Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What will it take?

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

  • What will it take?

    We wish that laws were either abolished or relaxed to allow us more freedom to be naked outdoors in more places. What will it actually take to accomplish this?

  • #2
    It will take a lot more participating nudists, and a lot more of the public to be supportive of nude freedom, before there is any great increase in public places to do it. Form follows function, or something like that. Most people want to wear clothes in public, and most people expect others to wear clothes, so those of us who are comfortable without will just have to enjoy those opportunities we can get until it changes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Contact your local authorities to have the laws re-written to allow casual nudity 'legalized'. Also see to it that ALL police officers know of the change should there ever be a complaint.

      Here in California, casual nudity is pretty much tolerated if not taken into extreme. By that I mean casual, social nudity by neighbors which may include swim parties, bbq's, pot lucks, etc., just as long as wild sex parties don't get involved. It helps to get to know the neighbors first before attempting such a feat.

      Comment


      • #4
        I really think that the majority of people, particularly in suburban or landed areas, would be okay with their neighbors going naked in their back yards. You also need to slowly educate people in your church. I had a meeting with our preacher and 2 elders. The one elder came into the meeting saying it was wrong. Think after the meeting, he had some things to think about.

        We had a presentation about a medical team going to Guatemala to a Mayan village to do med work. In one of the shots of a typical house there, they pointed out (prompted by our preacher to comment on it) that their shower was just a suspended tank under which they showered completely out in the open. The nurse said they'd wave to you going by while they showered, naked, of course.

        While house hunting once in NJ, I mentioned to the realtor that I wanted a place where I could be naked in my back yard. The realtor immediately popped back with, "Oh, we all do that!".

        We need more of these kinds of things. Stand up for yourself, folks.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think a large majority of Americans (like 80%) are aware of, in favor of and likely to participate in nude activities such as skinny-dipping or nude sun bathing. It's the "moral" majority, which is really a very vocal and well-connected small minority of the radical religious right that poses the biggest challenge to governmental acceptance of nudism. As long as they control government, they control us. My hope is that the utter failure and extreme embarrassment that is the Bush administration, elected by the religious "red" states, controlled by the radical religious right wing, will cause them to be marginalized to a point that they have no credibility during the next election cycle. In this way, we can hope to see a sweeping elimination of the RRRW controlled politicians, and an influx of regular, more centered people, who look at nudity not as a mortal sin, but as a normal state of being. The real test would be for a declared naturist/nudist to run for public office and watch how the RRRW attacks, and how the press and public opinion responds.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Geo:
            We wish that laws were either abolished or relaxed to allow us more freedom to be naked outdoors in more places. What will it actually take to accomplish this?
            What it will take is a Federal level declaration of human rights that states the People's right to choice of dress shall not be infringed. That no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property for his choice of dress. Similar to Spain.

            Social mores will suffice to regulate appropriate dress in all the various human interactions, without the need for codifying it into general law. It works in Spain.

            What it will take is something to put an ultimate stop to all the young, upstart, hotshot polititians, who know nothing about nudism, from perennially introducing their draconian laws that limit everyone else to their own narrow mindset. Legitimate nudism is forced to expend huge resources to continually fight the same battle over and over again every time one of these new grandstanders comes along. Enough!

            A constitutional amendment banning the establishment of specific dress codes in law does not infringe upon the power to regulate behavior. But a person's state of dress, or non-dress, is not a behavior.

            Yup, a national, overriding law is what it will take. You can continue fighting local laws, but all you'll ever get is what you have always gotten... the same thing, over and over and over. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

            Comment


            • #7
              I guess we will just have to keep dreeming!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                As a reminder, there is no Federal laws regarding nudity. All nudity laws are covered under State or Local jurisdictions. Those are the authorities who need to be contacted.

                You may want to check with the NAC for some guidance. They are heavily involved in legal actions all over the country. True, the more participants, the merrier.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dan t:
                  I guess we will just have to keep dreeming!!!
                  Why? We had a national speed limit, that local laws could not override, didn't we?
                  Originally posted by nudeM:
                  As a reminder, there is no Federal laws regarding nudity. All nudity laws are covered under State or Local jurisdictions. Those are the authorities who need to be contacted.
                  Huh? That's what my post was all about! Did I stutter?

                  The question of this topic is: "What will it actually take?" My answer was that a Federal law was needed, to nullify all that hodge-podge of local dress-code laws we have now, and declare freedom of dress to be a Right of the People. (Oh wait, I said that already!) Spain already has that Right codified at the national level, and it works. Is the USA too backward to have the same? Why?

                  I've even thought of a logical premise, and a campaign slogan toward this end:

                  Premise. There are many natural things in our Universe created by a higher power, or intelligence, than mankind. Two of the biggest ones are LIGHT and our own SKIN. The dress-code laws do nothing more than make it a CRIME to allow the first to come into contact with the latter! Why? Two natural, God-given facts of our existence are illegal when combined? Now, that is an affront to natural human rights!

                  Slogan. "Let Our Bodies See The Light!"
                  You may want to check with the NAC for some guidance. They are heavily involved in legal actions all over the country. True, the more participants, the merrier.
                  Good advice, but they are needed for what they're doing now. The effort for a federal level change would have to be a new, separate effort. The NAC would have to continue as is, because such a change may take decades.

