional beaches [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif[/img]

Greensunshine in the Pacific NW [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Female, Mormon and Proud of Both [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Kari P · #7 01-08-2004, 12:35 PM

Dawg,

Men's shirtlessness and everyone's barefootedness is tolerated in Finland, and I also believe in most European countries, quite well. We don't have "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs. Restaurants have their dress codes, of course.

You can walk freely in the streets and visit most shops and other places in that state, if it is sane in respect of the environment conditions. But don't expect you could do it naked. Public nudity in the streets and shops is not and will not be easily accepted. (Never say never.)

Kari P · #8 01-08-2004, 01:02 PM

Stu,

"That means if approached - the nudist covers up until he is certain the approaching person/people are OK about his nudity."

Not possible if the nudist doesn't have any clothes with him!

In summer I can walk in the forest my clothes being left far away. I do it in an area where I know very probably no one will move. I use to watch and listen intensively what happens in my environment. What would I do if I observe that unexpectedly a person could see me? This is a hypothetical situation I haven't yet met.

- If that someone is far, I probably would walk, not run, fast to the opposite direction and try to find a shelter that is not near to the person's expected path. The person maybe had already seen a glimpse of me or sees it while I move away, and if he isn't extremely curious ("Was it really a naked man? Who then?"), he wouldn't follow me. But if that happens, follow the next plan.

- If that someone is already so near that I couldn't successfully hide, I would take some footsteps away from the path, or remain sitting where I was if I was sitting (on a stone perhaps), and be as natural as I can. If the person greets me or asks something, I respond. If the question is about my nudity, I would say about: "I'm just wandering here naked. Do you mind it?"

Is this behaviour discreet enough to you, Stu?

I answered your earlier question
"Sorry, Kari, but where is MY protection here? Don't people like me count in this?"
here:
http://www.clothesfree.com/cgi-bin/u...126;p=1#000022

Kari P

MikeJB · #9 01-08-2004, 08:48 PM

Mike

"I just think that if you allow public nudity first in say most beaches, parks, pools, rural areas, countryside and places like that"

No way, Mike! The vast majority of people aren't nudists and don't go to places where nudists are.
------------------------------------------------

Yes and they would know that nudists are possibly in such places and if they had such feelings they would avoid such places or be careful not to run into nudist in such places. Just because girls go in bikinis to beaches and alot of people dont like seeing those girls does that mean that they shouldnt be allowed there just so that those people are happy when they could easily just avoid that area or accept the fact that they are there? The same goes for nudity, people would accept it more if they expected to see it there and it was appropriate there. Just like you wouldnt wanna see a girl in a bikini in a restaurant but on the beach she is ok. I think that a nudist on a street corner would be going too far but one in a deserted park or beach wouldnt be so bad.

----------------------------------------------
They avoid nudist places for a reason.
----------------------------------------------

They avoid them because they are not nudists themselves, not because they dont like or mind seeing nude people. Im sure some people dont like seeing nude people but I think most just avoid nudist places because they are simply not nudists.

------------------------------------------------
Most beaches, parks etc should be accessible and comfortable to most people.
------------------------------------------------

They would be and thats what we desire. We want them accesible to us as well without having to change our lifestyle adversely. I think if people expect nudists to be there that they would accept them more and not react harshly or

as they would if they saw the same person on a busy street. You dont expect nudists there and in many ways probably wouldnt be as practical there as say in a park or a pool.

----------------------------------------------
Your "compromise" would turn the majority of public space into a haven for nudists at the expense of the rest of us.
----------------------------------------------

I quite honestly doubt that if you allowed nudity in certain public places *parks, pools* that they would appear in masses, in fact im sure most people would be likely not to run into many of them at all if any. Besides most people would use common sense when they would be nude in such places and wouldnt be nude there if they honestly thought there was a chance of offending a large number of people or any at all. This would happen alot less at a park than it would a busy street, especially if it was the norm there.

-----------------------------------------------
You should have MORE nudist places allocated - and then, for the most part, stay away from other public spaces unless you are prepared to keep your pants on.
-------------------------------------------------

That wouldnt be very reasonable and we wouldnt be much better off than we are now. We just want a simple compromise and this is the best we can offer.

------------------------------------------------
"I just thought if prudes dont want complete public nudity, than maybe they'll accept soem sort of compromise or deal."

