Trouble for a skinnydipper

[Newddude]

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

Trouble for a skinnydipper
September 25, 2005

BY SUSAN AGER
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Newddude]

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

Trouble for a skinnydipper
September 25, 2005

BY SUSAN AGER
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NudeAl]

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

[barbararuth]

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

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

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

[halfbare]

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

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

[Nudony]

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

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

[hm0504]

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

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

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

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

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

[Nu]

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

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

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

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

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

[deejay-gee]

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

The Naked Truth

Fighting for naturist rights in the UK

Comment by Darren Green

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

Why is Gough doing this and does he represent naturism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[halfbare]

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

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

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