58-year-old pursuing 'nudist lifestyle' charged with indecent exposure

[Davin]

A rural Litchfield man pursuing a “nudist lifestyle” faces four counts of indecent exposure for spending time naked while outside his home, according to a criminal complaint filed Friday.

http://www.crowrivermedia.com/indepe...717f06c6e.html

[nudeM]

He should have made sure the fence around his property (if there is one) was in satisfactory condition. He was already warned yet he continued, which is not the problem. He did however, go to the front of his house and dismissed the earlier complaints. At least my neighbors all know about me and approve, with the exception of the new neighbor that moved in a couple of months ago. I covered the openings in the fence so prying eyes don't see. I cannot do anything if the kids climb the tree and see me from over the fence. I'll cross that bridge when it hits.

[Guest]

No pity on someone who has had repeated warnings and continues to push the limits. There are places he could live in harmony with his surroundings and neighbors, yet he wants it all his way. He should move to a nude friendly location and stop trying to impose his will on others. Which is the same advice I would give anyone who wants to live a naturist life. There are plenty out there, all you have to do is look.

[Naturist Mark]

It's hard to tell what really happened from that article. He claimed to have been wearing shorts when not in his back yard. But it seems odd that he would be charged on hearsay from a neighbor who might just be causing trouble. Some of that is clearly bunk - for example 'indecent exposure' when driving a lawn tractor - dismissing for the moment the argument that mere non-sexual nudity is not indecent, it is obvious that while seated in any standard riding mower the genitals are not easily visible from the side. So the crime is not 'indecent exposure' it is ' I could tell (or thought I could tell - he claimed to have been wearing shorts) that he was nude even though I couldn't see his genitals - so arrest him on the basis of my imagining what I would have seen if I could have seen them!' That is the thing - a lot of 'indecent exposures' are imaginary. People are too far away, or the view is too obstructed for them to actually see the scary prohibited genitals, but there is enough of a view for the viewer to believe (rightly or wrongly) that the person is nude. Can't see genitals, but can tell they are nude. Seriously, how close do you have to be to a nude person to clearly see their genitals? 100 yards (the length of a football field)? 100 feet? 50 feet? If I'm not close enough to read your bumper sticker I'm not close enough to actually 'see' your genitals - I can just see well enough to know the genitals are there. So what is really happening is that people are offended by 'knowing' that a person is nude, even when they can't really see the 'offensive' bits. That shouldn't be enough for 'indecent exposure'. Small holes or gaps in a fence do not allow full exposure of a nude person on the other side - UNLESS the viewer is right up against the fence - trespassing - in order to defeat the intended privacy. Or climbing a tree. Or using binoculars. Or a photo-drone.

[Naturist Mark]

No pity on someone who has had repeated warnings and continues to push the limits. There are places he could live in harmony with his surroundings and neighbors, yet he wants it all his way. He should move to a nude friendly location and stop trying to impose his will on others. Which is the same advice I would give anyone who wants to live a naturist life. There are plenty out there, all you have to do is look.

Unless of course he was telling the truth about wearing shorts. It wouldn't be the first time a neighbor lied to get rid of an 'undesirable' element from the neighborhood.

[Guest]

There are questions about the completeness of the article. So no one reading will ever know what the true nature of his state of dress really was. I agree that in descent exposure might be a stretch without knowing all facts and having access to the local laws. However, I stand by my basic premise that if you poke the law, you can't complain when it pokes back, harder. It's way too easy to find a place to live nude...they are all over, and unless you have some form of special skill set with limited transferability, you can find work near any of them without too much risk. You have to set your priorities and living nude outweighs what you do or where you live, you have the freedom to do it wherever it's allowed. Otherwise, you have to accept the limitations of the community if you decide that living in the right location is not number one.

[Naturist Mark]

"It's way too easy to find a place to live nude...they are all over"

It is NOT easy for most people.

