My wife's job takes her all over the west. After looking at the site about getting naked in Oregon, I decided to check if there was similar info on Washington.
Nothing as good as the Oregon one but some, in the process I ran across this article about Seattle nudists.
Being too aggressive can backfire on you so it would have to done with consideration.
Duane
The nudist park lady is just the old guard. Many of those places and those people came about in the fifties and sixties and were quite a step, pioneers in a very repressive era. They are like her. This came home to me when DF and I visited Glenn Eden in California. It was all fenced off with coming encroaching sprawl. They were very afraid that people would wander off property and "offend" someone. As if locals could close them down so how. They of course don't want any hassles and want to be left alone in their cages. It is community owned, so some sort of a consensus, or vote, by all or maybe just the board want to protect their interest which includes the real-estate and memberships monetary value.
To me, it is kind of like complying, wearing a really big set of clothes. It also reeks of "There is something wrong or harmful about naked."
In the babe article, I was thinking that most of the shots were of the two roommates that were involved in the article.
Mark Story's group has had tremendous success since this article. His wife just retired from the parks, but the way.
The thing that alerted me, was that prof who said that the Supreme Court "recently" made a ruling. I see that the Washington Supreme Court did, but I know of no ruling on the ultimate Federal level. The common legal argument is that the government, based on a compelling need can curb behavior, even religious practice, based on a ruling that brought Utah into statehood in the 1800's and their common practice of polygamy. This has been carried into human animal sacrifice, peyote ritual, etc. No one can show a compelling State interest in suppression of nudity if it were to be tried and argued that way, and when part of a religious/spiritual practice. Nudity has to be integral to the religious/spiritual system. So I suspect that the guy can only speak in ignorance because if he isn't talking Washington State, he can only speak of previously tested cases in law. This case would be a discrimination, putting one religion over another. Maybe it is just sloppy reporting. Thsi article has no depth. Has anybody seen anything about the Federal Supreme Court ruling on nudity specifically? I'm working on something to do with that.
Jbee
