How do we talk to those who enjoy social nudity but don't consider themselves as Naturists?

[Reg Barlow]

Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."

I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?

Reg

[Pete Knight]

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?
Reg

The problem is some people don't like being labelled, and naturism/
nudism has in the past been the butt of ridicule and not something any
'cool' person would want to be associated with. The negative aspects
have been dealt with and we now see serious reporting of naturist
events (Apart from that arse of a Sun reporter at the Eden Project.),
that needs to continue, but we now need to give naturism a cool image,
so out goes the tea lady and her stereotypical plump, rosy cheeked
saucy seaside post card image.
Leah, the young lady who did so well on the TV chat show is just the
sort of front person we need, once naturism is seen to be cool it will
attract all those who go abroad to get an all over tan but still
refuse to be labelled a naturist.

IMHO

Pete Knight

[p***@googlemail.com]

Post by Pete Knight

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?
Reg

The problem is some people don't like being labelled, and naturism/
nudism has in the past been the butt of ridicule and not something any
'cool' person would want to be associated with. The negative aspects
have been dealt with and we now see serious reporting of naturist
events (Apart from that arse of a Sun reporter at the Eden Project.),
that needs to continue, but we now need to give naturism a cool image,
so out goes the tea lady and her stereotypical plump, rosy cheeked
saucy seaside post card image.
Leah, the young lady who did so well on the TV chat show is just the
sort of front person we need, once naturism is seen to be cool it will
attract all those who go abroad to get an all over tan but still
refuse to be labelled a naturist.
IMHO
Pete Knight- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think another 'problem' is that a lot of younger people like to do
their own thing, but still stay within their own group of friends.
Many of the younger people I know will have beach parties where some
people will get naked & some people will remain fully clothed (in fact
that's what the shoot was like yesterday, with several other people
coming along & being comfortable with their friends naked but not
wanting to strip off themselves). I'm sure there's many groups of
people like this, but I don't think they'd ever be interested in
'naturist' events / clubs / etc. This is why I'm always keen to push
the 'clothes free' message, so that people feel can free to choose
without any pressure. Calling beaches 'naturist' can in some ways
give the wrong impression.

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by Pete Knight

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?
Reg

The problem is some people don't like being labelled, and naturism/
nudism has in the past been the butt of ridicule and not something any
'cool' person would want to be associated with. The negative aspects
have been dealt with and we now see serious reporting of naturist
events (Apart from that arse of a Sun reporter at the Eden Project.),
that needs to continue, but we now need to give naturism a cool image,
so out goes the tea lady and her stereotypical plump, rosy cheeked
saucy seaside post card image.
Leah, the young lady who did so well on the TV chat show is just the
sort of front person we need, once naturism is seen to be cool it will
attract all those who go abroad to get an all over tan but still
refuse to be labelled a naturist.
IMHO
Pete Knight- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think another 'problem' is that a lot of younger people like to do
their own thing, but still stay within their own group of friends.
Many of the younger people I know will have beach parties where some
people will get naked & some people will remain fully clothed (in fact
that's what the shoot was like yesterday, with several other people
coming along & being comfortable with their friends naked but not
wanting to strip off themselves). I'm sure there's many groups of
people like this, but I don't think they'd ever be interested in
'naturist' events / clubs / etc. This is why I'm always keen to push
the 'clothes free' message, so that people feel can free to choose
without any pressure. Calling beaches 'naturist' can in some ways
give the wrong impression.

This is precisely why I think BN should be concentrating its efforts on
campaigning to make nudity widely acceptable, so people can 'do their own
thing' wherever they like, rather than having to herded together in to
groupings which might not suit them.
The other problem with labelling of people is that it also assumes that
those labelled share a whole,bundle of ideas or values, which they may well
not. Just because we have one thing in common with other people (e.g.
preference for nudity) does not automatically mean we have anything else in
common, and the false bonhomie which is sometimes promoted at 'nude events'
I think can be a bit shallow.

[p***@googlemail.com]

On 14 Jul, 06:42, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan
<
The other problem with labelling of people is that it also assumes that
those labelled share a whole,bundle of ideas or values, which they may well
not. Just because we have one thing in common with other people (e.g.
preference for nudity) does not automatically mean we have anything else in
common, and the false bonhomie which is sometimes promoted at 'nude events'
I think can be a bit shallow.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Excellent point. I belonged to a naturist club in the mid 90s
(apparantly I was very lucky as a single male to get in), & although
they were friendly & welcoming I only went along a few times as I had
almost nothing in common with them besides liking social nudity.
These days I tend to hang out with my friends instead, & (weather &
locations permitting) a few of us may or may not strip off.

[Pete Knight]

On Jul 14, 6:42 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by Pete Knight

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?
Reg

The problem is some people don't like being labelled, and naturism/
nudism has in the past been the butt of ridicule and not something any
'cool' person would want to be associated with. The negative aspects
have been dealt with and we now see serious reporting of naturist
events (Apart from that arse of a Sun reporter at the Eden Project.),
that needs to continue, but we now need to give naturism a cool image,
so out goes the tea lady and her stereotypical plump, rosy cheeked
saucy seaside post card image.
Leah, the young lady who did so well on the TV chat show is just the
sort of front person we need, once naturism is seen to be cool it will
attract all those who go abroad to get an all over tan but still
refuse to be labelled a naturist.
IMHO
Pete Knight- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think another 'problem' is that a lot of younger people like to do
their own thing, but still stay within their own group of friends.
Many of the younger people I know will have beach parties where some
people will get naked & some people will remain fully clothed (in fact
that's what the shoot was like yesterday, with several other people
coming along & being comfortable with their friends naked but not
wanting to strip off themselves). I'm sure there's many groups of
people like this, but I don't think they'd ever be interested in
'naturist' events / clubs / etc. This is why I'm always keen to push
the 'clothes free' message, so that people feel can free to choose
without any pressure. Calling beaches 'naturist' can in some ways
give the wrong impression.

This is precisely why I think BN should be concentrating its efforts on
campaigning to make nudity widely acceptable, so people can 'do their own
thing' wherever they like, rather than having to herded together in to
groupings which might not suit them.
The other problem with labelling of people is that it also assumes that
those labelled share a whole,bundle of ideas or values, which they may well
not. Just because we have one thing in common with other people (e.g.
preference for nudity) does not automatically mean we have anything else in
common, and the false bonhomie which is sometimes promoted at 'nude events'
I think can be a bit shallow.

