Beach etiquette (UK)

[eyesup]

. . . making it a tetrathon.

Ok, John. Unfamiliar!   Had to look it up! 
Equestrian games? 
Still don't get it! 

My guess is that throwing a towel over your back as you scramble to get up is also the 1st step in saddling a horse. Yes!

Duane

[John P]

A triathlon is three separate sports in one event, and those are swimming, cycling, and running. A change of clothes isn't needed from cycling to running, but it's customary to change from swimsuit to dry clothes. This has sometimes happened on an open beach as fast as possible, with little consideration given to visible bodies, but now the athletes are being told that they have to change under cover. Hence, changing clothes becomes an extra sport. But Wikipedia says "Competition and pressure for faster times have led to the development of specialized triathlon clothing that is adequate for both swimming and cycling, such as speedsuits."

[jbeegoode]

Suggesting breaking the law? Hell yes!

If I see someone doing a sign, I'll look the other way, or otherwise, I'll pat them on the back. I could then be an accomplice, if asked if I know about "The Crime" (shades of Alice's Restaurant), or the civil disobedience, protest, etc. Guess if I am forced to be an accomplice, I might have to lie as a refusal to cooperate. I don't want to know who, defaces so called "public property" but I'm all for knowing that someone is doing it and that it is thwarting the pigs that are stepping on the rights of the people. Right Arm! Some of this conspiracy law is police state and definitely not of constitutional ilk. I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution, not those domestic enemies. Right Arm!!!
Jbee

[JOhnGw]

. . . making it a tetrathon.

Ok, John. Unfamiliar!   Had to look it up! 
Equestrian games? 
Still don't get it! 

My guess is that throwing a towel over your back as you scramble to get up is also the 1st step in saddling a horse. Yes!

Duane

.. .. .. and there was me thinking I'd invented a new word for the new event of swim, towel-dance, cycle and run. 

[BlueTrain]

Defacing public property? You mean people who carve their initials on trees or spray paint rocks in parks? I guess that's one way to get even. But perhaps a matter of who is stepping on who's rights. When were you sworn to uphold the constitution? Who gets to say who is right and who is wrong? Certainly not me.

[jbeegoode]

Would you rather define yourself as a popular interpretation, your own interpretation, the obvious right? Or would you rather see some politician in robes, or some minority entity, someone bought and paid for, or someone ignorant, or decisions made without democratic process or principle, arbitrarily decide what your freedoms are, or are not? American's traditional sense of self is to not just roll over on their backs and submit. Protest don't "get back at" they make a statement and challenge unjust law. Civil disobedience is a legitimate honorable course of action AND quite popular. Yep, I'd support someone replacing an anti nude sign, or showing up in mass naked, or sneaking around naked, or posting lookouts to warn to cover up when the authorities come to push the people around. I personally make a point of not breaking the law in my nude wanderings, working with authorities in my strategies, but I'm not against other's using more aggressive tactics. We're on the same side.

These punks who tag rocks are not comparable.The punks who tag rocks are generally not naturists.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

My point here is whether or not what you are referring to advances whatever it is you are trying to advance. In this case, I'm assuming that you want public nudity to be made legal. Given what this forum is about, as far as I can tell, that has to be the whole idea. So the question becomes, what actions increase the chances of that happening and what actions make it more unlikely.

On the other hand, maybe that's not the point of this forum. The feeling (to me) is that this is sort of an extension of the so-called free beach movement of 35 years ago. There were aspects of that which were decidedly unfriendly, though don't take that the wrong way. For instance, some locations in the guides to places for nude recreation included places that were on private property and would have involved trespassing. One that I know of, because I went there, too, was on the grounds of a private girl's school. But the better place was across the river from there, which unfortunately gained the reputation (true or false, I don't know) as a gay meeting place.

So, I think that sometimes "pushing the envelope" with public nudity is worse than anything.

[JOhnGw]

<snip>
So, I think that sometimes "pushing the envelope" with public nudity is worse than anything.

Sometime it does and sometimes it doesn't.
The important thing is to push the envelope in all cases where it does advance the cause.

[Greenbare Woods]

But the better place was across the river from there, which unfortunately gained the reputation (true or false, I don't know) as a gay meeting place.

One of the problems we now have with the free beach advocacy is the existence of published gay meeting place guides that list many "free beaches" as places for gay public sex.  The reputations are often well deserved.  Most nudists won't even talk about it because just bringing the topic up gets people flamed for being "homophobic."   But in the real world having known active gay public sex meeting places causes a great deal of public offense from the general public.  Law making bodies sometimes (often) just outlaw nudity entirely rather than deal with figuring out which part of nudity is causing the public offense.  And, of course, the legislative body doesn't want to be accused of being "homophobic" either, so blanked outlaw of all nudity gives them cover.

So, I think that sometimes "pushing the envelope" with public nudity is worse than anything.

Pushing the envelope with non-sexual nudity is good.  Pushing public sex is not.

Bob

[John P]

For once I agree with Bob. Time after time, we've lost nude beaches because they've been used as gathering places for gay men looking for sexual encounters, "cruising" as they call it. It's never clear that closing a place to nudity causes the guys to go anywhere else, but it's all too common as a result. And out of some combination of political correctness, and a desire to keep quiet about problems, naturists just won't say a word about it. They'll say "sexual activity" but never the fact that it's gay men doing it. Yet I've never heard of a beach being used for heterosexual sex! Yes, women can expect sexual harassment and that's a problem too, but it's not the cause of beaches getting lost to nudity.

