The One-in-Ten Rule

[Guest]

Here's an idea I would support.

How about a media campaign that would involve canvassing politicians for a new rule or law that stipulated that, out of every ten miles of beach in any given county/state/region, one of those miles must be allocated as being "clothing optional". Similarly, one in ten of every acres of ground (other than ground used for specific purposes such as specific sports) in every public park be designated as clothing optional.

Such a law would MASSIVELY increase naturist facilities as well as providing opportunities for those who might want to give it a try. It would demonstrate that the authorities recognised that naturists exist as a significant minority and have rights. But, and this is the sweet part about it, naturists could state that compliance with these laws would still guarantee that 90% of the beach and park-land is still nudity free.

Now I would support such a campaign PROVIDING:

1. Naturist areas were duly signposted and screened off from other public places, thoroughfares and any view from private places, and,

2. Anyone caught naked in a public place outside of the defined area would be instantly criminalised and severely punished.

I reckon that a proposal such as the one I have made migh make some headway with the legislature if it were to be well-presented and argued and there was a willingness to give and take.

Any views?

Stu

[Guest]

Here's an idea I would support.

How about a media campaign that would involve canvassing politicians for a new rule or law that stipulated that, out of every ten miles of beach in any given county/state/region, one of those miles must be allocated as being "clothing optional". Similarly, one in ten of every acres of ground (other than ground used for specific purposes such as specific sports) in every public park be designated as clothing optional.

Such a law would MASSIVELY increase naturist facilities as well as providing opportunities for those who might want to give it a try. It would demonstrate that the authorities recognised that naturists exist as a significant minority and have rights. But, and this is the sweet part about it, naturists could state that compliance with these laws would still guarantee that 90% of the beach and park-land is still nudity free.

Now I would support such a campaign PROVIDING:

1. Naturist areas were duly signposted and screened off from other public places, thoroughfares and any view from private places, and,

2. Anyone caught naked in a public place outside of the defined area would be instantly criminalised and severely punished.

I reckon that a proposal such as the one I have made migh make some headway with the legislature if it were to be well-presented and argued and there was a willingness to give and take.

Any views?

Stu

[Zorro]

How about include a clause stipulating that any textile caught photographing anyone in the nude section will be heavily fined and may face jail time for invasion of privacy?

[Guest]

"How about include a clause stipulating that any textile caught photographing anyone in the nude section will be heavily fined and may face jail time for invasion of privacy?"

Definitely! I totally agree. Great idea. Thanks for that.

Stu

[krlough]

I could go for that.It would greatly increase the land we could use that we already pay for,yet the textiles would still have the majority space to feel"protected". I think the punishment should be more along the lines of fines and such,though.I don't think someone should be severly punished,as I have,for making a simple mistake in location or for not being completely aware of their surroundings.They could start with increasing fines,and increase for community service for added "offenses". Like serving with the local groups for community cleanup services at the c/o parks and beaches.That would make them more aware of the boundaries. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]


Kevin

[Outlaw]

stu--

I wish you were totally on our side. You have a great amount of excellent ideas for us.

I do have a small suggestion regarding the 10th part of public beaches and places. Since nudists are not 10% of the population, perhaps 5% would be more a reasonable amount of space.

I do not agree with the word severely in your number 2 but everything else is very well thought out and plausible.

2. Anyone caught naked in a public place outside of the defined area would be instantly criminalised and severely punished.

Mike

[S.M.A.]

I also disagree with number two (I would go with maybe a misdemeanor or a light fine on worst-case scenarios), but otherwise it's good to see you're developing a soft side for us nudists.

Other Stu

[nordictoad2]

Stu:

Could you actually be coming around to accepting naturism? We all know that it is NOT your "cup of tea" and we ALL accept that. Thank You for your dialouge and thought that you have put into your posts. Unlike some others, I have NEVER seen you flaming others. Unfortunately I feel some have flamed you.

Back on topic, great idea for the 10 % rule. Does that mean that we would also get the same services as the other public areas? I would hope so. I must admit I also do not like the "severe punishment" issue. I think the escalating scale is a better idea.

[MichaelJB]

The only problem I have with this is if there is alot of signs and all these big thick fences n all that might make some people beleive that because the nudists wish to remain hidden that there is something wrong or flawed about them and thus would think of all sorts of evil things that might go on in there and that might deter people from going there. Thats why ive always thought that nudism and textileism should be integrated so that everyone can fully see the nudists and would know beyond a doubt that these people are not evil or bad because they are enjoying their lifestyle out in the open among others and not hiding in some closed off area that would allow them to do things that might be questionable.