Its no different to the local tennis, cricket, golf, sailing club
having social evenings, the only thing that brings most of these
people together is their common interest, they may not see eye to eye
on a myriad of other issues, but they do share one interest and they
are prepared to get together on that one issue, so why exclude
naturist social get together's?

Pete Knight

[Duncan Heenan]

snip <.>> The other problem with labelling of people is that it also
assumes that

Post by Duncan Heenan
those labelled share a whole,bundle of ideas or values, which they may well
not. Just because we have one thing in common with other people (e.g.
preference for nudity) does not automatically mean we have anything else in
common, and the false bonhomie which is sometimes promoted at 'nude events'
I think can be a bit shallow.

Its no different to the local tennis, cricket, golf, sailing club
having social evenings, the only thing that brings most of these
people together is their common interest, they may not see eye to eye
on a myriad of other issues, but they do share one interest and they
are prepared to get together on that one issue, so why exclude
naturist social get together's?
Pete Knight

I am not excluding anything, merely challenging the assumption that because
you have one thing in common, you have a lot in common. If you do, great.
Social gatherings of cricket, golf etc clubs are a bit different though, in
that they have an activity in common. I don't see nudity as an activity in
itself. For example, once you have said to all those around you 'I like
being naked', what else is there to discuss at the social gathering (except
why does the world hate us..etc?).
It seems a bit like having a social evening for people who like parting
their hair on the left, or wearing jeans - hardly justification for a get
together unless you actually have something to talk about. Which is why so
many naturist club conversations are about the club grounds, maintenance,
tea making etc., perhaps?

[Simon]

Post by Reg Barlow
We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB.

SNIP
Man is a tribal animal.
There are many tribes and just a few of mine include:
British
Born in the mid-50s to be a baby-boomer
Caucasian
Speaks English
Naturist
Humanist
Interested in travel
not interested in sport

and so it goes on. Human beings band together to enjoy those things that
they share with other humans. In previous decades and centuries, the
overlap with your next door neighbour was near total, now it may be near
zero (as is the case of with the people who live either side of me!)

Simon.

[David Looser]

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either.

It makes any sort of discussion on "naturist" subjects very difficult if we
don't have a word!.

So why should anyone who enjoys nude recreation be "repelled" by being
thought of as a "naturist" or "nudist"? Are there people who don't eat meat
but are "repelled" by the idea of calling themselves a vegetarian?, if there
are I've never heard of one.

Clearly the word "naturist" carries a lot of negative connotations in the
minds of some people who are, otherwise, one of us. I would love to hear one
of these people spell out exactly what it is about the word "naturist" that
so appals them.

David.

[p***@googlemail.com]

Post by David Looser

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either.

It makes any sort of discussion on "naturist" subjects very difficult if we
don't have a word!.
So why should anyone who enjoys nude recreation be "repelled" by being
thought of as a "naturist" or "nudist"? Are there people who don't eat meat
but are "repelled" by the idea of calling themselves a vegetarian?, if there
are I've never heard of one.
Clearly the word "naturist" carries a lot of negative connotations in the
minds of some people who are, otherwise, one of us. I would love to hear one
of these people spell out exactly what it is about the word "naturist" that
so appals them.
David.

I can't answer that, but amusingly one of the girls in the protest
said "The naturists never bother us so why should they be banned?",
despite the fact that she strips off herself occasionally. So clearly
she doesn't call herself a naturist.

[Reg Barlow]

Post by p***@googlemail.com
I can't answer that, but amusingly one of the girls in the protest
said "The naturists never bother us so why should they be banned?",
despite the fact that she strips off herself occasionally. So clearly
she doesn't call herself a naturist.

So if I may summarize what we have so far: although humans are
naturally tribal, the tribe we join requires a high degree of
commonality for the way we think as individuals for it to be thought
of as inclusive and the only thing many people who enjoy a nude or
naked lifestyle have in common, is their nudity. Therefore, if that's
the case, does it really matter if we call ourselves naturist or
nudist or nothing of the kind? To answer my own question, and to agree
with David Looser, we do need some kind of shorthand to know
immediately what or whom we are talking about. Personally I quite like
the phrase Clothes Optional Lifestyle, after all apart from a few
everyone remains clothed in winter, but it isn't as catchy as naturist
or nudist.

What is it then that stops people like Peter's friend, who is happy to
occasionally strip off when she is among friends, calling herself a
naturist? My elderly Concise OED offers three definitions for
naturism: 1 nudism. 2 in regard to religion. 3 the worship of natural
objects. For nudist is just says "a person who advocates or practices
going unclothed". Could it be that these definitions - apart from
suggesting that I need a new dictionary - are out of date for the 21st
Century and needs revising? Should BN, apart from campaigning for more
clothes optional facilities, campaign to replace the out of date
definition for naturism in people's heads with a new less restrictive
one, making it synonymous with a clothes optional lifestyle? And
perhaps the hardest question of all, do we have the right to do we do
that?

Reg

[p***@googlemail.com]

One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.
I remember being on an official naturist beach about a decade ago, &
one guy who'd been sitting around chatting naked to a few of us (& who
was often there) suddenly said "My neighbours are coming along!", &
very quickly got dressed & fled! Now, I can understand how it may be
awkward for some people if their bosses find out (though it's not the
big controversy that so many seem to think it is), but why do so many
naturists find it hard to tell their families / neighbours / friends
down the pub / etc what they get up to? So, just maybe the 'non-
naturists' who occasionally strip off see 'naturism' as some sort of
secret society like the freemasons? (I remember when I was a member of
a club being very strictly told that I should never ever tell anyone
on the 'outside' the names of people who are members of the club!). I
know my 'non-naturist' friends see the fact that they strip off
occasionally to be no big deal at all, & certainly nothing they can't
mention to everyone else.

[David Looser]

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.

Since I have never been a member of a club, and do not keep the whole thing
secret, presumably I'm not a "true" naturist?

If that really is the reason that many casual "strippers off" object to the
label "naturist" I would suggest that they are seriously out of date with
what they think a "naturist" is. ?

David.

[p***@googlemail.com]

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.

Since I have never been a member of a club, and do not keep the whole thing
secret, presumably I'm not a "true" naturist?
If that really is the reason that many casual "strippers off" object to the
label "naturist" I would suggest that they are seriously out of date with
what they think a "naturist" is. ?
David.

Another possible reason why these younger people don't identify with
them is that (at Botany Bay at least) almost all of the 'naturists'
are (a) male, & (b) at or near pensionable age. Maybe if they saw
more females / families / younger people then they'd feel
differently.

