Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Skinnydippers Fight Back

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

  • Skinnydippers Fight Back

    A March 13th story in Vancouver BC's Province newspaper states the Skinnydipper's Recreation Club (SRC) is suing the City of Surrey to regain monthly nude use of the Newton Wave Pool. The article states up to 200 naked swimmers had used the municipal facility once a month from June 2002 to February 2003, until city officials used a bylaw to shut them down. Claiming city staff told the group they were in violation of a bylaw requiring "appropriate bathing attire", the head of the SRC countered "the appropriate attire for a nude swim is nudity, so we don't feel we're in violation of the bylaw at all". The SRC has hired a lawyer and is putting together a lawsuit against the city. The article goes on to mention that Vancouver's parks and recreation department allows once-a-month rentals for nude swimming at two pools, and that the William Griffin recreation centre in North Vancouver has been renting the pool to a nudist club one evening amonth since 1998. The marketing manager of the North Van Recreation Commission stated "It's outside our normal operating hours, so they are the only users in the facility... we haven't had any incidents or complaints. Its been a very good rental opportunity for them and for us."

    Vancouver has a pretty relaxed attitude towards nudity, and it is heartening to see that support seems to be behind the nudists. The following editorial appeared in the Province newspaper two days later, under the heading "No nudes is bad nudes for fuddy-duddy Surrey":

    "Surrey prides itself on being ahead of the curve with its progressive approach to issues such as crime prevention and community courts, but sometimes the city acts like a Victorian-era prude.

    Several years ago, Surrey stripped the Skinnydipper Recreation Club of its right to rent the Newton Wave Pool for private, once-a-month swims.

    The city says it cancelled the club's swim because a bylaw stipulates 'appropriate bathing attire'. But what could be more appropriate attire for nude bathing than a birthday suit?

    Now, frustrated by its failed attempts to negotiate with the city, the 140-member club is taking Surrey to court.

    Several other greater Vancouver public pools rent their facilities to nudist groups for private swims, by the way.

    So come on Surrey, don't be an old fuddy-duddy. Just grin while the nudists bare it."

    I had never been to nude swims at the Newton Wave Pool, but have certainly enjoyed the nude swims at William Griffin Recreation Centre.

  • #2
    I certainly hope SRC wins its suit to NOT have to wear suits. I think Surrey is just using this as a scape goat to not rent to a nudist group. How sad.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good for them. Let's hope 140 voices will be heard.
      One "Fuddy Duddy" and a few other spineless politicians shouldn't control the will of the people.

      Steve

      Comment


      • #4
        FANTASTIC,, its great to see nudists being pro-active and fighting to live life as we see it and not forced to conform to someone else's mis-guided value's

        Comment


        • #5
          This brings to ask.. Why do naturist clubs prohibit swimwear in the pool & jacuzzi areas? I've often wondered that. Sometimes newcomers or teens are hesitant about taking it all off at clothing-optional resorts. Does this have something to do with fabric/fibers clogging the filters?
          Fabric does a wonderful job of collecting dirt and transporting it into the pool. A suitless pool is much easier to keep clean.

          But as you suspected, the main reason is to get people to be nude. These clubs are about nude recreation after all. I've seen teens toss their huge 'protective' towels aside as they jump into the pool, then proceed to forget they are nude and have a great time. And I'm sure you will find lots of 'reluctant spouse' stories where the hot tub was the first place they went nude.

          I'm all for allowing mixed bathing - at textile resorts. When they start giving us the option to be nude in their pools and hot tubs -which is the only sensible way to use them - then we can talk about allowing a textile option in ours.

          -Mark

          Comment


          • #6
            And as a result of the case, the judge declares that any clothing that is put on in order to go into the pool is inherently inappropriate!

            Bob S.

