Should you notify the police?

[eyesup]

As a matter of interest, has anyone actually done this recently?

The woman on https://breastsarehealthy.wordpress.com/, she is located somewhere in New England, has several posts where she goes into towns in states that have laws that make bare-chested women legal. She has mentioned in several that when she plans on a hike or walk, she checks in with the law enforcement to; let them know she will be there, ensure that they are aware of the law so that when the inevitable call comes in with a person losing it on the phone they will be able to handle the situation better.

I haven’t read all of her posts, but so far she hasn’t been arrested and she walks through parks and down the street where the law states she can legally do so.

Checking in with the police isn’t so much about getting permission as giving them a heads up. Most officers don’t like smart alecks or wise-guys and don’t like dealing with them. If you are saying, I will be here or there doing this or that and here is the law that says I can, they know you aren’t just trying to kick up the dust.

This is another way to disseminate the information to the beat officer without having to rely on bureaucratic channels not getting fouled up. Take it directly to the people that have to enforce the peace and the law.

Duane

[JOhnGw]

That is precisely the thing which some people within British Naturism are doing.

[eyesup]

Little bit by little bit success is achieved, though we sometimes are impatient.
We can be glad and happy for those that have made progress that eventually become more ubiquitous.

Duane

[jbeegoode]

BAckfired. A topfree issue when authorities evolved in to political BS. Here they passed a law in response:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/battle-over-bare-breasted-women-brews-at-one-of-mds-busiest-beaches/2017/06/09/ba18c3a2-4c7d-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.01d17ba2b161

Perhaps, there are dangers inherent?
Jbee

[JOhnGw]

BAckfired. A topfree issue when authorities evolved in to political BS. Here they passed a law in response:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/battle-over-bare-breasted-women-brews-at-one-of-mds-busiest-beaches/2017/06/09/ba18c3a2-4c7d-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.01d17ba2b161

Perhaps, there are dangers inherent?
Jbee

Unfortunately the howl of the lone prude seems to be excessively prevalent in the ranks of power on your side of the puddle.
We get enough trouble from them over here, but your lot seem to be of a completely different order.

[ric]

on many fronts i feel its best to carry on doing whatever without involving officialdom of any sort,  if they dont know whats going on they cant make rules, control it, ban it , charge a fee for a permit or tax it.

[jbeegoode]

BAckfired. A topfree issue when authorities evolved in to political BS. Here they passed a law in response:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/battle-over-bare-breasted-women-brews-at-one-of-mds-busiest-beaches/2017/06/09/ba18c3a2-4c7d-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.01d17ba2b161

Perhaps, there are dangers inherent?
Jbee

Unfortunately the howl of the lone prude seems to be excessively prevalent in the ranks of power on your side of the puddle.
We get enough trouble from them over here, but your lot seem to be of a completely different order.

That's refreshing to hear. To me, prudery is a scary social disease, always threatening to rise and become malignant. There has always seemed something more staid in the fabric of your society...other than the Sex Pistols...

[Greenbare Woods]

"Its easier to be forgiven than to get permission," Old saying.

[eyesup]

BAckfired. A topfree issue when authorities evolved in to political BS. Here they passed a law in response:

Perhaps, there are dangers inherent?

There are always dangers inherent when attempting to confront ignorance. There is danger out your front door.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” - Bilbo Baggins

I was on the phone with my dad in 1989 during the time when the Berlin Wall was coming down. He asked me if I felt safer because of what was happening half a world away. I said that I was more worried about getting mugged than about what was going on in Eastern Europe. It’s all about what is in front of you. Sometimes the moral fight has to sit on the back burner for a while. Stewing. Till it’s ready.

Fear is usually rooted in ignorance. And fear pushed into a corner can become irrational. Fight or flight. The id flailing to get back into the lighted safe spaces.

Sure, I go to my usual spots to hike naked. We all have a place we know is SAFE. I just posted an explanation of why I chose a place. It’s not crowded and I won’t be challenged or bump into anyone there. When you live in a highly congested area, you have more restraints. More inconveniences.

I admire this woman. Not so much ‘what’ she is doing, but the spirit in which she does it. Go read her posts. I guess you have to make a decision, at some point, and bite the bullet. The harder you push, the harder it is to take another step. And if you choose to go a step further, you’re going to get stoned, as Bob Dylan wrote;

Dylan’s comment to New York radio host Bob Fass in 1986, struck a chord, “’Everybody must get stoned’ is when you go against the tide […] and to do what you believe in […] people take offense to that. You can look through history and find people have taken offense to [others] who [have] a different viewpoint.”

. . quoted from “Everybody must get stoned …”
It’s Divine, Clever or Whatever …

Hamlet, waffles back and forth on this choice. Ultimately his decision is irrelevant, he pays; “just a-like they said they would”. Do you stand up and suffer the slings and arrows? Metaphorically or literally, I guess we all do.

It is a challenge though to listen straight faced to an argument that states that two people, one man and one woman, dressed exactly the same, are not equal under the law because of an anatomical variation. It taxes my patience and sanity.

We, on this forum, see and understand the issue. But, we are the choir. Convincing the authorities and the public otherwise is the challenge. And therin lies the danger, or the rub. Of course, nowhere in the article is the public mentioned as a participant or is a referendum mentioned. The public was mentioned only as a straw dog.