[Pete Knight]

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.

Since I have never been a member of a club, and do not keep the whole thing
secret, presumably I'm not a "true" naturist?
If that really is the reason that many casual "strippers off" object to the
label "naturist" I would suggest that they are seriously out of date with
what they think a "naturist" is. ?
David.

I believe the problem is media portrayal of 'nudists' as something to
be laughed at, the butt of jokes, and who wants to be the butt of
jokes? Having a president that exactly fits the image of the saucy
seaside post cards doesn't help BN's image either.

Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice, and many actually call themselves
vegetarians, even though they eat fish, and I do know several people
who avoid meat but don't call themselves vegetarians, some of them get
quite uptight if they are labelled, they don't want to be associated
with the dungaree wearing, carrot crunching media image that
vegetarians have, but which they are gradually losing as it becomes
more accepted and widespread.

Being more accepted and widespread is what naturism needs, as Duncan
has pontificated on numerous occasions, and he is quite right (IMHO),
so the current BN line that naturism is only for clubs and 'official'
beaches is counter productive, but we still need to accept, rather
than decry, those who are either happy with club life, or have fears
(Irrational or otherwise.) of being outed.

On the subject of social gatherings, we do not get together to discuss
club issues, I was at Abbey House Gardens yesterday (14th July) and
had a long conversation with Solarsid, not once did we talk about the
best type of fence to hide behind, we talked about Sid's recent nude
walk on Exmoor, his wife's reluctance to embrace naturism, his reason
for leaving BN, and all manner of naturist related issues, I met old
friends and we talked about all manner of things, some of the had
nothing to do with naturism (Just like real people do in real life.),
and I was pleased and surprised to meet a friend I hadn't seen since a
trip to New Zealand with in January.

I think Duncan would agree that BN needs to get away from the closed
shop mentality, but we still need to foster a community, and encourage
events like Alton towers, that event went down a storm with the YBN
crowd, some of the staff were interested in the lifestyle too thanks
to the YBN crowd. An excellent photo that is widely available, is of
Leah (Naked.) talking to a lifeguard (Clothed.) at Alton Towers in a
scene that looked quite normal, neither of them appeared embarrassed,
it was just a normal scene, the attire was irrelevant, that's an image
that sticks in my mind.

Nudity is normal, prudery is an aberration.

Pete Knight

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.
I remember being on an official naturist beach about a decade ago, &
one guy who'd been sitting around chatting naked to a few of us (& who
was often there) suddenly said "My neighbours are coming along!", &
very quickly got dressed & fled!
Snip <

Clearly the man in question was not thinking. If his neighbours were also on
a naturist beach, then they had that much in common, and are hardly likely
to condemn him. Maybe there was some other reason he didn't want to meet
them?

[p***@googlemail.com]

On 15 Jul, 07:17, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.
I remember being on an official naturist beach about a decade ago, &
one guy who'd been sitting around chatting naked to a few of us (& who
was often there) suddenly said "My neighbours are coming along!", &
very quickly got dressed & fled!
Snip <

Clearly the man in question was not thinking. If his neighbours were also on
a naturist beach, then they had that much in common, and are hardly likely
to condemn him. Maybe there was some other reason he didn't want to meet
them?

His neighbours were just walking along the beach with their dogs, &
were not stripped off. It's not only naturists who go on naturist
beaches...

[Duncan Heenan]

On Jul 15, 7:17 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.
I remember being on an official naturist beach about a decade ago, &
one guy who'd been sitting around chatting naked to a few of us (& who
was often there) suddenly said "My neighbours are coming along!", &
very quickly got dressed & fled!
Snip <

Clearly the man in question was not thinking. If his neighbours were also on
a naturist beach, then they had that much in common, and are hardly likely
to condemn him. Maybe there was some other reason he didn't want to meet
them?

Any idea what he was actually frightened of?

[p***@googlemail.com]

Post by Duncan Heenan
On Jul 15, 7:17 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.
I remember being on an official naturist beach about a decade ago, &
one guy who'd been sitting around chatting naked to a few of us (& who
was often there) suddenly said "My neighbours are coming along!", &
very quickly got dressed & fled!
Snip <

Clearly the man in question was not thinking. If his neighbours were also on
a naturist beach, then they had that much in common, and are hardly likely
to condemn him. Maybe there was some other reason he didn't want to meet
them?

Any idea what he was actually frightened of?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Being caught naked by his neighbours I guess.

How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist? This is
one of the big reasons why so little gets done. No-one would be
frightened to (say) sign a petition against a tower block being built,
but you trying going round a naturist beach & getting people to sign a
petition to save the beach....

[marc]

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by Duncan Heenan
On Jul 15, 7:17 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.
I remember being on an official naturist beach about a decade ago, &
one guy who'd been sitting around chatting naked to a few of us (& who
was often there) suddenly said "My neighbours are coming along!", &
very quickly got dressed & fled!
Snip <

Clearly the man in question was not thinking. If his neighbours were also on
a naturist beach, then they had that much in common, and are hardly likely
to condemn him. Maybe there was some other reason he didn't want to meet
them?

Any idea what he was actually frightened of?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Being caught naked by his neighbours I guess.
How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist? This is
one of the big reasons why so little gets done.

Me?

[p***@googlemail.com]

Me?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Me too, & I gladly have my name & photo in the local press.

[David Looser]

Post by p***@googlemail.com
How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist? This is
one of the big reasons why so little gets done.

Me?

And Me.

I'll admit, though, that it was a bit of a shock when I first started
life-modelling to find friends and neighbours turning up to immortalise my
naked body in paint!.

IMO it's a pity if naturists won't stand up for themselves simply because
they're afraid of being the butt of the joke. Not that I've ever had any
problems that way.

David.

[p***@googlemail.com]

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com
How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist? This is
one of the big reasons why so little gets done.

Me?

And Me.
I'll admit, though, that it was a bit of a shock when I first started
life-modelling to find friends and neighbours turning up to immortalise my
naked body in paint!.

Me too! I've been doing life modelling on & off since 1990, & that's
the only time it feels a bit strange (for about 5 minutes anyway!).

Post by David Looser
IMO it's a pity if naturists won't stand up for themselves simply because
they're afraid of being the butt of the joke. Not that I've ever had any
problems that way.

I'm sure I've been the butt of jokes many times, but not just because
of my naturism lol! I guess I'm quite thick-skinned...

