A Call for Help Naked Hiking

[jbeegoode]

The last couple of weeks, I've been getting notices from John over at Hiking NAked ( http://www.hikingnaked.com/index ).
He is having severe health issues and can't cover the expense for the site. It is full of an archive of posts on free range and naked hiking lore. Well worth the visit andwould be a great loss. He hasn't paid and rent is down to the wire.

He has promoted and helped create the World Naked Hiking Day. It gets more postings than this site, it apppears.
 
He quite apparently needs CONTRIBUTIONS, prayers, well wishes and support.
Paypal is best to  john05701@gmail.com
 
Checks are slow, but:
John
POB 23
West Chesterfield, NH 03466

He may need help with administration...I don't know.

Is anyone closer to this guy, that could get a better assessment of the situation?
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

I have read Naked Hiking for some years.   I wonder how much it costs to support a site like that.  I have a couple of my own sites that cost around $100 per year, and even I can afford that.  Perhaps i could take over sponsorship of the Naked Hiking site if he can't afford it.  I have never managed a forum so I don't know what is involved.   Naked Hiking doesn't get a lot of traffic though, and Internet servers charge for large traffic.

[eyesup]

I scoot over and check that site about 3-4 times a year.
I've never posted anything though.

Duane

[reubenT]

I'd like to see it continue.  And for John to find the path to good health. (I know where it lies for myself, but sharing it and another accepting that info is another matter, especially since I've been a lifetime accumulating health education, the path to super health can be such a drastic change for a person it's very hard for them to accept it)    Based on what few sites I've had anything to do with, I would have guessed at something in the vicinity of $100 per year.   But I know how tight one can get financially with medical bills and such,  that even an extra $100 can be a strain. 

[John P]

I don't want to seem mean-spirited, given that the guy who's been running this site has medical and financial problems. But unless he changes his policies, or unless someone else takes over and changes them, I'm not going to support the site. It's the same anti-naturist setup that the Secret Naturists had--"Adults only". Hiking Naked has the worst statement I've ever seen, even encouraging people to denounce anyone they think "is, or appears to be, younger than 18". My idea of naturism is that everyone's acceptable, and nobody is at particular risk of being harmed by anyone else. If it's less benign that that, where's the evidence? If naturism isn't safe for kids, maybe we should worry if it's too dangerous for any of us.

Sorry for the rant. But it's an important issue, and Hiking Naked has been on the wrong side of it for a long time.

[Greenbare Woods]

I agree with John P.  Children learn about themselves and how to become adults by observing their parents and then other humans. They need to have an opportunity to observe normal adult members of their own species.  Depriving children of an opportunity to see a wide variety of their own species is harmful and hurtful to children. 

With that said, the laws about posting naked photos on the internet vary from place to place, and web site hosts also are also often up tight prudes about nudity.  I don't know what host the Naked Hiking site runs on, nor where it is located, nor what local laws they have to comply with. 

Rather than let the site die, the owner should offer to give it to any one of the long term members who can afford to continue paying its fees.   Asking us to pay for the site without having ownership control is probably not going to happen. 

Naked hiking never was a site with enough traffic to meet other naked hikers in my area.  It was often something I read about hiking somewhere else, somewhere that I probably never would be able to visit.  But it has always had some problems too.

[John P]

Laws about what can be published may vary from place to place; Allah knows what happens in Saudi Arabia! But in the USA, they're the same everywhere, limited by the 1st Amendment to the US constitution ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press") which is also applicable to every state. But we can forget our rights to the point that we might as well no longer have them, so let's not allow that to happen.

By the way, I'm not expecting that any significant number of juveniles would be taking part in NakedHikingForEveryone (the new website, which doesn't exist). But the point would be that they could, and it would be perfectly legal.

[eyesup]

I hadn't considered the importance of checking out the statement of a site. Many sites state that by entering you tacitly agree to the rules and statements posted for forum behavior.

That's actually rather important. Thanks for bringing that up, John.