                  In conclusion, review that last paragraph of my first post above.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by missouriboy:
                    Why? We had a national speed limit, that local laws could not override, didn't we?
                    Bad example. The national speed limit was unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment states the following:

                    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

                    Since the founding fathers had no reason to imagine the need for a speed limit, you won't find regulating speed as a power given to Congress. Now, very loosely interpreted, the Interstate Highway system is part of the mandate to provide for the common defense and general welfare, to regulate commerce among the several states, and to establish post roads. But, those who drafted the speed limit law knew this was thin ice if they were ever challenged. So, they used blackmail to get what they wanted. The penalty for not adopting the speed limit was the withholding of Federal highway funds.

                    Montana, for example, saw right through this ploy. The "Basic Rule" speed limit remained on the books during the time the national speed limit was in place. In order to comply with the Federal blackmail, signs were posted on the highways to indicate a 55MPH (raised to 65MPH later) limit, but the penalty for exceeding that limit was a $5 fuel conservation ticket.

                    As soon as the national speed limit was lifted, the daytime Montana limit instantly reverted to "Reasonable and prudent for the conditions of the driver, the vehicle, and the roadway." The old signs were put back up and everyone was happy.

                    That is, until some out of state jerk sued because he got a ticket for driving 120MPH in the rain on a crowded road. That lawsuit required a numeric limit because common sense is no longer common.

                    Same with the East Coast jerks who sue to require us to change the names of places, rivers, streams, etc. because they contain terms which might be "offensive" to Native Amercans -- even though many of these names are direct translations of the original native word!

                    Or the "environmentalists" who scream because we want to build a small road in the forest to cut down a few trees that are overgrown to prevent wildfire (not clear cut the forest, just a minimal thinning back to the normal distance between trees). We don't want to destroy one of our prized posessions, the forests, but folks who think they know what is best for us won't let us take care of what we have. Then, like last summer, a lightning strike will take out two whole counties when it was preventable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nude in MT:
                      quote:
                      Originally posted by missouriboy:
                      Why? We had a national speed limit, that local laws could not override, didn't we?
                      Bad example. The national speed limit was unconstitutional.
                      Heck, 90+ percent of what Washington does is unconstitutional. Nevertheless...
                      Originally posted by missouriboy:
                      A constitutional amendment banning the establishment of specific dress codes in law does not infringe upon the power to regulate behavior.
                      I already recognized that a serious federal-level declaration of a Right of the People would be needed. IOW, "What it would actually take," as the topic asks.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Nude in MT;

                        You hint at what congress really did. There was not a national speed limit.

                        Congress said that if a state wishes to receive federal funds for transportation, there are certain conditions. One of the conditions was for a state to say no thank you for the money and leave that state's speed limit as it was.

                        As you point out, Montana had another solution. A $5 fine does not create the incentive to enforce it.

                        I also find no justification for a federal law regulating what clothes I may or may not wear. At this time, there is not one. It is left up to states and local governments.

                        The issue is not law but social acceptance. It will require Americans to openly accept public nudity. When that happens there will be no problem with being nude in public.

                        At this point, people are dressing in ways that we would not have imagined twenty years ago. I commonly see males and females with have their bottoms showing. I commonly see females with mid driffs showing and pants so low that pubic hair is visible.

                        100 years ago, if a man were on Tybee Island, Georgia's beach without a shirt, he would be arrested. Now it is not uncommon to see a man in no more than a speedo.

                        I think what is required is patience. I also think those who practice public nudity must make sure to behave extra well. As with any minority, this helps the majority accept. Then over time, it will happen.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think that one other area to explore is how politicians see the numbers of people supporting nude recreation. Unfortunately, many if not most of the supporters of nude recreation do NOT belong to either of the national organizations, AANR or TNS. Why don't people remember that without the NRA or AARP watching out for our rights, lawmakers could enact or overlook certain legislation with virtual impunity. Much as the lawmakers and politicians feel that they can ignore us....after all we are a tiny minority.....but are we. Who knows? Anyone who complains that there should be more public areas for clothes free recreation, and DOESN'T belong to a national organizations should recognize that they are part of the problem in the first place.
                          We have to stand up and be counted.

                          Walt Iliff

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by walter05:
                            I also find no justification for a federal law regulating what clothes I may or may not wear.
                            Neither do I. (What do I have to do to make this clear??) I want Freedom of Dress to be equal to Freedom of the Press, et al. Therefore, all laws "regulating clothes I may or may not wear" would be unconstitutional, ie illegal. Where have I failed to make this clear?
                            The issue is not law...
                            Not law?? Not law?? Of course, it IS about law. We now have laws that dictate what areas of your natural SKIN you may allow to be touched by natural LIGHT, and those laws will deprive you of liberty and/or property for violating them! If that's not about law, then I don't know what is.

                            Again, "what it will actually take" is the constitutional nullification of all those laws. Then, to be legal, such laws may address behavior only, not one's passive state of dress.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Though it is not written, it may very well be taken as the Feds are more tolerant of nudity than the States. Take our National Parks for instance. Seems it is more permissible to enjoy a nude hike than any other parks. Even our State Parks are tolerant, within limits (brush density, population, location, etc.)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X