Nudes in the news

[Greenbare Woods]

sg came across as self centred and pig headed , only his rights mattered, even though he knew his actions would upset some people and were highly  likely to provoke a reaction from  law enforcement.
the insisting on walking past the school was one example. how many of us would in the light of the current guidlines walk naked through town let alone  past a school at chucking out time......

SG pushed the limit with his "in your face" activism.  His walk past a school confronted the "for the children" argument head on. 

What eventually happened was that keeping someone in jail year after year for behavior that wasn't specifically illegal became a thorn in the side of the whole legal system. They justified it by saying SG had violated a judge's order but underlying the order was a man who had complied with the letter of the law before being arrested.  The public began asking questions in media publications about an oppressive legal system.  Legal theorists were writing papers in publications read by judges and lawyers.  SG refused to just go away.  Their offensive government over reach became intolerable and unjustifiable.  Legal theorists said so in legal industry publications.   If not for SB, there would not have been the willingness of the police and courts to get out of the nude business. 

not widely publicisd is the fact that most of his jail time in scotland was not for walking naked. it was for contempt of court.... basically if the "judge"" says sit you sit if he says stand you stand if he says wear a towel in my court you know that refusing gets you jail time.  personally,knowing the alternative  id wear the shorts or whatever for the hour or two to get out of town free and i think any sane person would do the same .

He was in Scottish court because he was naked on the street.  He was in jail because the court was OVER REACHING the reasonable authority of the court to own and control citizens.  He was in jail because that was the only way that public attention could be brought to the over reach of the court system.  And he finally won.  People who run the court system couldn't stomach the ridicule they were receiving from without and within.  People who run courts and law enforcement finally capitulated and negotiated a new policy with BN.

Without the sacrifice of SG nothing would have changed.  People would still be arrested for being seen naked.  That has changed.  Every nudist in the UK owes him a bucket of gratitude. 

[BlueTrain]

So how many nudists are there in Britain? One in ten? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? I disagree with the idea that governments are by nature oppressive, although it generally seems true that governments are more powerful (not necessarily oppressive) after a revolution, no matter who won the revolution. It was like that in the United States after the revolution, which created the first national government here. To think that most people dislike most laws, including any law concerning public nudity, is wishful thinking. It is true that laws change but rarely without controversy. In fact, I might go so far as to say that most "rights" came out of nowhere but thin air. There is nothing to suggest that the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were observed to any great extent--equally, that is--when those words were written.

[John P]

sg came across as self centred and pig headed , only his rights mattered, even though he knew his actions would upset some people and were highly  likely to provoke a reaction from  law enforcement.
the insisting on walking past the school was one example. how many of us would in the light of the current guidlines walk naked through town let alone  past a school at chucking out time...

Perfectly true, but as George Bernard Shaw said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

[BlueTrain]

It would therefore appear that a conservative is forever at odds with those who wish him to be otherwise. That would make a conservative a non-conformist.

[nuduke]

Following recent discussion, my 4d worth on the effect of protesting and whatnot sides mainly with those remarks made by Ric.
I think developing consensus, marketing your cause with PR, events, news etc., and reasonable negotiation makes change just as effectively as Shaw's unreasonable man.  Yes, sometimes radical action (e.g. Churchill, Ghandi, Lister, Lincoln) creates radical and rapid change*.  But dripping on the stone can wear it away as effectively in due time.  I think Ric's skinny dip in the public pool example is what gets change best - cooperation and bringing two points of view together creating mutual understanding, then tolerance and eventually emancipation.  I feel that widely known events like the WNBR and Spencer Tunick and villages making semi nude calendars are what brings wider public understanding (that there are people out there that want to do this stuff) and it is the quiet unseen campaigners amongst those (including BN) who talk quietly and consult with people like the police that get things like the recent issue of tolerant rules for UK police. 