This made me think of a question. With regard to minors, what is the law about underage participation on a nudist or naturist website where, in any physical situation, a parent or guardian would be required? Most ask the question, "Are you 18 or older?" So I would think that if they answer "Yes", that would mean, for all intents and purposes, they are of legal age. Maybe the host of Naked Hiking is simply trying to avoid any possibility of a legal issue.

I agree with Bob and JohnP that bringing up kids in the best way means you don't hamstring them with regard to body issues. If more people got rid of that one issue in their life, it would certainly make things less stressful.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

Sure, you're all correct about the importance of need to give kids an open mind. Oh, for a perfect world.

BUTT YOU ARE THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER! After that initial statement, which in all of these years I have never noticed, nor paid attention to, along with any kid with any interest in the site, (Cripe there are no pictures, the wrong intentions are looking for pictures) there is a wealth of information found nowhere else. Where else could there be the possibility of finding naked hikers in ones area, but THERE, even if it hasn't helped any of you. I have gotten numerous tips from the site on local (in state, S. Cal., too) places conditions and considered meeting up with a couple of the guys, but haven't, yet. I have had the opportunity to share there, and certainly teach some newbies. Maybe you aren't throwing the baby out with, you are throwing the dead sea salt, herb water out before you even use it because it doesn't smell like regular water. 

Those disclaimers have been standard for years, so as not to be paid attention to. Way back, the site has been there for years, it was just what people did to protect themselves if things got out of hand. Hiking Naked site was a ground breaker at that time and I couldn't blame him for protecting his interest. Imagine some predator using the site for pickup and the legal entwinement that admin would have. He could be drug into it like a co-conspirator raping a child. Some kid gets popped for taking a nude walk and who gets the blame. Could his parents sue? Not being an adult, means not having responsibility for one actions and blaming the old and wise. Judges being politicians in robes and often old conservative blowhards making up their own law, the admin is probably vulnerable.

Yea, the time has come, 2016, to drop the intro, in my opinion, at this point, but there has been no discussion about it with admin over there, no complaint, no helpful input. He may not have given thought to it for years. He may have a very good justification, too, we don't know.

On my site, I have control over content, there is a lesson as to how we do what we do in each story, take it or leave it, but be cautious and don't break the law. On a forum, it takes some active monitoring, especially the traffic that goes through that one, which is probably more than here, from what I have seen over the years.

That guy, John, has been putting lots of personal time into that site for many years, he has passion for something that we are passionate about, and he is giving that time away to us. He certainly deserves some appreciation for his efforts and work. I find this dismissing of what he has done on one minor point, cold, high handed and sickeningly cavalier. Dang, give 'em a break! It DOES sound  mean spirited. I can see the guy sitting in bed, maybe a death bed from the sad sound of it, feeling no support or appreciation for what he gave away for years, wondering if it was all an illusion.

Offer him twenty bucks, or two of you ten or twenty, or forty to change the intro and tell him why. He deserves the input, the help and the seva. Write him a PM, tell him your concerns and how important what he has done and is doing is, and that it needs to be done differently. But, just turning ones back on an important site is...wrong.

IF he did change the intro rules, would you support him? Or is this just destructive talk?
Jbee

[jbeegoode]

Coincidentally, I just sent a Vermont guy over here to see you, John P., about some group hiking in your neck of the woods. That is a guy on the Naked Hiking forum, the site that promotes world naked hiking day more than about any, getting the word out and the stories about it in large archives going back years. Perhaps you could get other members of your group to go over there and help him out. I do know that some do frequent the site, but not lately.

Where do people network without that site? It gets heavy traffic.
Jbee

[John P]

Sorry, but I do think naturist principles are important. And I take what a website's operator says seriously. In fact if you enter the Hiking Naked site via this URL:
http://www.hikingnaked.com/
then the rule about young people is almost the first thing there, Rule 1, right under "Welcome to Hiking Naked". John clearly means what he says there.

