JBG, you don't seem to be geting this. The people who did the damage in San Francisco weren't naturists in any sense, confrontational or not--they were exhibitionists. The state of the law allowed them to show their penis rings in public, and that's what they did. When their rights were taken away along with everyone else's, they stopped. We can say what we want to about that city law, but it accomplished its purpose.
Now Naturistplace, you evidently have some knowledge about the San Francisco events, so why did you talk about "naturists exercising their rights"? If there's some strategy that calls for us to pass false information around, maybe you can explain it.
I claim that the best thing we can do is bring attention to any problems that occur on the fringes of nudism, which usually means someone acting out sexually. We shouldn't be hesitant about demanding a stop to this stuff! If we don't, we'll make it seem as if the people looking for sexual thrills are part of our movement, and that where we go, they'll be going too. We'll never get public support that way.
Naturistplace, I want to agree with your statement "And they must recognize and call out all of the enemies of naturist rights, not just a few rather addlepated exhibitionists." If there were other people causing trouble in San Francisco, then certainly naturists should have denounced them too! I agree that the exhibitionists were a pretty crazy bunch, but they led to this sad loss, and my recollection from that time is that naturists couldn't find much to say about it, which I think was a mistake. Whoever is doing us harm, we should say clearly what the problem is.
"so why did you talk about "naturists exercising their rights"?"
That's a good place to start. It's simple. The key controversy in 2012 was about people who were going naked in San Francisco's Jane Warner Plaza and places nearby. I don't know the exact details since all my information is second hand. But what I believe is that some of these people were simply naked, which is completely naturist, and was completely legal at that place and time. Some other people were not only naked but also behaving lewdly. That's of course not naturist, and wasn't legal under California law either. I don't know whether or not the latter people claimed to be naturists, but they certainly weren't, and no legitimate naturist would condone the lewdness. Those who weren't behaving lewdly were absolutely, positively exercising their rights.
As is always the case, the news media and the general public have only vague conceptions of the finer distinctions. Could those who were simply naked have somehow stopped the behavior of those who were lewd? Only someone who knew the people involved could, realistically, answer that.
Although the people who were behaving lewdly were the proximate cause of the problem, it escalated the way it did because of many other actors with their own selfish interests who got a city law passed that banned all nudity (with certain specific exceptions). People like that, in my opinion, are the real enemies of naturism we need to focus on. This includes people who just don't like nudity at all, or think it hurts their financial interests, or are in law enforcement and don't want the responsibility to make tricky decisions about what is or is not "lewd", as California law requires (even though it's their job to do that).
What should naturists be doing about this kind of problem? In my opinion, it's short-sighted to think that just strongly denouncing people who behave lewdly is sufficient to address the problem. Ideally, there would be enough naturists in the population to actively curtail lewd behavior that could reflect badly on naturists who aren't being lewd. That's what happens at successful nude beaches like Haulover.
So my conclusion is that the real long-term solution is:
More Naturists. That will make much more possible than simply curtailing lewd behavior. It will also - most importantly - make it possible to politically oppose people who insist, for their own selfish reasons, on passing or defending laws against naturist nudity.
This is precisely the strategy that succeeded for gay rights. Although there weren't actually more people who were gay, the result of so many gay people "coming out" was that the public perception of the real number changed significantly.
"If there's some strategy that calls for us to pass false information around, maybe you can explain it."
If you are implying that was a strategy I advocated, that is
insulting, and I expect an apology.
"We shouldn't be hesitant about demanding a stop to this stuff!"
You can make demands until you're blue in the face. Perhaps this makes you feel better and more righteous, but as a strategy it flops. Political action is the only thing that eventually makes a significant difference. This is what NAC is set up for, but it's limited by the rather meager amount of financial and other support it gets from the naturist community. Maybe if there were More Naturists....
An example of significant successful naturist political action may be British Naturism's efforts with regard to British laws on naturism and nudity. I haven't studied this closely, but my impression is that advocacy on behalf of naturism by BN resulted in a more lenient approach to nudity in British law. Here's a document that spells out the current situation:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance-handling-cases-naturism If this had been applied in the San Francisco case, the outcome would have been much better.
"Whoever is doing us harm, we should say clearly what the problem is."
I completely agree with that - with
strong emphasis on the "whoever" part. That includes
far more than just a few crazy exhibitionists.