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by Duncan Heenan
On Jul 15, 7:17 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.
I remember being on an official naturist beach about a decade ago, &
one guy who'd been sitting around chatting naked to a few of us (& who
was often there) suddenly said "My neighbours are coming along!", &
very quickly got dressed & fled!
Snip <

Clearly the man in question was not thinking. If his neighbours were also on
a naturist beach, then they had that much in common, and are hardly likely
to condemn him. Maybe there was some other reason he didn't want to meet
them?

Any idea what he was actually frightened of?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Being caught naked by his neighbours I guess.
How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist? This is
one of the big reasons why so little gets done.

Me?

Me too.
Some years ago, when we as a family were at one of our regular naturist
swims in Tewkesbury where we lived at the time, 'textile' friends of ours
walked in, obviously very nervous. Seeing us stripping off in the changing
room, they came over and seemed mightily relieved to see people there whom
they considered 'normal folk' (I don't know what they were expecting). They
commented that they hadn't known we were naturists, and it was their first
time trying it in the UK, though they had tried a beach in France. The
answer was that we knew eachother mostly through the local Parent Teacher
Association, and the subject had simply never come up in conversation. They
became 'regular naturists' and as time went by the subject occasionally came
up in the informal chat at PTA events, with other people overhearing and
joining in. No one turned a hair. And so far as I am aware there were never
any consequences for any of us, except that eventually another couple tried
it too, and liked it enough to join a club too.

[f***@blueyonder.co.uk]

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by Duncan Heenan
On Jul 15, 7:17 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by p***@googlemail.com
One major difference between people who call themselves naturists &
those who just casually strip off (& this doesn't apply to everyone of
course) is that 'true' naturists (who visit clubs etc) seem to want to
keep the whole thing a big secret &/or not allow just anyone to join.
I remember being on an official naturist beach about a decade ago, &
one guy who'd been sitting around chatting naked to a few of us (& who
was often there) suddenly said "My neighbours are coming along!", &
very quickly got dressed & fled!
Snip <

Clearly the man in question was not thinking. If his neighbours were also on
a naturist beach, then they had that much in common, and are hardly likely
to condemn him. Maybe there was some other reason he didn't want to meet
them?

Any idea what he was actually frightened of?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Being caught naked by his neighbours I guess.
How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist? This is
one of the big reasons why so little gets done.

Me?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Many of us are coy about our naturism with friends and family who are
not that way inclined. I would say that anyone (club member or not)
who enjoys sunbathing, swimming or any other outdoor activity where
they can without clothes on is a naturist. I would say that an open
naturist is one who is relaxed about being naked in an appropriate
place even when some or all of the others around them choose to be
clothed.

[Michael H]

Post by p***@googlemail.com
How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist?

I can - but then I've been in the paper quite a few times as part of
the Eastney campaign.

[Hagar]

Post by p***@googlemail.com
How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist?

Well we certainly don't, but its down to the individual if they want to tell
the world or not
Its up to the hard line strippers to say to the world yes I go nude, that is
their prerogative, its as simple as that.
Those who do not wish to go public, well its their choice not to do so,.

The fact that labels are now getting applied is totally ridiculous, a person
strips if they wish to do so and that is it.

If some on here want to broadcast the fact to boost their ego, get on with
it, but don't please expect or condemn those who wish to remain anonymous to
it,

As the Great mouth Duncan Heenan said, those that are closet naturists do
so just to reveal their private parts in secret, how wrong this man is and
also how insulting to those that do not comply with his thoughts and wishes
of public nudity.

If this man thinks this way then it is he who has the warped mind and not
others as he implies.

It does not matter if you wish to strip off in private, or in a club, or
beach, you are still enjoying the feeling of clothes free, just enjoy it and
let total idiots like Duncan Heenan, David Looser and Co get on with their
wish to expose in public; and their ill-conceived views that to be a
naturist you must stand and be seen and tell the world. To all newbie's
these characters are the minority so take no notice of their extreme views

These people are not normal naturists, they are extremists and do not speak
for the vast majority of normal minded human beings

Duncan Heenan is on a constant power freak mode where he thinks everybody
should see his and his only point of view; David Looser is just a big headed
prat who does not consider anybody other than himself and like Duncan Heenan
thinks that his view is the only one that counts, these people are not
common to the average sun lover, they are exhibitionists and nothing else,
they do not give a dam about other peoples feelings (and examples can be
given from their ill advised previous posts)
So to all those who are new to naturism avoid these like the plague, if you
want good advice contact Andrew Welch at British Naturism, you will get
great advise, impartial advice, and genuine advice

[marc]

Post by Hagar
Duncan Heenan is on a constant power freak mode where he thinks everybody
should see his and his only point of view; David Looser is just a big headed
prat who does not consider anybody other than himself and like Duncan Heenan
thinks that his view is the only one that counts, these people are not
common to the average sun lover, they are exhibitionists and nothing else,
they do not give a dam about other peoples feelings (and examples can be
given from their ill advised previous posts)
So to all those who are new to naturism avoid these like the plague, if you
want good advice contact Andrew Welch at British Naturism, you will get
great advise, impartial advice, and genuine advice

Evening Bertie!

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by marc

Post by Hagar
Duncan Heenan is on a constant power freak mode where he thinks everybody
should see his and his only point of view; David Looser is just a big
headed prat who does not consider anybody other than himself and like
Duncan Heenan thinks that his view is the only one that counts, these
people are not common to the average sun lover, they are exhibitionists
and nothing else, they do not give a dam about other peoples feelings
(and examples can be given from their ill advised previous posts)
So to all those who are new to naturism avoid these like the plague, if
you want good advice contact Andrew Welch at British Naturism, you will
get great advise, impartial advice, and genuine advice

Evening Bertie!

It's always amusing, if a little sad to see one's predictions come true.
He just couldn't stay away could he?

[David Looser]

Post by Hagar
they do not give a dam about other peoples feelings (and examples can be
given from their ill advised previous posts)

Ok then, let's see these examples.

David.

[Pete Knight]

Post by Hagar

Post by p***@googlemail.com
How many people on here can honestly say that they tell all their
families, work colleagues & friends that they're a naturist?