If there's some danger involved in letting young people use a website, maybe someone should warn Stuart and Karla, because there are no prohibitions here. Should there be?

Generally I'm a cheapskate and I don't donate to web sites that I use. One I have given to is Netnude, which deserves more traffic than it currently receives. Yes, it allows young people; in fact it gives them two special sections of their own. It's been running for years and I don't think there's ever been any trouble. Once again, maybe you'd tell the operator she's being reckless! If I were a user of Hiking Naked and it really served a purpose for me, and if there were an appeal for funds, I might contribute. Certainly, if the rules were different I'd become a member, because I'm quite a junkie for Internet discussion groups.

Dan "Freewalkerma" is in our group and he's on Hiking Naked (and I don't hassle him about it, but I've told him why I won't use it), but I think he's cut back on his Internet usage lately. There is a "Hiking Vermont Naked" group on Facebook, but it hardly gets any postings. Your contact should definitely sign up here!

[nudewalker]

Hiking naked was the first forum I found after searching the web and realizing that there were more that thought as I thought, did as I liked to do and shared tips and information on the subject. Since October 2006 it was my go to place until I found other places and people.

Nitpicking over the 18 year rule seems a bit mean spirited, after all how many under aged teens visit porn sites. I'm quite sure some lawyer somewhere came up with the idea of placing that rule to protect the forum owner from liabilities. Many sites stumbled upon often state "contains adult content, if your under 18 you must leave" or something to that effect.

Our latest medical scare has put us in a tighter financial situation (notice lack of trip reports) so there is an understanding on my part. Much like SNS it would be a shame to lose that treasure of information.

[jbeegoode]

Sorry, but I do think naturist principles are important. And I take what a website's operator says seriously. In fact if you enter the Hiking Naked site via this URL:
http://www.hikingnaked.com/
then the rule about young people is almost the first thing there, Rule 1, right under "Welcome to Hiking Naked". John clearly means what he says there.

If there's some danger involved in letting young people use a website, maybe someone should warn Stuart and Karla, because there are no prohibitions here. Should there be?

Generally I'm a cheapskate and I don't donate to web sites that I use. One I have given to is Netnude, which deserves more traffic than it currently receives. Yes, it allows young people; in fact it gives them two special sections of their own. It's been running for years and I don't think there's ever been any trouble. Once again, maybe you'd tell the operator she's being reckless! If I were a user of Hiking Naked and it really served a purpose for me, and if there were an appeal for funds, I might contribute. Certainly, if the rules were different I'd become a member, because I'm quite a junkie for Internet discussion groups.

Dan "Freewalkerma" is in our group and he's on Hiking Naked (and I don't hassle him about it, but I've told him why I won't use it), but I think he's cut back on his Internet usage lately. There is a "Hiking Vermont Naked" group on Facebook, but it hardly gets any postings. Your contact should definitely sign up here!

It would be good for you to contact FreewalkerMA and tell him what is happening at NAked Hiking, I know that the site has been important to him. He probably values it.

It would be a positive thing for you to contact John over there and submit and discuss your concerns to produce change in a site that has proven important in the promotion of free range activity and body freedom. You would do well to have others voice these concerns. I just did AND I invited him here to state his case and defend that notice. That may produce change. That may deliver information to people who run websites that may, or may not, need it. That may get the word out. I do know that he has had a stroke about everyday lately and it is a lot for him to even function at the computer.

You're correct, naturist principles and mutual support and education are important. But, just like the reservation mentality which grew out of a more harsh dangerous era, "nudist colonies" are no longer threatened the way that they once were, also the internet and unjust policies taking free speech from us have changed in the last 10 years. Still, TSNS was lost not so long ago. I got on a more progressive provider, so did S & C, to protect our work from this. Perhaps John didn't have that option back when.

Those 18 year notices are always right up front and strongly put. I doubt that it has any other meaning than to protect John in a litigious world, a decision made years ago in a differently contextualized world.

