Beach etiquette (UK)

[BlueTrain]

I was under the impression that "real" nudists did complain about inappropriate behavior on nude beaches, or at least on nude-tolerant beaches. I don't know who you complain to, though. I somehow doubt that talking to the offending parties would do anything but get you laughed at. But I am also under the impression that this can be a problem at some places overseas. Some of the Caribbean resorts started out as basically adult playgrounds just short of swinger clubs, though I've also read they are more family friendly these days. I've never been to any myself. In theory, a well-attended nude beach might have less inappropriate behavior but that theory may be full of holes. Are there children at the legal nude beaches in Florida?

Regarding gays (here meaning gay men, typically), I've always had the idea that it was to both side's advantage to inflate the numbers of gays, particularly men. For the gay side, it would give the impression that there are a lot of gay men. To the anti-gay side, it would mean it's the end of the world or nearly so. But I also suspect that the total of both sides together is about five or ten percent of the population.

[eyesup]

With regard to whether something should be said at the correct time when behavior turns south.

I was watching one of those 24hr talking shows back when all the sexual harassment issues were exploding all over the place. A man was commenting on a report about the response of an organization to the accusations made against some of their male employees. They said, “Steps will be taken to see that ‘Workplace Sensitivity Training’, is instituted in order to make sure, “This doesn’t happen again”.

The man commented that, “If that is the only response you have, then nothing is going to change. Because the root causes are not being discussed. You might as well just give up”. He was right. Bad behavior has been around for centuries and 8 sessions of “Workplace Sensitivity Training” isn’t going to fix it.

Men and women behave the way they do because that’s either how they were raised or how they learned in life to behave. It all goes back to what you learned about how to treat people. Those you know and strangers. No matter the gender or color. If you believe that others are there for your own personal use in any manner you please, the training is a waste of time.

In any addiction the standard sign of willingness to change has always been, “You are not going to change, until you WANT to change.” Correcting the way we learn and what we learn is a better approach. Not talking about that and referring to it euphemistically is also a waste of time.

Duane

[eyesup]

If it weren’t for civil disobedience we wouldn’t have politely (sic) asked the British to go home, back in the 18th century! You can be civil and angry at the same time.

Any chemist will tell you that heat is necessary to facilitate a reaction. Nothing happens in a cold environment. People won’t even consider change as long as they are comfy. There has to be discomfort at some level.

Carving initials? I have always been told by archaeologists that no one knows the meaning or intent of the petroglyphs and pictographs I’ve seen in the desert. For all we know, they are nothing more than graffiti. They could also be a story told by the Indian equivalent of a bard. We just don’t know.

If I see a mark that has a recent date, I get irritated. If it’s much older than, say 50-60 yrs. it makes me stop and think about why and what were they doing out there. It has become history. Too close in time and it’s just some jerk looking for attention. It’s all about perception.

If it weren’t for the rock art, we might never even have known they had been there.

Duane

[eyesup]

Biathalon, pentathalon, decathalon, whew too many cathalons. I was going to to participate once. It was a Try-athalon. I tried but couldn't work up the interest.

All that effort to participate in a sport. Takes away all the enjoyment.
Unless winning is what flips your switch. I guess.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

If it weren’t for civil disobedience we wouldn’t have politely (sic) asked the British to go home, back in the 18th century! You can be civil and angry at the same time....


...Duane

Jus' sayin'. If "the British had all gone home, most of the population would have left. We were all British until then. More correctly, and realistically, the British government, or empire was very eloquently asked to stay on the other side of the new borders. Beautiful declaration.

Yup, and one can be neither, too.
Jbee

[John P]

The ignorant outsiders that equate simple nudity with sex are the problem, as are those who do public sex.

There's a kind of 1984 aspect to that sentence. Nude venues are being used for sex, but the people who call attention to it are ignorant!

I'm afraid that even though it was written years ago, the fact that Redington Pass is mentioned in a gay cruising website puts it in danger. That's information that can be easily found (the way I found it) and quoted any time some skeptical official wants to find evidence for why nudity needs to be prohibited. If there's any effective defense to be made, I think it's better to put ourselves on the right side of the law, by saying "This kind of stuff, using public places for sex with strangers, is totally outrageous. How can we work together to get these people to go away?" Just trying to keep the truth quiet makes us seem to be on our enemies' side.

Edited to say, note "get these people to go away". Not "hunt them down and kill them" or "lock them up and throw away the key"! We're neutral about people's sexual behavior, as long as we aren't forced to notice it. So if someone predictably says "homophobia" we can just respond "No, everyone's welcome and we hope everyone will behave themselves. What you do anywhere else is no concern of ours."

[BlueTrain]

Please note that the following will be rambling and not up to the standards of a term paper. Nothing I write will be, either.

Thoreau went to jail for his civil disobedience. I'm really not willing to do that myself. The Boston Tea Party was not exactly civil disobedience. For a few years, alcohol was illegal in the U.S., constitutionally, too, but it was widely ignored, though not publically. Was that civil disobedience? It was more like a total disrespect for law--that law! But illegal substances have always been made available one way or another, to a greater or lesser extent. I have no idea how easy it was to buy alcohol during prohibition but it couldn't have been as easy as it is now. But it's still illegal in some places, include in places where it is legally manufactured.

It is as if laws or the repeal of laws have constituencies. All sorts of things have been done in the last couple of decades to discourage tobacco use, which seems to have mostly resulted in higher prices. Yet at the same time, some previously illegal substances have become legal in some places (18 medicinal, 21 recreational). Laws are frequently illogical in their severity and unevenly enforced. And no legislator wants to be known as soft on crime. It's funny how so-called crime control laws make more things illegal. I think these things are the result of different parties being interested in certain kinds of crimes or other behaviors that they want controlled. How the police manage through all of this, I don't know. They aren't lawyers.

