Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10% Option

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 10% Option

    I would be interested to see how you would vote - and what you think.

    There was some dicussion in Sweden some years ago, long before I moved here, about whether to allocate a specific amount of public space to nude recreation. In the end, they didn't go with that, but there are nevertheless very many nudist spaces here. So imagine the government made an offer to nudists like this - we will make a law requiring all county authorities to allocate a total of 10% of public lands (beaches, parks, forests, etc) as clothing optional so long as the nudist community agrees to stay strictly within those allocated areas. These areas will not be in city streets or residential areas - they will be signposted and out general public view by fencing, hedges or other barriers. Remember that your side of the bargain means giving up some "events", such as WNBR etc, unless they can occur within your own designated spaces. You have four options, as shown.

    Stu
    40
    A. Yes - it's fair
    27.50%
    11
    B. Yes, it's not fair but it is better than what we have now.
    40.00%
    16
    No. I might accept a deal, but we should get significantly more than 10% of public space
    10.00%
    4
    No. It's no business of the authorities or other people if I choose not to wear clothes.
    22.50%
    9

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by Stu2630; 01-31-2013, 07:55 AM.

  • #2
    Re: 10% Option

    The difficulty in responding to this poll for me is the one-dimensionality (ie. space) and the rider of "giving up some events." If you are talking about "10%" of every beach, I might go for that. 10% of every public pool and park too? But if you are talking about the 10% being in some isolated two-hour drive away sort of place, nope. 10% of my own backyard, or 100% of 10% of backyards in a town? Can I be nude on my bike if any ride uses less than 10% of the territory I pass through? Which raises the question of time -- what if nobody is inconvenienced by my nude bike ride for more than 10% of their time? And, wait, shouldn't we be allowed at least 10% of the events? Can we sunbathe nude in a public park anywhere that it can be shown that less than 10% of passers-by would be offended? Or maybe nudity permits would be issued to up to 10% of any jurisdiction's citizenry?

    My point is the devil in the details, underlying logic and governance. Even just considering "public space", it depends 10% of what space, who decides the allocation, and how it is justified and enforced. Ultimately, I kind of like the idea coming from a textile because, at the least, it would give focus to a lively discussion of underlying principles of fairness and tolerance.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 10% Option

      IMHO, any designated public space in most locales would be FAR better than what we have now in the USA. And if we could get 10%, and nudism became popular, that number could grow as social nudity became normal. Think of a place like Florida, there are hundreds of miles of beaches, and only two designated nude beaches - and one of those isn't even technically legal.

      It would be very nice if my backyard could be counted as a designated space. But I'd take whatever I could get. Like it or not, nudists/naturists are an incredibly small minority in the USA. Social nudity is not something that crosses the mind of the vast majority of people and is considered deviant behavior. Unlike Europe where it is at least well-known and accepted as something rational, normal people do.
      Last edited by jasenj; 01-31-2013, 04:18 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 10% Option

        Thanks for the replies. I completely agree with Agde that the devil is in the detail. I certainly didn't envisage nudists being told that their 10% would be confined to the most remote and unpleasant spots with no facilities - there would have to be a fair balance and proper negotiation. Nudists are taxpayers and deserve fairness and consideration - as I said, though, their areas would be properly screened off from other parts of the same public place and from all private places. My suggestion relates to, and only to, public spaces; it does not apply to events unless those events are in public places to which all the public are entitled to go. So, if you want to hold a private event in an otherwise public place, that would be a separate matter and to be negotiated with the authorities. Streets and other public thoroughfares would be included and there would be no nudity in those but, within the 10%, there could certainly be walks, cycle routes etc marked out for nudists to use. Back yards would not be relevant to my suggestion one way or the other as they are not public places.

        Estimates for the proportion of nudists in the population are usually around 2% - even here in Sweden, it is no more than 6% - so a share of 10% would be extremely generous, as jasenj appears to recognise. That is probably around the proportion of beaches and lakesides in Sweden that are classed as clothing optional - and it leaves nudists here spoiled for choice.

        I was quite disappointed to see that some people voted for the last option, i.e. that nudists should be allowed to be nude anywhere they like in public. That is the extreme end of the argument - it is the counterpart to the extreme textile end of the argument which says that nudity should only be allowed in private. If nudism is to gain and maintain respect and, thereby be given due consideration by the wider and mainly textile society, there has to be respect given by nudists to the textiles' sensibilities and comfort. An unwillingness to negotiate and meet half-way by those who belong to such a tiny minority interest faction will not serve their interests.

        Stu

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 10% Option

          Compared to what we have now in the USA - 0.1% set aside would be an incredible boon.

          For instance, the US east coast (Atlantic) has about 28 thousand miles of shoreline, of which only a few (3 miles?) are legal clothing optional beaches. There are zero miles on the 17 thousand miles of Gulf coast. And not that many on the 40 thousand miles of Pacific coast.