Unreasonables like Steve Gough play their part too although Bob's emphasis on the effect of Gough's activity is I feel much exaggerated.  Without Gough I suspect we would have got the same changes as has been achieved, possibly more without Gough tilting at windmills and making it difficult to accept nudists as reasonable people with needs and rights to pursue.  Brighton beach was an official nudist area long before Gough popped up.  That's done loads of good to have it established that it's ok to have naturist beaches.  (I look forward to the first designated naturist forest area).  Gough had nothing to do with, AHG, Eden Project opening it's doors to naturists or BN gaining their annual jamborees at very public places like Alton Towers. 


Gough got a lot of publicity, it is true, which was good for recognising that there are people who want naked emancipation and feel it is as much their right to be naked as clothed.  However, Gough was an eccentric and did nothing himself other than to try and advance his purely personal position.  Nothing I read or watched of him contained any generalisation of the problem i.e. that he was campaigning for naturism in general.  Indeed as Ric and others point out, a lot of his time in prison was for contempt, i.e. failure or inability to concede to any extent the other side's point of view.  That lead to entrenchment of disparate positions Gough vs The Law and the law won by silencing Gough.  Had he dressed in court he would have had a chance to make his case convincingly...but he didn't recognise this opportunity and he is not the most articulate of speakers either.  I also note that Gough remained on his own, other campaigners (e.g. BN) did not rally to his cause.  What Gough did was not wrong and he was fighting for a principle that is very real, very appropriate and very worthwhile.  It's just that he did it very, very badly.  And this was due to his eccentric nature and lack of ability to garner support and help or spread the word in a way that people could relate to.


Blue Train, if BN are to be believed, naturists represent somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 35 (3-5%) of the UK population.  Black and Asian British are about 8% of the population and their rights and the inclusion of diversity in employment, culture and sport is a very live topic.  About 2% of the population identify themselves as LGB sexual orientation and their emancipation and rights have advanced to virtual normality in the last few decades.  In 2012 6% of adults of working age were disabled and much is done for them (rightly so, and in fact about 11% of people are disabled).  Those groups are of a similar order of proportion of the population as nudists/naturists (if BN's figures are accurate) but almost nothing is done for the emancipation of naturism.  Thank goodness for the recent CPS and police rules relaxation.  At last we can see some assimilation of our proclivity into society in general.  Very small and very early days but it's about time.  I am sure that has been achieved principally by background campaigning and consultation.  I'm sure a chief constable or two has felt the ridiculousness of pursuing people like Gough and the odd harmless naturist walker or nude gardener that some prude reports to the police.  And whilst Gough has played his part in that, it is but a small portion of a wider effort by many others and perhaps thereby the CPS's realisation about the issue of wasting police time on ridiculously trivial complaints about naked people that the police, and we all, know are actually harmless.


John

[BlueTrain]

I think may claims, both positive and negative, tend to be exaggerated or cherry-picked. But I hadn't thought of some of the things you mentioned. It is difficult, however, to say which came first: acceptance of a certain degree of public nudity or large public nudity (or near-nudity) events like the bike rides, the mass nude photos, and body painting events. Naturally, there has to be a certain amount of interest in the first place to actually have a large scale event. But likewise, there has to be a considerable degree of tolerance to such things, too, which is going to be totally absent in some places I can think of. You'd never get away with a public nudity even in Lynchburg, Virginia. Naturally, that's true of a lot of things, like long hair on men, miniskirts, alcohol, drugs, divorce and so on. There is no logic to any of this, either. Jack Daniels whiskey is produced in a dry county where it cannot be sold, assuming you've heard of Jack Daniels or dry counties. Things do change, of course, slowly and nearly always surprisingly. For instance, when I was little, in the 1950s, condoms were nowhere to be found in stores but you could send a child to the store to buy your cigarettes. Today, condoms are for sale just about everywhere but you're carded (to prove your age) before you can buy a tobacco product.

