Should you notify the police?

[eyesup]

But, maybe the goal isn't to change the minds of the masses.  We only need to make a big enough shift to achieve tolerance.  I believe that will only achieve that objective if we focus on that goal.

If you stand in the path of the flood you will be drowned. All that needs be done is to alter the riverbed here and there and the flood is shifted.

We need more uppity.

I’ve always been partial to uppity women. At least according to my understanding of the word.

Duane

[nuduke]

I absolutely agree with Bob's general points about the implications of normality or non normality - we should have a word for it which neither criticises the dressed person (as in Clothing Obsessed) nor implies the abnormality of nakedness as in Bobs post.

However, in a pluralist culture where being clothed has been the norm since time immemorial, I don't really think there is an implication in the mind of The Man On the Clapham Omnibus in connoting the word naturist as being the opposite of clothed norm.  Sure TMOTCO has all sorts of prejudice about naturism but he isn't thinking of it as an adversarial thing. As JBee opines it is not to do with clothing states at all but to do with the pursuit of naturalness, which we equate with a time before humans wore clothes (if there was one!) that makes us believe that being naked is how we were meant to be and more in line with Nature.  Also our propensity for being naked in nature and outdoors in the sunshine makes us nature - ists in that sense.


So I can't really get bothered about the semantics (unusually for me!) but it is important to keep plugging away for a more open, tolerant and optional society.
I heard a radio interview with a senior UK businessman commenting on how it was no longer a problem in business to be gay and how in his lifetime as a senior executive it has become possible to 'come out' and colleagues being unsurprised and unaffected and treating it as no big deal.  But it has taken most of the last century and a good chunk of this one so far to get to that position of emancipation and normality.  We who prefer not to wear clothes (when it's not needed for protection of some sort) are miles behind that level of emancipation.  How modern society can manage to be open and comfortable with all manner of different sexuality and still so prurient today, a century behind in emancipation of nudity versus homosexuality beggars belief.  We are now in a place where nudity, which is all around us really, is pilloried as was, say, male homosexuality 75 years ago.  I regret, chaps, that we have a long way to go.  We naturists have no organised pressure groups and resourced means of altering public opinion as the gays did and had in the late 60s onwards.  They've almost got there.  We haven't got near.
Fancy forming Skin Lib?


John

[jbeegoode]

Nuduke:  "we should have a word for it which neither criticises the dressed person (as in Clothing Obsessed) nor implies the abnormality of nakedness as in Bobs post."

Hey, it is abnormal and obsessed for people and their clothing. It is way weird. Clothing Obsessed isn't derogatory, its just a statement of fact. It isn't an insult. It's more like an intervention and tough love.

The obsessed need to look at themselves, clearly and for what they are doing.

Nuduke:"We naturists have no organised pressure groups and resourced means of altering public opinion as the gays did and had in the late 60s onwards."

I suppose that it is time to read up on just how the Gays have made the difference.
The first thing that they did was get beaten, arrested, and ridiculed. We have had that kind of abuse.
They have organization and we do too. They have been more vocal and outspoken.
They are a they, or your relative, or neighbor. We are actually not a they. We are Every Body.
I'll look into this when I have more time. They must have something to teach us.

Jbee

[eyesup]

Skin Lib?

I was just thinking that while reading your post.
Great Minds think Alike!

Duane

[jbeegoode]

The Skin Liberation Movement...the SLM. Needs a manifesto....
Jbee

[Davie]

Persoanlly I don't really like using the word obsessed. I think that could so easily be turned against us as being obsessed not to use clothes. I've never really like using "textile" and whilst it is a good descriptive term to me it has a hint of being derogatory. If we demand the right to be naked we need to accept others rights to be clothed. The main point is both allow each othet to be as they like. Ive always preferred to use the term non-naturist.

Davie 

[Peter S]

I like that thought process, Davie. Non-naturist implies that naked is the default state, and that wearing clothes is therefore the aberration.

[eyesup]

The Skin Liberation Movement...the SLM.

How about, “The Hide In Plain Sight Movement”!

Wait . . for . . it!

Duane

[nuduke]

Of course!  Naturist and non-naturist.  Leave the references to clothing out of it altogether.  Naturist being the default.  Or even, if we dare, naked, non-Naked (or is that a description rather than a preference?).
John

[Greenbare Woods]

Of course!  Naturist and non-naturist.  Leave the references to clothing out of it altogether.  Naturist being the default.  Or even, if we dare, naked, non-Naked (or is that a description rather than a preference?).
John

Good idea John, naked and non-naked. 

I've been using "Human and non-human" lately.    Clothing covers that which is human.


Bob

[BlueTrain]

If I can resurrect this old thread to make a couple of points from an American standpoint, even though I've probably said this before somewhere or other here.