          Of course if we were to get a tenth of 1% of America's coast set aside for c/o use, all 88 miles would probably be in Alaska.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 10% Option

            Many in society would say that there should be no nude beaches or areas anywhere.

            I am not much into beaches-frankly I find them boring and obviously they are an increased risk of skin cancer.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 10% Option

              Originally posted by Naturist Mark View Post
              Compared to what we have now in the USA - 0.1% set aside would be an incredible boon.

              For instance, the US east coast (Atlantic) has about 28 thousand miles of shoreline, of which only a few (3 miles?) are legal clothing optional beaches. There are zero miles on the 17 thousand miles of Gulf coast. And not that many on the 40 thousand miles of Pacific coast.

              Of course if we were to get a tenth of 1% of America's coast set aside for c/o use, all 88 miles would probably be in Alaska.
              And the northern shores at that!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 10% Option

                Originally posted by Kouak View Post
                And the northern shores at that!

                I think that if you wanted to go nude at Point Barrow right now, no one would stop you...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 10% Option

                  Originally posted by usuallylurk View Post
                  I think that if you wanted to go nude at Point Barrow right now, no one would stop you...
                  But what about the children? (of the polar bears)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 10% Option

                    Originally posted by Naturist Mark View Post
                    But what about the children? (of the polar bears)
                    Yuk, yuk.

                    But getting back to Stu's point -- 10 percent may be fair.

                    Now - in another thread - there is a heavy "no compromise" on the Maslin Beach thing. It's a funny thing -- politically.

                    There's one group in this country - a political party called the Libertarian Party - which actually has some good reasoned arguments and positions, and some others that many , including myself, would find unacceptable, even offensive.

                    In my neighbor state of New Hampshire, some Libertarian adherents have moved to the state - and while some have even been elected to the state house (in NH, there are 435 reps, so you have one on every corner) -- but are having a hard time, because - they do not understand politics.

                    Many will assert - All politics are series of compromises. But certain groups - Libertarians, Tax Protesters, Tea Partiers, and yeah - SOME nudists do NOT understand this.

                    They dig in their heels. They believe their way is the only way and can't be compromised, no way, no how.

                    And guess what? They gain no political traction. And they hardly ever win any victories. Now, there are some things that are worth fighting for - but more often, compromise is necessary to go forward.

                    So Stu - he has a good point - because many Americans may be willing to accept set-aside nude bathing / recreational areas. That's a compromise we can live with. I can live with it. And it's progress forward, versus what we have today in the United States.

                    But there are those who insist that they have the right to go nude anywhere, anytime. These self-proclaimed "pioneers" and "martyrs" - who will march down Main Street with their clothes off -- or strip down in a city council meeting - or, in that Gough character in the UK - aren't bending in the breeze - they're daring the system to break them with hurricane-force wind.

                    And you know what? The system does just that. It breaks them, more often than not.

                    The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It (Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson) supposedly deals with this - and it looks like a good book - I'm going to read it on my next vacation.

                    One thing in an excerpt or review of the book - a statement was made that refusing to compromise tends to empower and preserve the status quo. Yeah, ask the Tea Party what happened in November. They won't - but they CAN - attest to that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 10% Option

                      As part of the 99%, I certainly would relish any% because I believe as more and more of the population learns to accept and then enjoy even clothes freedom , we'll soon be on our way to 25%, then 45% and then 75%,..............and thanks for letting me dream on about this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 10% Option

                        Originally posted by Naturist Zoar View Post
                        As part of the 99%, I certainly would relish any% because I believe as more and more of the population learns to accept and then enjoy even clothes freedom , we'll soon be on our way to 25%, then 45% and then 75%,..............and thanks for letting me dream on about this.
                        Nothing wrong with dreaming.

                        However, your dream would my my nightmare. I don't think having a % would especially increase the number of nudists - we have had lots of nudist beaches and lakesides here in Sweden for many years, but only about 5% or so of Swedes use them - the rest are strictly textile (like me).

                        Stu

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 10% Option

                          Originally posted by Stu2630 View Post
                          However, your dream would my my nightmare.
                          Stu
                          Stu, you had your own nude day last summer - I don't remember you described it as nightmarish.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 10% Option

                            Originally posted by ibrahim View Post
                            Stu, you had your own nude day last summer - I don't remember you described it as nightmarish.
                            Ibrahim - I spent the day alone. I wasn't with other naked people.

                            Stu

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 10% Option

                              We already have nude facilities- they are called nudist parks. Giving us 10% of the space in the most desolate of areas isn't going to make things any better really, especially as this would probably make it so that no new nudist parks could be built anywhere else, and that if any closed, that no new nudist parks could go in their spots. If we got enough people interested in nudism, we could more easily just build more nudist facilities legally now, and eventually could go above the 10% mark. Of course, the government in most of the country is not going to allocate 10% of the public lands for clothing-optional use, because there simply aren't enough nudists for it to be worthwhile.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X