Well we certainly don't, but its down to the individual if they want to tell
the world or not
Its up to the hard line strippers to say to the world yes I go nude, that is
their prerogative, its as simple as that.
Those who do not wish to go public, well its their choice not to do so,.
The fact that labels are now getting applied is totally ridiculous, a person
strips if they wish to do so and that is it.
If some on here want to broadcast the fact to boost their ego, get on with
it, but don't please expect or condemn those who wish to remain anonymous to
it,
As the Great mouth Duncan Heenan said, those that are closet naturists do
so just to reveal their private parts in secret, how wrong this man is and
also how insulting to those that do not comply with his thoughts and wishes
of public nudity.
If this man thinks this way then it is he who has the warped mind and not
others as he implies.
It does not matter if you wish to strip off in private, or in a club, or
beach, you are still enjoying the feeling of clothes free, just enjoy it and
let total idiots like Duncan Heenan, David Looser and Co get on with their
wish to expose in public; and their ill-conceived views that to be a
naturist you must stand and be seen and tell the world. To all newbie's
these characters are the minority so take no notice of their extreme views
These people are not normal naturists, they are extremists and do not speak
for the vast majority of normal minded human beings
Duncan Heenan is on a constant power freak mode where he thinks everybody
should see his and his only point of view; David Looser is just a big headed
prat who does not consider anybody other than himself and like Duncan Heenan
thinks that his view is the only one that counts, these people are not
common to the average sun lover, they are exhibitionists and nothing else,
they do not give a dam about other peoples feelings (and examples can be
given from their ill advised previous posts)
So to all those who are new to naturism avoid these like the plague, if you
want good advice contact Andrew Welch at British Naturism, you will get
great advise, impartial advice, and genuine advice

Isn't it a bit late for the anti-campaign?

Pete Knight

[marc]

Post by Pete Knight

Post by Hagar
So to all those who are new to naturism avoid these like the plague, if you
want good advice contact Andrew Welch at British Naturism, you will get
great advise, impartial advice, and genuine advice

Isn't it a bit late for the anti-campaign?

Since when was the BN EC up to date?

[p***@googlemail.com]

There's some interesting (& also some stupid) points being raised
here, but few seem to be trying to answer Reg's question:

"How do we talk to those who enjoy social nudity but don't consider
themselves as Naturists?"

Any ideas anyone?

[Duncan Heenan]

snip Berties usual ravings, such as<
As the Great mouth Duncan Heenan said <
let total idiots like Duncan Heenan, David Looser and Co <

Add "Hagar" to the 'Legion List' which I currently have as:
Sheila & Les
Bertrum Flack
Jimmy & Joy Newhaven
Lisa & David
John Franks
Russ765
Pongo the Great
Sandlgra
True Naturist

ps
(Don't forget Bertie's supporters club, which includes 'Paul' and 'Stephen',
which amounts to1 in all).

[Mike H]

In message <***@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Reg
Barlow <***@dsl.pipex.com> writes

[snip]

Post by Reg Barlow
My elderly Concise OED offers three definitions for
naturism: 1 nudism. 2 in regard to religion. 3 the worship of natural
objects. For nudist is just says "a person who advocates or practices
going unclothed". Could it be that these definitions - apart from
suggesting that I need a new dictionary - are out of date for the 21st
Century and needs revising?

No, I don't think so. By application of Occam's Razor (entities should
not be multiplied beyond necessity - see note 1, below) the single
common denominator would seem to be "... advocates or practices going
unclothed". Anything beyond that would seem to be unnecessary
elaboration and complication.

Note 1: One of the early pioneers of aircraft design coined the
aphorism, "When in doubt, simplicate and thus add lightness".

[marc]

Post by Mike H
[snip]

Post by Reg Barlow
My elderly Concise OED offers three definitions for
naturism: 1 nudism. 2 in regard to religion. 3 the worship of natural
objects. For nudist is just says "a person who advocates or practices
going unclothed". Could it be that these definitions - apart from
suggesting that I need a new dictionary - are out of date for the 21st
Century and needs revising?

No, I don't think so. By application of Occam's Razor (entities should
not be multiplied beyond necessity - see note 1, below) the single
common denominator would seem to be "... advocates or practices going
unclothed". Anything beyond that would seem to be unnecessary
elaboration and complication.
Note 1: One of the early pioneers of aircraft design coined the
aphorism, "When in doubt, simplicate and thus add lightness".

I thought that was Colin Chapman?

[Mike H]

In message <***@bt.com>, marc
<***@btinternet.com> writes

[snip]

Post by marc

Post by Mike H
Note 1: One of the early pioneers of aircraft design coined the
aphorism, "When in doubt, simplicate and thus add lightness".

I thought that was Colin Chapman?

Could be, I believe he was a strong advocate of minimising weight
(especially un-sprung weight - or should that be un-sprung mass).

[marc]

Post by Mike H
[snip]

Post by marc

Post by Mike H
Note 1: One of the early pioneers of aircraft design coined the
aphorism, "When in doubt, simplicate and thus add lightness".

I thought that was Colin Chapman?

Could be, I believe he was a strong advocate of minimising weight
(especially un-sprung weight - or should that be un-sprung mass).

As he eas never involved in aerospace I think we can get away with
equating mass and weight.
He was a very strong advocate of lightness, so much so that some
drivers woudn't drive a Lotus because of safety concerns, and this in an
era when 2-3 grand prix drivers died a year

[Simon]

Post by David Looser
Clearly the word "naturist" carries a lot of negative connotations in the
minds of some people who are, otherwise, one of us. I would love to hear one
of these people spell out exactly what it is about the word "naturist" that
so appals them.

I have always presumed (wild guess) that it is to do with the view
promulgated by the British Press since the war. I say 'since the war' as
I have no means of knowing what it was like before the war and I guess
that most affected by such reporting are no longer so concerned about it
(one way or the other!)

Throughout my childhood of the 1960s and early 70s, it was the 'Carry On
Camping' and 'they are all slightly nutty' view that was presented by
the press. This view was presented so steadily and over several decades
that it became received opinion.

We can all think of other received opinions that are used in sterotypes
and sterotypical reactions. For example, I am atheist and have met
people who were deeply shocked to hear me openly referring to myself as
such. To them, an aetheist was a bad thing and one would never own up to
it. Some will recall that I have drawn this analogy before.

In the same way that people's attitude to me being an aetheist has
become more moderate, so has people's view towards naturism.

It is my view that the reaction David and others observe is a transient
one. I think it belongs to a particular age group who grew up hearing
that naturism was bad/loony and it was only fuddy-duddies at funny clubs
that did it - they found this incompatible with their experience of
naturism and thus reject the lable.

Thus, we might hope, that such a view is transient.
Simon.

[p***@googlemail.com]

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?
Reg

To get this thread back on track, one thing we need to do to "reach"
younger people is to use more modern ways. How about a "MySpace" page
for Botany Bay beach for instance?