I can't conceive of notifying the police or other law enforcement agency before setting out on a nude hike, either alone or as a group. As far as I know, it really isn't legal anywhere in the U.S., unless you count taking a long walk on a legal nude beach, of which there are a couple. For a nudist club that has the space, and I know of at least one that does, it naturally wouldn't be a problem. I don't know of any nudist club that has a farm, though.

The problem is, understanding what the law actually says in any given place can be difficult. Legal codes continually change over the years for all kinds of reasons and I doubt any lawmaker had nudity in mind when the first codes were assembled, from Hammurabi on down to today. Often as not, each specific law was written in response to something. If something isn't a problem, then the law probably won't "speak to it." But the problem is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Not all laws, rules and regulations are written in committee of the legislature and passed by deliberative bodies. But some give authority to various agencies to essentially write their own rules, which they do. Again, the rules are written to address certain situations. The National Park Service, for instance, in the regulations for each so-called national seashore (where you just might like to be nude) have paragraph after paragraph about vehicles on the beach but nothing about nudity. Is that good?

Maybe, maybe not. If there are no signs specifically prohibiting nudity, does that make it legal? Not hardly, as we say, since the absence of a sign doesn't make everything legal. So, let's say you decide to contact the park manager and see what they say. You ask, "Is it legal to be nude on the beach at Shipwreck Point?" The answer you get might be, "Yes, but it soon will be illegal." In other words, bringing up the question raises their consciousness on the issue. Besides, you might not be the only person asking the question and the other people might not like seeing naked old men on their favorite spot on the beach.

So the solution is a heavy dose of discretion, which is good advice in any situation.

[Davie]

In England and Wales the law allows simple nudity. S66 Sexual Offences Act states that it is an offence to expose the gentiles WITH INTENT to cause alarm or distress. Two problems arise with this. One, many Police Officers are not aware of the law and two, there is Section 5 of the Public Order Axt which relates to conduct LIKELY to cause alarm. 

It is getting better, with almost no prosecutions for simple nudity and those that have been dismissed on appeal. We have to thank BN and in particular the legal team. In Scotland at the Gathering the Police are advised of naturist walks but there is no request for permission. The local support including that of the Police is actually very positive. The reason they inform the Police is if they get reports of naked people walking around the Police can reassure the caller that its legitimate naturists just enjoying their life-style.

Its not perfect over here but it is better.

Davie 

[Greenbare Woods]

In England and Wales the law allows simple nudity. S66 Sexual Offences Act states that it is an offence to expose the gentiles WITH INTENT to cause alarm or distress. Two problems arise with this. One, many Police Officers are not aware of the law and two, there is Section 5 of the Public Order Axt which relates to conduct LIKELY to cause alarm. 
Davie 

Similar laws are on the books in most of the US.   Being naked in not a crime unless there is an INTENT to cause alarm or distress to someone else.  Courts are all over the map.  In California, Oregon and Kansas, courts have held that walking down the street on your way to lunch, taking the public bus, etc, is not INTENT and therefore legal.  In some other courts have decided that being naked anywhere there is expected to be clothed people is INTENT to alarm them.  Nudist organizations, the factory farms, are often working against allowing public nudity.  In Oregon the largest nude farm in Oregon lobbied its local county to outlaw nudity entirely in that county, but most of Oregon does not have a similar local ordinance and naked is legal and has court protection.   

John Law, of course, is often not aware of the law and often doesn't care about the law.  You get law only in court, not on the street. 

Bob

[BlueTrain]

Although one hears and perhaps sees more displays of public nudity than ever in the form of the Bay to the Breakers in San Francisco and the naked bike ride and a couple of other events, it seems to me that it is getting worse, in some ways. The U.S. is practically turning into a far right regime and the old religious right are having their day. That's why I suggested that actually asking if nudity is legal (or conversely, illegal) in a given place might have a tendency to make it unquestionably illegal. I suspect that even clubs, especially those without farms, might be worried, too. I think there may have been more clubs at one time, about 60 years ago. I don't think anything should be taken for granted that the way things are is the way they'll always be, much less get better.

[John P]

In general, nudist resorts have closed because of loss of customers, or because the owners died and their heirs didn't want to continue the business. It's often a factor that the real estate has increased in value, while profits remain low! Also I've heard of some resorts closing because the owners were facing very expensive requirements for improved sanitation systems, and again, the profits they were making couldn't pay the cost. I can't recall any resorts closing because of any legal attacks related to nudity.

Public locations like beaches are another issue. There what typically happens is that the place gets known as a hangout for gay men looking for sexual encounters (cruising, as they call it) and rather than deal with that specifically, the authorities limit access or ban nudity. Unfortunately naturists go into a state of politically correct helplessness when this situation develops, and they won't acknowledge the issue. That means that there can't be any request for police action to protect the place, or any link with gay organizations to try and reduce the problem. We've lost numerous beaches where this has happened.

Ironically, events like Bare to Breakers and the bike rides continue, but when it comes to locations for everyday nude activity, we are indeed losing ground. It's hard to see how this is going to get reversed.