[Guest]

Perhaps a moderate fine for a first offence of being nude outside one of the proposed areas would be proportionate - but I think that wilful and repeated disregard of the law should be punished severely.

nordictoad2

"Does that mean that we would also get the same services as the other public areas?"

Most certainly. Nudist venues should have the same accessibility and facilities (e.g. toilets, car parks etc) as textile ones.

Michael

"if there is alot of signs and all these big thick fences n all that might make some people beleive that because the nudists wish to remain hidden that there is something wrong or flawed about them.."

No. Firstly I'm not suggesting The Great Wall of China, or some 20 feet high fence topped with razor wire and patroled with guard dogs - merely some form of physical screening or barrier. A high hedge would be sufficient. It would also protect naturists from gawkers and voyeurs. The presence of a barrier and signs will simply signal that the area is separated from the main beach/park because there is nudity in it - and some people (like myself) are uncomfortable seeing nudity. Anybody who would imagine that a nudist beach is a place where 'evil' things go on is an idiot.

"Thats why ive always thought that nudism and textileism should be integrated so that everyone can fully see the nudists.."

That's the whole point, Mike, you seem determined to FORCE non-nudists to see nudity in public places regardless as to whether they want it. People who advocate forced integration in the way you suggest, and against the will of many textiles, are doing for naturism what Al Qaida is doing for the reputation and acceptance of Islam around the world. You are taking an extremist and entirely uncompromising position. That is an unwise thing for any minority group to do.

Guaging by my involvement here, I believe that the vast majority of nudists want to have places to go where they can be among other accepting people, without having to endure voyeurs or other undesirables and certainly without causing offence to anyone. They want more and better places to practice their naturism and they should have them and be able to enjoy them. But that shouldn't be, and doesn't have to be, at the expense of the comfort of textiles and their families.

Stu

[Bob S.]

That is a good start, stu. It would be interesting to see some designs for what you are proposing. I would also like to see an area of neutral land separating the areas. In that neutral area, someone could go naked but would have to cover up if someone were to tell them to, but there would be no major legal obstacle. Of course, that does complicate things a bit more.

Number two is wrong and you have rightly altered it. And voyeurs would also have to be punished as well. You can't just criminalize the naked sunbathers but let the pervs get away scot free.

Bob S.

[Guest]

I'm not sure about the 'neutral land' bit, Bob, unless it was on the nudists' 10%. And why shouldn't it be? According to research published on this site, only 5% of the population regard themselves as practising naturists.

As for the pervs and voyeurs - Zorro has already suggested this - see my second posting on this thread where I state my agreement with him.

Stu

[Nude in the North]

Stu has always been accepting of nudism.
He just doesn't want it forced down his throat.

It would be fantastic if his proposal would even be considered in parts of this country.

All I have ever hoped for was to have a few small sections of beach in each county of my state. With some countys having 100's of lakes and 1000's of miles of beach or shoreline it wouldn't be hard to have an area for nudists.

The amount of c/o beach and parks could expand or contract with usage. If 10% was too much I would have no problem giving some back.
When in florida I have seen nearly 1.000 people on the nude beach that is less than a mile long. On most days a person would have to walk over 10 miles on the clothing beaches to find that many people. So that would be a case where the c/o beach could be expanded.
Since there are no c/o beaches in minnesota, it would make sense to start smaller, but to leave open options for expansion if they become popular.

It would be a good start.

Steve

Bob S.
I see no point in having a "neutral" area.
If the c/o areas are properly signed and there is some sort of barrier nobody needs to have a buffer zone.
At haulover beach in florida the only thing seperating the c/o beach from the clothed beach is a lath fence. people that don't want to see nudity can simply stay away far enough so as to not see through the fence.
Curious onlookers walk through from time to time but cause no real problems. I'd hate to stop the curious from checking out the nude beach. Maybe some of them would join us once they saw for themselves.
The gawkers are a pain in the butt, However, we really can't stop people from taking pictures in a public place. It would be nice if we could , but I don't want to give up my rights just to stop a few rude people.

[Sol-Searcher]

Stu, I'm really starting to like you.

Your friend,
Randy

[turkishnudes]

So the beaches would be catering for only two cultural groups - the textiles and the naturists...

How much would be given to other groups, and from whose percentages ( the textiles 90 or the naturists 10) would this be stolen from.

From fear of missing any group out,or giving preference over any other group ( apart from the textiles and the naturists which has already been done for us) I will not even begin to mention the huge number of groups that allocations could be applied for.