I recall a few weeks back speaking to 4 different naturists at Botany
Bay, & when I said that I'm Peter Checksfield the local nude
photographer 3 of them had heard of me. Yet when I mentioned a
campaign to save the very beach they were naked on, NONE of them knew
about this! So it's no good just campaigning via naturist
organisations / message boards / etc, because the vast majority of
beach users (young & old) don't read these things.

[David Looser]

Post by p***@googlemail.com
So it's no good just campaigning via naturist
organisations / message boards / etc, because the vast majority of
beach users (young & old) don't read these things.

I agree entirely. Most naturists aren't members of any sort of club or
organisation but just like to skinny-dip or do the odd bit of nude
sunbathing when they get the chance. There are actually a lot more of us out
there than are represented by BN or the sun clubs. To get more clout we need
somehow or other to get those people on board. Unfortunately with the kind
of "I'm not a naturist because I'm not a fanatic and I don't go to a club"
attitude out there that's difficult.

David.

[Craig M]

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?

In answer to the question, I would have thought that those who take
part in naked recreational activity but reject the label naturist (or
at least do not see any reason for applying it to themselves) won't
want to be 'spoken to' by those who do so describe themselves. That
is, if they don't see themselves as naturists, then I suspect they
will have no interest in BN and all the other baggage that comes with
naturism. I speak as someone firmly in the non-naturist category and
am encouraged by the realisation that there are a significant number
of people with similar views.

This of course creates an issue of how BN should engage with such
people, possibly by rebranding themselves as something else. But the
problem here is that the n-word is effectively BN's only real asset.
And the more that people choose nude recreation without the need to
adopt the label, the less valuable that asset becomes and therefore
undermines the entire raison d'etre of BN.

[Pete Knight]

Post by Craig M

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?

In answer to the question, I would have thought that those who take
part in naked recreational activity but reject the label naturist (or
at least do not see any reason for applying it to themselves) won't
want to be 'spoken to' by those who do so describe themselves. That
is, if they don't see themselves as naturists, then I suspect they
will have no interest in BN and all the other baggage that comes with
naturism. I speak as someone firmly in the non-naturist category and
am encouraged by the realisation that there are a significant number
of people with similar views.
This of course creates an issue of how BN should engage with such
people, possibly by rebranding themselves as something else. But the
problem here is that the n-word is effectively BN's only real asset.
And the more that people choose nude recreation without the need to
adopt the label, the less valuable that asset becomes and therefore
undermines the entire raison d'etre of BN.

The term 'Clothing Optional Lifestyle' is widely favoured in the US,
it would encompass nudists, naturists and clothes free holiday(ists),
but the 'Central Council for Clothing Optional Lifestyle or CCCOL
might be too burdensome.

A name change would also require a whole new cool image not connected
with that old fuddy duddy 'Carry On Camping' era otherwise the same
old baggage would drag any new name down.

Pete Knight

[Craig M]

Post by Pete Knight
The term 'Clothing Optional Lifestyle' is widely favoured in the US,
it would encompass nudists, naturists and clothes free holiday(ists),
but the 'Central Council for Clothing Optional Lifestyle or CCCOL
might be too burdensome.
A name change would also require a whole new cool image not connected
with that old fuddy duddy 'Carry On Camping' era otherwise the same
old baggage would drag any new name down.

Perhaps I didn't make my point as clearly as I might - I was
suggesting that extending the scope of 'clothing option lifestyle' (or
whatever yo call it) beyond naturism would effectively render BN
unnecessary because it would no longer be aimed at a minority group.
In other words, it would be entirely contrary to BN's interest to
abandon the n-word, since that category of activity, however arbitrary
or artificial, provides them with their raison d'etre.

[Pete Knight]

Post by Craig M

Post by Pete Knight
The term 'Clothing Optional Lifestyle' is widely favoured in the US,
it would encompass nudists, naturists and clothes free holiday(ists),
but the 'Central Council for Clothing Optional Lifestyle or CCCOL
might be too burdensome.
A name change would also require a whole new cool image not connected
with that old fuddy duddy 'Carry On Camping' era otherwise the same
old baggage would drag any new name down.

Perhaps I didn't make my point as clearly as I might - I was
suggesting that extending the scope of 'clothing option lifestyle' (or
whatever yo call it) beyond naturism would effectively render BN
unnecessary because it would no longer be aimed at a minority group.
In other words, it would be entirely contrary to BN's interest to
abandon the n-word, since that category of activity, however arbitrary
or artificial, provides them with their raison d'etre.

There is still a place for a national organisation, but if BN fails to
move with the times it deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs, a new
image, a name change, a complete makeover, whatever we have to a
accept that there are a new breed of nakedists out there, and I
include myself in that category. A wider all encompassing organisation
is the only way to survive, accept the new, but still cater for those
that wish to use only first names and hide behind fences.
The new breed of COL's don't think of themselves as naturists, but I'm
sure they still us NUFF and other resources to find a good nude beach,
or book holidays with textile tour operators knowing that a CO beach
is not too far away. In the minds of some people a nudist/naturist is
someone who pitches a tent in a woodland clearing, that they think
isn't for them, its all about image.

Pete Knight

[Craig M]

Post by Pete Knight
There is still a place for a national organisation, but if BN fails to
move with the times it deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs, a new
image, a name change, a complete makeover, whatever we have to a
accept that there are a new breed of nakedists out there, and I
include myself in that category. A wider all encompassing organisation
is the only way to survive, accept the new, but still cater for those
that wish to use only first names and hide behind fences.
The new breed of COL's don't think of themselves as naturists, but I'm
sure they still us NUFF and other resources to find a good nude beach,
or book holidays with textile tour operators knowing that a CO beach
is not too far away. In the minds of some people a nudist/naturist is
someone who pitches a tent in a woodland clearing, that they think
isn't for them, its all about image.
Pete Knight

There's an implicit tension in what you say - that there is a need for
a national organisation, but one which is radically different than BN.
But if such a need exists, then it begs the question of why it hasn't
been filled already.

I agree that BN is a rather ineffectual organisation, but I still
don't think the case has been made for any alternative. To use your
examples, I can look at NUFF, just as I can book a holiday through
Peng or Suzanne Piper, and I'm not a member of any national
organisation - so what value would it add?