The exact nature of the event and the behavior of the participants makes a difference in the effect of the event, too, as does who is actually participating. Even so, it's tricky. There has been a big motorcycle rally in Washington, D.C., for several years on Independence Day called Rolling Thunder. All-round reactions seems to have been generally positive, even with the image that bikers have. Who would have thought that would have happened? Body-painting usually seems like a festive event well-received, like a Mardi Gras parade, and the body exposure (to put it one way) seems to be a natural fit and it doesn't have to include plain, bare (and unpainted) nudity. If there are a lot of people taking part and there is no trouble, then it's a good thing and would help promote acceptance of public nudity--under the right circumstances. But the eternal questions will be, how many is a lot and exactly what sort of public nudity are we trying to have accepted. At the beach? Well, maybe, but downtown in the sidewalk cafes? You might say that's where push comes to shove. And all those videos of pretty girls walking around naked in public somewhere in Europe don't enter into the matter, no more than someone streaking a football game. But the East Woking Sun Club, people just laugh at that.

[Greenbare Woods]

Blue Train, if BN are to be believed, naturists represent somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 35 (3-5%) of the UK population. 
John

One in 20 is a HUGE number considering that its been generally illegal and prosecuted until very recently.   A generation growing up with clothing optional may make those numbers much bigger. 

[nuduke]

But the eternal questions will be, how many is a lot and exactly what sort of public nudity are we trying to have accepted [/l][/l]

That's an interesting question, Blue Train.  Do we naturists really want total nudity if possible (i.e. where weather and terrain permit) all the time wherever and whenever we are?  My guess is that Jbee and Bob would answer a resounding 'yes' to that.  As I consider the possibility of sudden change to 100% emancipation for naturists, I find myself considering this with some reluctance, I am slightly embarrassed to say. Assuming the given that we are considering emancipation and full tolerance of naked people in a predominantly still textile world, I can think of lots of instances where I might choose the protection of clothing. 

For instance, where there is a weight of humanity, say on public transport and transport hubs (e.g. airports, stations, trains), that very weight of people makes the environment pretty nasty.  When on trains and the London tube (subway), I wear outerwear or in hot weather, a jacket because I don't feel hygienic sitting on a seat that 1000 others have occupied that day and apropos of my remarks yesterday about the often sub optimal state of UK public restrooms, I would want at least one layer protecting me from the ordurous bacterial contamination that they have the very likely potential to impart to my naked form.  I doubt also that even Bob would want to be a blast furnace operative or a deep freeze warehouseman or even a baker or a car mechanic without well thought out and designed protective clothing.  In food manufacturing operatives are often dressed to avoid contamination of their product for food hygiene and stability of product.  I would not like my food prepared by naked people showering contaminated skin cells into my Ben & Jerrys or chilled Chicken Tikka Masala.

Whilst one side of me says a resounding yes to being able to get rid of clothing forever, another side recognises that in a textile world and in a world filled with hazards and risks that clothing plays its part.

What I would like to have the option of doing is to be naked when I want not when society lets me.  So, for instance, in a couple of weeks I will drive over to my friend's house and give him a birthday card on his birthday.  I would like to be able not to have to be bothered with clothes that day, just to drive there and appear at the door naked and be invited in for tea and a scone and a chat with no reaction to my nakedness other than it being completely normal.  Just the same as the same friend would accept a gay man into his house (with a teenage son in it) with no qualms, a thing that 30 or 40 years ago would have been a thing of great trial and even not welcoming that person into your house.  That is how far the gay community have brought society in accepting the reality and assimilation of their sexual proclivity into society as a norm of a minority within society. So it should be with nudity - acceptance as a normal thing and a natural part of societie's rich mix.

I would also like to see it possible for those who choose to be naked on the subway and in stores or anywhere else but I think in practice what we are trying to have accepted (to address your question directly, BT) is personal and recreational choices.  That I can walk wherever I like in the countryside naked and that I might swim or play snooker naked in an otherwise public facility.  That sort of thing.  But along the lines of my earlier posted point about compromise and coming together, I would also accept that I might accept that certain areas of life it is not right to be naked e.g. Food factories, busy public spaces and public transport.  I would be the first to happily comply with another's beliefs, freedoms and wishes and remain dressed.  For instance if my friend didn't feel comfortable with me naked in his house, I wouldn't seek to offend by being inflexible or Steve Gough-ish.  I would certainly comply with a request to dress when visiting a place of worship if the people of that faith lived by a textile principle.