            Comment


            • #7
              This brings to ask.. Why do naturist clubs prohibit swimwear in the pool & jacuzzi areas?
              This is a good question. From what I have learned, many nudist clubs feel that by allowing clothing to be worn outside of a small designated area such as a spa or pool area, those who are initially uncomfortable with nudity are given the chance to acclimate themselves to nudism. If a club allowed individuals to wear some form of clothing throughout the club, then there would always be those who take advantage of this by comming to a nudist club and never getting nude. I have seen some individuals do this and believe it or not it does create some tension with some of the nudists for they feel that if someone wants to wear some form of clothing, then they should be going to textile camps or clubs. I have seen too many times where being nude versus not being nude really divides the camp / club into two very distinct groups that seem to have some kind of imaginary wall between them.

              As for bringing dirt into a pool or spa, many people do not clean their feet before entering the pool or spa. Another huge problem concerns body hair and suntan lotions which do clog the pool or spa filters. Most clubs strongly encourage that all users shower before entering the pool or spa.

              Comment


              • #8
                It is nice to see a groud stand up for there rights. It is also great to see a local paper take such a common sense approach to this story. I hope NorhtVanNudist will keep us informend as to the progees of there law suit.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Apartment manager locks naked man inside pool area

                  Link to Fox/Phoenix article

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    NakedGary;

                    The article refers to his taking his trunks off in front of children and this being an issue.

                    The article said:

                    "The manager told police that 30-year-old Dax Terry had removed his swim trunks in front of children and then proceeded to towel himself off.

                    Mesa police say Terry was arrested on suspicion of indecent exposure late yesterday morning after removing his swim trunks in front of children in the pool area."

                    Terry used poor judgement. In a textile setting, taking off his clothes in front of children will be considered indecent. By his using such poor judgement he has only provided more evidence to textiles that many nudists want to flaunt their genitals in front of children.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I find it interesting that the term, "appropriate bathing attire," was left undefined. That's like saying you must drive at an "appropriate speed" in a certain area, not posting a speed limit sign, and then having a cop pull you over for speeding. Just who precisely do they think they're kidding when the leave the law vague like that?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        NakedGary;

                        The article refers to his taking his trunks off in front of children and this being an issue.

                        ...

                        Terry used poor judgement.
                        Perhaps. But we don't have the details, and media reports are notoriously inaccurate. What they reported as 'in front of' children might have been in a completely shielded area where the kids could only see him because they were snooping on the sly.

                        I know for a fact that that can easily happen.

                        I was once accused of exposing myself in front of children - the truth was they were trespassing, hiding inside some bushes and spying, furthermore - I was not nude, I was wearing a brief swim suit while sunning in a totally secluded section of my own yard. I got lectured by a idiot cop who called my suit 'underwear' and ordered me to cover up (which I did not do) - he obviously thought anything less than board shorts was immoral. But he knew better than to charge me with anything. (By the way, the kids did not make a report of someone exposing himself to them, they reported a 'naked body' lying in the yard, the police came with the EMS rescue team, no one bothered to check out the kids story first.)

                        Now consider how easily that could have resulted in me being put on a sexual offender list, despite doing nothing even remotely improper.

                        -Mark

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The apartment manager should have not locked and held the tenant until the police arrived. She put herself, and the owners or corporation at risk of law suits by doing so.

                          First of all this is private property where we assume the tenant took off his bathing suite to towel off.

                          No doubt there is apartment regulations against being nude in the pool or common area when others are around, but not a reason to lock or imprison someone, and the mere sight of a nude adult or plain nudity by children is not a offense or life threaten situation on private property. I assume the office manager called the police with a sexual crime and complained that a man was exposing himself to little children at the pool area.

                          I would think the tenant could get a good lawyer and win a law suit against the manager and property owners for being held and imprisoned, and get the exposure to children charges dropped if he has no prior sexual or exposure charges against him. Kind of a dumb action to do when he probably knew that nudity at the pool was against apartment regulations, but plain nudity, or toweling off nude never hurt anyone, and wouldn't hurt or damage the children’s minds in any way. He is probably history for staying in the complex by violating lease or rental terms, but this incident should have stayed at apartment complex level until it was determined that it was not just toweling off to dry, and the tenant refused to cover with his suit or the towel after toweling off. People and kids are taught to freak out at the sight of plain simple nudity anywhere today in most parts of the U.S.

                          Poor judgment on the tenant’s part in a state where plenty of nude facilities exist to be nude around others without offending, breaking regulations, or the law.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X