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M

Post by Pete Knight
There is still a place for a national organisation, but if BN fails to
move with the times it deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs, a new
image, a name change, a complete makeover, whatever we have to a
accept that there are a new breed of nakedists out there, and I
include myself in that category. A wider all encompassing organisation
is the only way to survive, accept the new, but still cater for those
that wish to use only first names and hide behind fences.
The new breed of COL's don't think of themselves as naturists, but I'm
sure they still us NUFF and other resources to find a good nude beach,
or book holidays with textile tour operators knowing that a CO beach
is not too far away. In the minds of some people a nudist/naturist is
someone who pitches a tent in a woodland clearing, that they think
isn't for them, its all about image.
Pete Knight

There's an implicit tension in what you say - that there is a need for
a national organisation, but one which is radically different than BN.
But if such a need exists, then it begs the question of why it hasn't
been filled already.

Because BN's election results aren't out until October! ( There are those of
us who are trying to achieve this currently - see
http://bnchange.wordpress.com/ )

Post by Craig M
I agree that BN is a rather ineffectual organisation, but I still
don't think the case has been made for any alternative. To use your
examples, I can look at NUFF, just as I can book a holiday through
Peng or Suzanne Piper, and I'm not a member of any national
organisation - so what value would it add?

It would if it worked to achieve the real freedom to be naked when and where
you want to rather than just where Mr Plod allows you to.

[Craig M]

On Jul 16, 1:44 pm, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by Craig M
I agree that BN is a rather ineffectual organisation, but I still
don't think the case has been made for any alternative. To use your
examples, I can look at NUFF, just as I can book a holiday through
Peng or Suzanne Piper, and I'm not a member of any national
organisation - so what value would it add?

It would if it worked to achieve the real freedom to be naked when and where
you want to rather than just where Mr Plod allows you to.

That presupposes that people feel any restrictions from the police (or
from elsewhere) on what they can and can't do - and, speaking
personally, I don't in the least.

It also implies that this BN (or however it chooses to position
itself) needs to have a role in countering police maladministration
and pointing out cases of perceivied injustice - and I have my doubts
whether that would make it a particulalry attractive proposition to
many.

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M
On Jul 16, 1:44 pm, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by Craig M
I agree that BN is a rather ineffectual organisation, but I still
don't think the case has been made for any alternative. To use your
examples, I can look at NUFF, just as I can book a holiday through
Peng or Suzanne Piper, and I'm not a member of any national
organisation - so what value would it add?

It would if it worked to achieve the real freedom to be naked when and where
you want to rather than just where Mr Plod allows you to.

That presupposes that people feel any restrictions from the police (or
from elsewhere) on what they can and can't do - and, speaking
personally, I don't in the least.

That's because you only want the safe option - abroad!

Post by Craig M
It also implies that this BN (or however it chooses to position
itself) needs to have a role in countering police maladministration
and pointing out cases of perceivied injustice - and I have my doubts
whether that would make it a particulalry attractive proposition to
many.

Then again, you could be wrong.
The suffragettes were unattractive to many people, but as soon as they got
the vote, a lot of women used it.

[David Looser]

Post by Craig M
I was
suggesting that extending the scope of 'clothing option lifestyle' (or
whatever yo call it) beyond naturism would effectively render BN
unnecessary because it would no longer be aimed at a minority group.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that it would no longer be a
"minority group". A much larger minority than the almost microscopic
proportion of the population that are members of BN or a sun club certainly,
but still a minority.

OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is clear
that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
"organise" them. ISTM that maybe the best option is to simply let BN
continue to wither away. On present form that won't take long.

David.

[p***@googlemail.com]

Post by David Looser
OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is clear
that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
"organise" them.

They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

[David Looser]

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by David Looser
OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is clear
that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
"organise" them.

They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

Not according to Craig they don't!

David.

[Craig M]

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by David Looser
OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is clear
that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
"organise" them.

They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

Not according to Craig they don't!

I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
I'm not aware of anyone else who does - anyone that is apart from
naturists, but then I'm not in any position to speak on their behalf.

[Craig M]

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by David Looser
OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is clear
that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
"organise" them.

They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

Not according to Craig they don't!

I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.

[David Looser]

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com

Post by David Looser
OTOH I'm not convinced of the practicality of "rebranding" BN. It is clear
that many of these "non-naturists" will strenuously resist any attempt to
"organise" them.

They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

Not according to Craig they don't!

I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.

Are you presuming to speak for "those who take part in naked recreational
activity but reject the label naturist"?

David.

[AndyC]

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com
They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

Not according to Craig they don't!

I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.

There is a difference between appreciation and desire.

[Craig M]

Post by AndyC

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com
They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

Not according to Craig they don't!

I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.

There is a difference between appreciation and desire.

OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.
Apart from (possibly) naturists. But then who cares about naturists?

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M

Post by AndyC

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser

Post by p***@googlemail.com
They might not want to be organised, but they'd still appreciate being
able yo go naked more often in more places.

Not according to Craig they don't!

I certainly have no desire to 'go naked more often in more places' and
am not aware of anyone who does - anyone that is apart from naturists
of course. But I wouldn't presume to speak for naturists.

There is a difference between appreciation and desire.

OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.

I do.

Post by Craig M
Apart from (possibly) naturists. But then who cares about naturists?

I do.

Now what's your case?

[Craig M]

On Jul 17, 11:13 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by Craig M
Apart from (possibly) naturists. But then who cares about naturists?

I do.
Now what's your case

What case? I wasn't aware that I needed one.

[David Looser]

Post by Craig M
OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.

Steve Gough?

David.

[Craig M]

Post by David Looser

Post by Craig M
OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.

Steve Gough?

I suppose the operative wod is 'seriously' - and in any case, I
thought SG's real aim was for incarceration, and that the nakedness
simply provides a route to achieve it. I'm certainly not aware of any
effort or ambition on his part to be allowed to be naked in more
places - I thought the confrontation and the arrests were part of the
plan?

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser

Post by Craig M
OK - I certainly would not appreciate being able to 'go naked more
often in more places' and am not aware of anyone who seriously does.

Steve Gough?

I suppose the operative wod is 'seriously' - and in any case, I
thought SG's real aim was for incarceration, and that the nakedness
simply provides a route to achieve it. I'm certainly not aware of any
effort or ambition on his part to be allowed to be naked in more
places - I thought the confrontation and the arrests were part of the
plan?

You obviously missed his trips through England which involved no prison
sentences, and fairly easy resolution where the infrequent confrontations
occurred. Mostly it is the Scottish police and Courts who are to blame for
Steve's incarceration (though I don't defend his stunt on the aeroplane,
which I think was going too far.)