This was an edict passed by a city council. I would hope that it is one step in forcing the legality challenged in court. I am not a fan of advocating boycotts to achieve political agendas but this ruling is a financial one. It’s all about revenue. The rulers of the city made a decision and it could be challenged in court or by the court of a public vote, if someone chose to. But if the clear vote says ban one group over another, so be it.

A city has a right to govern itself how it sees fit. You would have to live with that, or you could stand and fight.
Maybe you’ll start a movement.

If you disagree, don’t go there with your discretionary dollars and let the market eventually decide.
‘Course, I wouldn’t want to go to, this beach.

You could go elsewhere, like I do. And wherever you end up going, there won’t be any slings, arrows or stones to endure.
. . . at least it will be quiet!

Duane

[eyesup]

You too, ric? It’s all about the revenue?

Duane

[jbeegoode]

Why is it always topless. I'm not topless when I take my shirt off. Maybe I'm topfree. Topless implies a regularity of wearing something on the top half. We get shot down right off, just by the sneaky language.

So, topLESS is defined by the council as what? Did they even ask their town attorney for advice? Do they have to wait for the state to define it? Is it not topLESS with a pastie on the aureola? Is it okay to show a little breast bottom, side, and where does it end? At the neck or at the nipple, or some other demarcation? Does it eliminate cleavage? Where does topLESS end and covered begin?

It is just wrong, vague in interpretation so as to be unenforceable and discriminatory. It has no basis in science, it is some odd morality pulled out of the air that makes no real sense. And this "family beach" thing, connotes that there is something unfamily-like about a female breast, not to mention that a males breast is family-like. Children love breasts. Someday half of them will sport them and suddenly become unfamily-like, or is a child's chest obscene, too?

It would seem that this council of prudery has placed a bandaid on a sinking ship, or they are just plain stupid self righteous.

When Martinez refused to put clothing on outside his own back door and then in the street and then before the Berzurkly city council, a law was passed to stop him. Things backfire. Councils react in repressive, irrational fascist authoritarian ways. Right now, there is a law designed specifically for me in the next town. I used a sandwich board  and paint to throw their election against the powers that be. I'd have to get a lawyer and get arrested to exercise my 1st Amendment rights in that town, now. Maybe that is what the dimwits in Maryland are thinking? They can keep their illegal law because nobody has the wherewithal and pocket change to challenge it. Something tells me that they simply just are that ignorant.
Jbee

[nudewalker]

Ignorant isn't enough to describe this situation Jbee.  Those knee jerk reactions forced on city government by those who have a fear of losing money if families decide the beach is too adult? What is needed is an organized block of sane people that will vote with their pocketbook. Could you imagine the dismay if a number of real estate developers were told that my family is not returning this year due to your restrictive beach policies?

 I have been to Ocean City twice and have no desire to ever go back even if they made the beaches nude. Too much noise, traffic and congestion for me. But if I ever hear that some small beach town decides to allow nude sunbathing on their beaches I'll be there with bells on and nothing else. I'll stay in their motels, B&B's or condos. Eat in their restaurants, shop and spend my money there. And let all the towns people know that I'm there because they're sane!

[eyesup]

Why is it always topless?

Chelsea Covington, the woman that the article is about, takes issue with that phrase also, Jbee.
In her post of September 22, 2015, Bare-chestedness vs. toplessness she states why she no longer calls what she does ‘topless’.
She says that,
Toplessness implies that a woman’s normal state of being is with a covered chest, and that if that covering is missing, something is lacking, or less.

Also, topless is almost exclusively reserved for females — sunbathers, go-go dancers, etc.

Her position is that if you choose to use the term topless you have already surrendered part of your position.

Makes sense!

Duane

[eyesup]

. . . knee jerk reactions forced on city government by those who have a fear of losing money if families decide the beach is too adult?

Has anyone looked to see if designating a public beach to be at least a top optional beach? I wonder if that in fact would increase the number of people that went there. Resulting in an increase in revenue.

Or is it merely fear of the unknown that motivates such a status quo position?

Duane

[nuduke]

It's sad that Ms Covington in trying to challenge the apparent status quo has triggered a backlash from the reactionary forces of Md. law and government.  It defeats me why baring your breast(s) was not a matter of ongoing, unexamined liaissez faire in an enlightened community of Ocean City, and therefore offering personal choice in the land of the free.  People seemingly either have to demand their freedoms or capitulate to the forces of prurient profit-driven reaction.  We just don't seem to be able to coexist peaceably in mutual tolerance.


Same in the UK - if a Naturist beach gets a bit too popular or one prude complains to the authorities then naturist people lose their informal rights based on long usage and toleration because the majority of the populus, including the tiny minority that co-inhabit the naturist beach either don't mind, don't care or don't pay it any attention.  These latter factors are never, it seems, taken into account.  It's always whether there is a potential (not a likelihood, mark you) of somebody taking offense based on somebody being of the opinion that they did or might see a naked body and therefore be offended (in their estimation, not the law's, of what is offense).  The judgment of the ruling classes and the enforcers of the law is never whether offense has actively been given but whether it has or might have been taken by the prude that complains so as to protect themselves from any criticism that they might have let a situation of offense occur. 


This is why Steve Gough has wasted many years in Prison.  He doesn't go around shocking people.  People claim to be shocked or the blue helmets decide to take the safest option that they couldn't be blamed for one over sensitive crone thinking she might not like seeing a lean, masculine body on a public road.


I despair.  Not just about the specifics but about how intolerant most people are by default.


In sorrow AND in anger


John