[Greenbare Woods]

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.

Yes. It is very difficult to talk about.  Bring up the subject on most forums and you get flamed for being "homophobic."   

I learned about the gay public sex guide while doing an on-line search about a FORMERLY free beach in Oregon.  The gay public sex guide came up on my search and recommended gay public sex on the FORMERLY free beach.  The local County Council couldn't talk about GAY sex either so they avoided the GAY issue by passing a law prohibiting nudity in their whole county.   Its one of those issues that will get someone flamed and banned on most social media (such as Facebook) or nudist discussions.   There are always gay members on any nudist forum who are quick to defend all gay behavior no matter that it is offensive public sex and has destroyed many public nude areas. 

Bob

[Greenbare Woods]

Here where I live in Spokane, WA, USA, there was once a "free  beach" called People's Park.   From all the stories it was one a "hippie" camping and hang out with clothing optional swimming along the Spokane river, etc.  Its only about a mile or two from the center of downtown Spokane.  Then in the 1990s it became a "Gay" hangout and the local police began having numerous complaints from families about gay public sex and gay solicitations of normal people.  As police tend to do everywhere they reacted to "the problem" and now there isn't any clothing optional beach near Spokane.  I'm sure its "homophobic" to talk about the actual problem.  The whole mess makes it difficult for regular nudists. 
Bob

[BlueTrain]

Have any of you been to Haulover Beach in Florida? It is not only officially clothing optional, also described (officially) as for nude recreation. There is even a designated beach area for dogs (the Bark Park). Who goes there? Do people behave? Is it "family friendly?" I don't plan to go but I was wondering how it is doing compared with other places that have problems with inappropriate behavior.

[Greenbare Woods]

Me going to Haulover Beach, FL, USA, is a trip about equal to someone traveling from London to Tehran.   It can be done, but its not where you go for an afternoon at the beach.

[Peter S]

Don’t think Tehran does nude beaches, Bob, save your petrol money ...

[jbeegoode]

BLuetrain wrote:Have any of you been to Haulover Beach in Florida? It is not only officially clothing optional, also described (officially) as for nude recreation. There is even a designated beach area for dogs (the Bark Park). Who goes there? Do people behave? Is it "family friendly?" I don't plan to go but I was wondering how it is doing compared with other places that have problems with inappropriate behavior.

Reports from TNS "N" magazine have all been favorable on Haulover.


Some thoughts and anecdotes:

The last few times that I have been to Black's Beach, it was well organized, even welcoming with free grilled food. When a guy was accused of taking photos with his phone, he was confronted, by several people. Two in front and others standing in support. He was ganged up on.

I remember going to the beach in northern Cal. I forget the name, I think Gegorio. It was known as a nude beach, a gay hangout. As we walked along, there were guys having sex. This was back in the seventies and the sexual revolution, however. When we saw these things, we looked the other way and went to another part of the beach. It was a live and let live philosophy that was going around at the time. My friend, a female, liked that nobody would hit on her there.

The nude beaches are generally more remote and lawless, so other behaviors than nudity happen. That is one good argument to have an official nude beach.

When these sexual things happen, confrontation can lead to violence. Violence is bad publicity. When I go to a nude area, I don't go there for violence, or to participate in hassles.

There was a guy with a phone at Redington one day trying to act as if he was doing something else than pics. I walked up to him and gave him a stern threatening eye. I felt pissed of. He could drive people away. He backed off, with out a word.

At a regular place, there are "regulars." They can bond and confront and often do.

There is a guy who regularly plays with himself looking for lone females to see him and get away with it. He is very easily intimidated. He has been kicked out several times. The news has been spread, what truck he drives, and his name. Welcoming committee type people are valuable. They set the tone. They ask newcomers about attitudes and offer protection if they get unwelcome confrontations. Newcomers feel more comfortable and community happens. People like to feel protected. To be able to leave their stuff and wander naked. Regulars can provide this.

 It is often the behavior of people to not be friendly, to give others space. Those who meet and greet are sometimes held in suspicion, or people want to be left alone. This however, makes for less protection.

When I look at this wildcat governance, is it not the same as the expectation that norms be enforced? A norm is that people don't live nude in public. So, is there justification to expect people to wear clothing and make law and enforcement? Is this not how prudes perceive us? To me the line is drawn in personal rights, body freedom and sexuality is best left to privacy. Sexual behaviors tend to invite and demand other's participation as voyeurism and exhibitionism. Mere nudity is not sexual, only if it is perceived as such.
Jbee

[John P]

I've been to Haulover twice and enjoyed it both times. Once was the middle of the day, the other time was in the evening just as the sun was going down, and there was hardly anyone there. Here's a picture from the mid-day trip. Of course it's rude to take pictures at a nude beach, so I stepped around the fence onto the textile beach and took the picture looking back. You can see where the crowd is! Yes, it really is overlooked by high-rise buildings the way it seems to be.

[Greenbare Woods]

Of course it's rude to take pictures at a nude beach,

That is the old standard nudist, keep it secret and hide, rule.  It needs to change.   We need to make naked common and public.  We need to get comfortable with being seen naked.  If you don't want to be seen naked then you shouldn't be out naked on a beach.   Its a bad rule.  It perpetuates the idea that nudity is "wrong" or "bodies are shameful." 

Bob