I think you'll find that for the average prude, seeing a person naked on a public (testile) beach or in a park is every bit as unacceptable as seeing one in a town. I'm all for making a compromise but I wouldn't buy any of this - sorry, Mike, try again.
-------------------------------------------------

As it is now, im sure they would, but if people were asked weither it would be acceptable to see allow a nude person access to say a secluded park, pool, beach, forest/rural area compared to a busy street corner or store, im sure they would be much more willing to agree with such a thing. Also like I said if the park was known to allow nudity and this was accepted there and the norm and there were signs that noted such things there then people would accept this and act accordingly and not be offended by it as much.

-----------------------------------------------
"But I think the lawmakers should not count for the few people of his kind. Free nudity at least in those places where virtually no one sees it! (And on private property of course.)"

The lawmakers in England will absolutely NOT make a law that permits nudity just because a place is remote - and the people wouldn't accept it if they tried. What they WILL accept is if naturists are as discreet as possible when using remote places.
------------------------------------------------

Stu if we had such places allowed for us we would be discreet in such places and thus would use common sense as to where and when to take advantage of having this nudity like with anything else.

------------------------------------------------
That means if approached - the nudist covers up until he is certain the approaching person/people are OK about his nudity.
------------------------------------------------

Most people wouldnt be nude in such places unless they were sure most people were ok with it. Just because we allow it there doesnt mean we dont want people to be smart about being nude there. You just gotta use common sense and most of the time nothing will happen and if you do happen to come across someone that is offended you can either be polite and explain yourself and or cover up if you wish/if you can. Its just about common sense and being polite and respectful of others, especially if they happen to find you offensive to them.

------------------------------------------------
That's a reasonable compromise. I can then walk along any part of my nation's countryside confident that I will either not encounter nudity at all, or, if I do, it will be momentary and unintentional.
------------------------------------------------

If you would apply our compromise to this then largely this would be true if not all the time. You would most likely never encounter nudity and if you did, the nudist would deal with it in a polite and respectful manner and would do their best not to offend you, I mean that seems like the most you could ask of anyone. If you asked them to cover up im sure they would comply with your wishes. Most of us would.

------------------------------------------------
Dawg

"To me it would just make sense to say that if there is an area where a man is typically "allowed" to be shirtless then it should also be appropriate to be nude."

It's not uncommon here to see men shirtless outside pubs on summers' days siting at tables and drinking beer, or a lidos or in public parks. Nudity would be totally unacceptable in such places.
------------------------------------------------

As the law is now of course its unacceptable in such places but given our circumstances it would be acceptable and in places like parks and pools its only logical to say that if people can be without a shirt then nudity would work as well and most people given that this was accepted would be just fine with it.

==Mike==

MikeJB · #10 01-08-2004, 08:59 PM

Stu,

"That means if approached - the nudist covers up until he is certain the approaching person/people are OK about his nudity."

Not possible if the nudist doesn't have any clothes with him!
------------------------------------------------

Not to be a real supporter of Stu or anti nudity or anything but as far as your statement goes here id have to support Stu and say that this wouldnt be a good defense for being able to go nude in a public place because Stu would just say that thats why you have to wear clothes there so youll have them on and wont be in a situation where you need them and dont have them. Really though besides this little sidenote I totally agree with what you said and I just think that because you cannot please anyone that instead of requiring clothes in these places, people should just be allowed to go nude when they so wish in the hopes that most would use common sense and be discreet in their nudity so that if and when they run into people who dont want to see or find their nudity questionable that this would occur very less often if at all and so thus when it does happen all that would be needed is a bit of politeness and respectful attitudes towards these people and most of the time this would work and the people would just accept you and your nudity more or just move on and not be offended or

as much as Stu would think they are. I think it has more to do with individuality than clothing that decides how people would respond to others, a polite nude man is better than a rude clothed one and a polite clothed man is better than a rude nude man. i think you can see the logic in this and I hope Stu does and I think that any open minded and logical court would understand the logic and positive aspects of this and would be more inclined to allow such things more than say nudity on a street corner. Also private facilities could still have their dress codes and such places where nudity would be accepted could and should put up signs to indicate that nudity might be encountered here and I think if this took place then people would find nudists going about their business naked here to be much more welcomed and accepted.