Just finding decent housing that you can afford that is close enough to whatever job you've clung to is a challenge to a huge percentage of the population. Homes with yards with high walls or fences with no over looking neighbors, or far out in the country is not attainable for any but a fortunate few.

[nudeM]

That is true Mark. so if you move to a new neighborhood, it might be wise to ask the adjoining neighbors of their comfort or non-comfort with nudity. It will save a lot of hassle later.

[Guest]

I stand by my position. If this gentlemen, or anyone, prioritized living nude above where he lived, or what he did, he would find many options available. It seems however, that he chooses where he lives or what he does above living nude. Unless you live in a socialist or communist location that assigned housing, job, etc. you have the freedom to choose, and move to suit your own personal needs. You or I, or this guy, could easily find a nudist community we could call home. There are almost a dozen near my home town of Tampa and with few exceptions, there is at least one in every state. Now, we might choose to live in another location because we value our job or family, or some other factor above being able to live nude, that is a choice and its limits are imposed by us and not society. We all still have the freedom to make choices in this country regarding where we live...the government hasn't taken that away yet. So the choice is ours. This guy chooses to not live in a nude friendly location, and as a result will continue to struggle in his quest to live a nude life...he could end the struggle and move to a location that is better suited for him if he wanted.

[usuallylurk]

nudkin - the Tampa area is the most "nude friendly" area in the country - as far as housing options go. Hell, they even built a TV show around it. Your area is an exception to what most of us have.

It may not be easy for this guy. Note that in the article - he has a "history" of at least one indecent exposure conviction, and according to the article, went to jail for violating probation terms on that conviction.

Very difficult for anyone in that predicament to find a welcome in any nudist community. And Litchfield is in Minnesota. While there are active nudist groups there, and Minnesota is the Land'o'Lakes, it ain't exactly Land'o'Lakes FLORIDA.

His best bet = build a fence. Or, move to an area that is so rural that no one can see him. If I wished to pursue a life as a full-time nudist, I wouldn't do it in Minnesota, I'd move south...

But nudist communities and clubs don't readily welcome people with a "history"....

[Guest]

Lurk - you are right, while there are nude locations in MN, it is not a place one would choose to live a nude life. However, I visit northern MN annually and go nude quite frequently on my property, out on trails, and on my lake when it's quiet...all without challenging my neighbors. Bottom line however, there are nude places where you can go to practice a nude life style all over the country and planet. So if living a nude life is a primary goal, then it can be done. Yes, there will need to be adjustments to other parts of your life, it's all about personal priorities and choices. It gets me when people say something can't be done when thousands of people are doing it.

[FireProf]

Lurk - you are right, while there are nude locations in MN, it is not a place one would choose to live a nude life. However, I visit northern MN annually and go nude quite frequently on my property, out on trails, and on my lake when it's quiet...all without challenging my neighbors. Bottom line however, there are nude places where you can go to practice a nude life style all over the country and planet. So if living a nude life is a primary goal, then it can be done. Yes, there will need to be adjustments to other parts of your life, it's all about personal priorities and choices. It gets me when people say something can't be done when thousands of people are doing it.

I assume all this banter is a response to Naturist Mark's post that NEVER said "something can't be done," rather, he said ... "It is NOT easy for most people."

I find it strange that many of you that are nudists, think this lifestyle just came about without any sacrifice from those before us. Many, many nudists before us took chances, went nude on remote beaches, formed clubs, groups, built resorts and clubs we have today and forged our way of life by pushing some boundaries. They didn't buy into only being naked behind high walls, within your own homes and finding places far out so they were not seen. In fact ... those early nudists did challenge their neighbors.

Yes, I agree ... build a fence first. Moving is NOT easy for most people; family and jobs or careers can and do dictate where we hang our hats and are reasons for remaining where we are. These are the adjustments to other parts of our lives and it is about personal priorities and choices ... that in itself are the reasons some things just "can't be done."

[Guest]

As we say in the Army when there is nothing more to be said...Roger, out! ;-)

[FireProf]

Your prerogative ...