I think being given the choice is the thing I would say is the hallmark of emancipation in the vast majority of other circumstances where nudity is an option.

I bet if society weren't so blinkered, the first area where optional nudity would take off would be some sports e.g. Athletics, Tennis, .  In a lot of athletic sports the contestants wear ever skimpier clothing e.g. running, beach volleyball, discus, shot put and the like

because the clothes are hot, extra weight and they restrict the athletic exertions and movements of the body.  I'm sure male sprinters would choose to wear some sort of restraint for the genitals because they might flap about uncomfortably and the women wear some mammary restraint (although big boobs in runners must be a disadvantage anyway) but that's choice not forced upon them by textile societal hegemony.  And how much more comfortable would Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal be if they didn't have to wear those sweat soaked t shirts and shorts on a hot day?  You really don't need clothes to play snooker or badminton, squash, body building and cardio fitness work etc etc etc etc.  Another area where emancipation might catch on quickly, on the basis of the trails that have been run, is eating in restaurants.

John       

[nuduke]

Blue Train, if BN are to be believed, naturists represent somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 35 (3-5%) of the UK population. 
John

One in 20 is a HUGE number considering that its been generally illegal and prosecuted until very recently.   A generation growing up with clothing optional may make those numbers much bigger.

Well I hope you are right, Bob and also throw in the caveat that these are the stats that BN throw out.  How accurate they are I have no idea.  I hope they are underestimated!
John

[jbeegoode]

Yea, slimyy people on plastic seats sounds icky, but it is common to have short skirts essentially be sitting down naked. I'm not too worried about it. Ii can carry a towel to sit on.

I may be contentious of your point to get dressed for someones religious commitment. These same people would not be tolerant of me naked as MY Sunday best. My body freedom overrides inflexible and disdain of others, no matter their religion. They can shove that religion, if it messes with mine. If I have to put up with things like what Burkas mean, then our nature need be sacrosanct, too.
Jbee

[Peter S]

Scrap the bit about the eating in restaurants, John N - the Paris one is about to close down due to lack of customers. Hardly unexpected, if a business’ USP is that you can take part naked the novelty soon wears off and, naked or clothed, customers want a good eating experience, good food, right ambience, etc. That said, it lasted the average for ny new restaurant of just over a year.

[BlueTrain]

Although there are practical objections to nudity if you're doing something like welding, painting, cooking and baking and so on, I don't think most other things can be done while nearly nude, at least if it's warm enough. Few ailments enter through your skin, except that some chemicals are not good, even to breath. I'd always want something on my feet, too, even here at home. What is most problematic for me is that my skin is not sun-friendly, to put it one way. I started life as a redhead, as did my wife. However, given what athletes wear these days, I don't see how eliminating the clothing would make any difference. Tennis isn't played by men in long white flannel pants anymore.

[Greenbare Woods]

I may be contentious of t your point to get dressed for someones religious commitment. These same people would not be tolerant of me naked as MY s Sunday best. My body over rides inflexible, disdain of others. They can shove that religion, if it messes with mine.
Jbee

You are right.  People expect US to get covered to attend their weddings, etc., but they refused to attend our wedding naked.   Manners only work one way.

Bob

[jbeegoode]

Clothing is an option. Walking is an option. Choice is all about options. Nude is natural, the rest are options.

My experience tells me that nude works out better, more efficiently, more fun, more zest, and more aware. A minimal drape may be a handy protection, sometimes.

What is left are clothing issues that are nonsense, just silly customs and overrated. What is left often, more than not, is wasteful destructive and unhealthy. Just goofy behavior issues imposed on everyone.

Some kind of foot protection when necessary, a convenient wool poncho, a robe, protective lenses, prosthetics, they can have their practical place.

Now, how is it that I'm to respect mandatory clothing rules, regs and laws, and give 'em credence?

[BlueTrain]

Because customs have more than the force of law.  Laws are often ignored but to ignore custom is to risk social ostracism. It appears that it is strongest among the more primitive peoples of the world.  The more advanced people are often less civilized.