Back around the year 2000 we had a crisis involving the best-known nude beach in New England, The Ledges in Vermont, which is on a lake used for hydroelectric power. The gay guys were having their fun sometimes within sight of some neighbors, and a property developer tried to use that fact to get the inconvenient nudists chased away. Naturists ended up winning the fight by a hair's breadth, but I learned then that our organizations (I mean particularly the Naturist Action Committee) may think there are political reasons not to tell the whole truth, even to naturists. I think it's a sad thing when that happens. I've met Bob Morton, the head of the NAC, quite a few times and in fact he's a great guy and we like each other, but he's likely to ask me "So what are we doing wrong now, John?"

Unfortunately the same thing has happened again several times over the years, and we've lost most of the battles. San Onofre in California, Meech Lake in Ontario, most recently Mazo Beach in Wisconsin--all locations which were also gay hangouts, which naturists couldn't defend because we couldn't admit what the problem was. And the ban on public nudity in San Francisco, where the problem was exhibitionism, which we could and should have called out and denounced--we just had to let it happen while we claimed the issue was nudity.

Sorry to rant. But I've seen too many defeats happen while nobody was willing to name the cause. It's been a long enough period now that I'm pretty much resigned to it.

Edited to add that by refusing to address this problem, naturists make it impossible to talk to gay men about it. There are gay naturists and not all of them are irresponsible--would we get anywhere if a dialog could occur? Success wouldn't be guaranteed, but at least we'd have made the effort. Yet it can't be done.

[nudewalker]

here i go again. Please excuse the fact that I have been too busy except to read the posts here plus it takes time to get thoughts in order. So I'm sorry for the lateness and I'll address a few points as I see it.

As for triathlons, when I started doing them we just swam in Speedo's; put on a singlet, helmet and shoes for the bike then running shoes. Not to give things away but the first bike I raced had down tube shifters. So it was more of a basic sport without all the trappings today. Now there are wetsuits for swimming, the bikes are equipped with aerodynamic handle bars, and even the run is over specialized. Not only could I not compete but could not afford it. I was shocked by the large "changing tents" present the last time I went to an event.

I guess maybe we're too old and not well enough organized but a movement of "Civil Disobedience" fueled by social media could be the driving force to push for the idea of public nudity. There is no platform that I am aware of that would support or allow such a movement but it would have to start as a grass roots endeavor. Any public or organized group (think TNS) would be met by too much opposition.

And finally, if gays can publish public hook up places why can't authorities monitor those sights and take action?  I know if we,  as nudists, complain about open sexual activity then the areas we enjoy will be shut down as a "hook up" place. It is a fine line and I've heard of instances where nudists have taken matters into their own hands and chastised people for open sex acts. Much the same has happened on beaches where topless women and skimpy bathing suits were tolerated. Once it gets a reputation as a "hook up" place then the authorities step in to change things.

[John P]

  I know if we,  as nudists, complain about open sexual activity then the areas we enjoy will be shut down as a "hook up" place.

That's an excuse that's given for staying silent, but what often happens is that the "hook up" place issue is well known, and yet we go on blandly refusing to say anything about it. When we do that, we seem to be tolerating the people who are making the trouble, or even complicit with them. Whereas we could be saying "We're taxpayers here, this is illegal conduct and we want it stopped". In other words, show ourselves as good citizens and the abusers as criminals. If we believe in naturism's innocence, I think we should act that way.

As things fell apart in San Francisco I can recall that the Naturist Action Committee saying "There's a law against public sexual activity in California, so let the police enforce it". But the police said they couldn't be sure what was legal or not, so they let it continue. And then there was a ban on nudity, and the police could see when it was being broken, and they certainly enforce it! So, we lose.

[jbeegoode]

The ranger brought up gay p/u behavior when we discussed Redington Pass with him. Apparently, one of his own was solicited.
We explained that when people see two male naturists together, they are assumed gay and the actual gay numbers are mis-preceived and inflated. There is/was a place that was advertised as a gay area. We explained that there is no specific gay area, the canyon is open to everyone. We explained that clothed or not, the behavior of a few individuals is not condoned and it is unenforceable unless we the users enforce it.

There is a jerk off predator that likes to hang out there. We told the ranger that he has been scared off more than once, by our own efforts. He scares easily, but one of these days, somebody is going to kick him in the teeth.

Heterosexuals are guilty of public sex. I remember at Devil's Slide in the early 70's a couple doing it, she sitting on top of him. I remember a frequency of pot smoking at that time. It was anything goes.

Is it the remoteness that people take advantage of, or is it the nudity? It is the remote wild and free situation.

On the other hand, I remember the time I took my girlfriend down to Black's Beach in the mid-seventies on our return from San Francisco Bay. We were in our twenties and had been having a very hot relationship and were on vacation. She started to tease and do things that she knew would arouse me. To her, it was just good clean fun to embarrass me, etc. I must have spent nearly an hour laying on my belly. She was relentless. So, sometimes it is playful youth and ignorance.

I've certainly had sex in remote situations, but we've always tried our best to be discrete.

The ignorant outsiders that equate simple nudity with sex are the problem, as are those who do public sex. I think that they are coming from the same culture and are both perverted by the textile mandatory situation.

Loud, profane, sexually suggestive people tend to hang out in the downstream section of the falls at Redington. The nude area is nearly all non-sexual nature oriented. Just a few individuals.

To quote Bob Morten,"Jus' sayin'."
Jbee

[John P]

How does this grab you, JBG?

http://www.cruisinggays.com/tucson/areas/10410-reddington-pass-tanque-verde-falls/

Ancient stuff, as it's from 2004 and the comments are from 2009, so let's hope this doesn't happen now.

[jbeegoode]

Yep, tht's one of 'em. I wrote them a letter and slapped their naughty little butts. I also disgu...discussed this with the the forest ranger. The World Gay Naturist org is located here in Tucson, but I've yet to get them to return my emails. The more naturists associated wit the canyon, the better for us to overcome the evil "Friends of Redington Pass"
Jbee