John P., you have been active offline, involved and an online promoter, that's what I know you for and how you get my respect. This armchair, boycotting with no notice, or fight, putting down a brother of the keyboard, in ignorance, is disappointing to me. I didn't think that that has been your style, because that is doing things counterproductive. It sounds as though, you are placing John on the other side of the fence, further, it appears that you are making it a contention that he is a problem needing of a boycott.

In the words of a famous B movie filled with Val speak, "What's up wit that, Dude?" He needs our help, not our criticism. "Come on kids, let's do it for the 'ol Gipper." AND, we will help ourselves and others.
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

From Naked Hiking:

1) You must be 18 or older to use the Hiking Naked Message Boards. No Exceptions! For your safety and the protection of young people,

After decades of reading and considering the whole question about young people and nudity I have concluded that prohibiting young people from seeing nudity is the antithesis of safety and protection of young people.

Basic principle:  The primary occupation of all children is learning how to be normal functional adults.  Most of their learning is done by observation of adults and adult behavior, not by talks or "teaching."  It is the direct responsibility of parents, and the shared responsibility of everyone to help children observe, learn, and grow up as easily and as quickly as possible. 

Nudity and the basic principle:   Children need to learn about themselves and their own species by observing a wide variety of other members of their species.  Hindering or depriving children of an opportunity to safely observe the normal activities, bodies, and body functions of normal adults hinders important learning, and is therefore harmful or hurtful to children. 

With this understood, one can easily see how our western culture works to prevent learning and confine children into a perpetual cage of eternal dependency.   The culture works hard to eliminate opportunities for children to learn much of the necessary information about themselves and about human life.  The culture has tried for decades to prevent children from seeing adult human bodies, and there was a 20th century push even to prevent children from seeing the bodies of other animals.   

The hurtful restriction on children growing up is often couched in "nice" sounding euphemisms such as "Let them be children."  For decades, all of the 20th century and longer, there have been prudish zealots who worked to punish anyone who allowed a child to observe an adult of its own species.  All media was heavily censored, and there were hard kept age restrictions.   Stores selling magazines with photos of adult humans had to cover them, hide them behind their counter, or have an "adult restricted" section.  "What about the children" was a battle cry to punish normal human interest in ourselves. 

At nudist venues too, children were a constant attack.  The prudes had unlimited imaginations about prurient interest in children.  Many local laws prohibited allowing children to see anyone of their own species.  On the Internet in the 20th century many owners chose to avoid litigation by outlawing children.  Other sites allow children but prohibit nude photos showing genitals (normal human bodies). Facebook, for example, will censor photos of human bodies if genitals are shown, and may block the person who posted the photos. The US still has very harsh legal penalties for possession of photos of naked children. These laws have been a problem for nudists families possessing family vacation photos.  People have also been prosecuted by over zealous law for allowing children to see photos of naked adults. 

Some nudist sites have resorted to web hosting in far off countries where children are allowed to observe and learn about themselves and their species.   Naktiv is one such nudist venue located somewhere in eastern Europe.   

I disagree with the Naked Hiking rule that prohibiting children is "for your safety and the protection of young people."   It is for the safety of the site owner who may (legitimately) fear legal action.  Some parts of the US still outlaw all naked photos. 

I don't know of any laws that prohibit discussion of nudity or hiking naked as long as there are no photos.  The web site Naked Hiking has never been one for photos.  I suppose people could post photos, and the owner probably doesn't want the hassle of dealing with law enforcement.  That is a shame because children need to see normal adults doing normal human activities such as hiking.   Blocking children hurts children.

Your opinion my differ. 

[jbeegoode]

Well put Bob. I'd like to see you post this over at Hiking Naked.
 
I just began a thread in the "Anything Goes" section addressing this topic and that restriction to minors welcoming, asking for clarification from John and looking for discussion about it. I'd like to see the change, now that it has been pointed out.

Can I repost, stealing your work, but giving you credit, if you don't want to cut and paste?

The more of us express concern, the more likely change will occur. A bit of online activism?
Jbee