[Craig M]

On Jul 17, 12:08 pm, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by Craig M
I suppose the operative wod is 'seriously' - and in any case, I
thought SG's real aim was for incarceration, and that the nakedness
simply provides a route to achieve it. I'm certainly not aware of any
effort or ambition on his part to be allowed to be naked in more
places - I thought the confrontation and the arrests were part of the
plan?

You obviously missed his trips through England which involved no prison
sentences, and fairly easy resolution where the infrequent confrontations
occurred. Mostly it is the Scottish police and Courts who are to blame for
Steve's incarceration (though I don't defend his stunt on the aeroplane,
which I think was going too far.

Well, that the fact he failed to get arrested in England doesn't
really alter the case - and I can't why anyone but SG is 'to blame'
for his successive spells in prison. After all, he can hardly claim
that he was unaware of the consequences of what he was doing. I also
understand that he appealed on a number of occasions against these
sentences - and I'm not aware that the courts ever concluded that the
police had acted improperly. Is there something I've missed?

Interesting to hear that you believe his aeroplane stunt was a step
too far - do you also think that the police were 'to blame' for
arresting him in this instance?

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M
On Jul 17, 12:08 pm, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by Craig M
I suppose the operative wod is 'seriously' - and in any case, I
thought SG's real aim was for incarceration, and that the nakedness
simply provides a route to achieve it. I'm certainly not aware of any
effort or ambition on his part to be allowed to be naked in more
places - I thought the confrontation and the arrests were part of the
plan?

You obviously missed his trips through England which involved no prison
sentences, and fairly easy resolution where the infrequent confrontations
occurred. Mostly it is the Scottish police and Courts who are to blame for
Steve's incarceration (though I don't defend his stunt on the aeroplane,
which I think was going too far.

Well, that the fact he failed to get arrested in England doesn't
really alter the case - and I can't why anyone but SG is 'to blame'
for his successive spells in prison. After all, he can hardly claim
that he was unaware of the consequences of what he was doing. I also
understand that he appealed on a number of occasions against these
sentences - and I'm not aware that the courts ever concluded that the
police had acted improperly. Is there something I've missed?

Yes .
You base all your arguments on the premise that the Courts are infallible,
just and right. I believe that this is not always the case. You also seem to
assume that The Law and justice are the same thing, which I believe not to
be the case.

[David Looser]

Post by Duncan Heenan
You base all your arguments on the premise that the Courts are infallible,
just and right. I believe that this is not always the case. You also seem
to assume that The Law and justice are the same thing, which I believe not
to be the case.

The law is like any other human institution, subject to human error and
prejudice. I'm sure the vast majority of those involved in it (in any
capacity) act in absolute good faith, but it is inevitable that their
prejudices will colour they way they understand, and thus act in, any
situation. Also of course, like anyone else they find admitting fault hard
to do and would rather bluster through than admit to error.

Only SG really knows SG's motives for what he has done, but to assume, as
Craig claims to, that SG's "real aim" was to seek incarceration strikes me
as absurd. He may well have been keen to confront the authorities, but in
order to make his point, not AFAICS to "seek incarceration".

Returning to the point about whether ""those who take part in naked
recreational activity but reject the label naturist" would appreciate being
able to "'go naked more often in more places", I find Craig's position
utterly unbelievable. According to him there are a lot of these people "who
take part in naked recreational activity but reject the label naturist" (his
comment that if BN were to represent them as well as naturists it would "no
longer be addressing a minority"). Yet he also implies that none of them
have any interest in having any additional opportunities to indulge in naked
recreational activities. Given the paucity of such opportunities in this
country that seems an extraordinary position to take.

What Craig actually said, of course, was that he was "unaware" of any demand
for additional opportunities. There seems to be an awful lot of things that
Craig is "unaware" of. I guess if you keep your eyes and ears shut you can
remain as "unaware" as you like!

David.

[Craig M]

Post by David Looser
Only SG really knows SG's motives for what he has done, but to assume, as
Craig claims to, that SG's "real aim" was to seek incarceration strikes me
as absurd. He may well have been keen to confront the authorities, but in
order to make his point, not AFAICS to "seek incarceration".

This statement is rather at odds with what you said earlier when you
cited SG as an example of someone who wanted to 'go naked more often
in more places'. If only SG really knows what his actual motives are,
then you are not in a position to make such a statement - and
certainly no less absurd than my own.

Post by David Looser
Returning to the point about whether ""those who take part in naked
recreational activity but reject the label naturist" would appreciate being
able to "'go naked more often in more places", I find Craig's position
utterly unbelievable. According to him there are a lot of these people "who
take part in naked recreational activity but reject the label naturist" (his
comment that if BN were to represent them as well as naturists it would "no
longer be addressing a minority"). Yet he also implies that none of them
have any interest in having any additional opportunities to indulge in naked
recreational activities. Given the paucity of such opportunities in this
country that seems an extraordinary position to take.

Exactly - I didn't imply anything. I merely said that I was unaware of
any significant demand for additional opportunities for naked
recreation. I am aware of significant demand for environmentally-
friendly fuel and for ethical trading goods, because the evidence is
perfectly plain to see - but for more facilities for naked recreation,
absolutely not.

There was I remember a petition to the Prime Minister seeking his
support for more 'Clothing Optional Places' which after 5 months has
managed to attract a grand total of 471 signatures - hardly
overwhelming (compare the 68,521 who signed the petition on
restrictions on photography or the 67,882 signatures in favour of
changes to student loans).

Post by David Looser
What Craig actually said, of course, was that he was "unaware" of any demand
for additional opportunities. There seems to be an awful lot of things that
Craig is "unaware" of. I guess if you keep your eyes and ears shut you can
remain as "unaware" as you like!

I freely admit that I'm unaware that this demand exists - and my
purpose in saying so was to discover whether anyone had information
which indicated there was such a demand.

If you consider that I'm wilfully closing my eyes and ears to this
evidence, then I would appreciate it if you could explain where I can
find it.

[David Looser]

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser
Only SG really knows SG's motives for what he has done, but to assume, as
Craig claims to, that SG's "real aim" was to seek incarceration strikes me
as absurd. He may well have been keen to confront the authorities, but in
order to make his point, not AFAICS to "seek incarceration".

This statement is rather at odds with what you said earlier when you
cited SG as an example of someone who wanted to 'go naked more often
in more places'. If only SG really knows what his actual motives are,
then you are not in a position to make such a statement - and
certainly no less absurd than my own.

I didn't make a statement, I asked a question (it's what that "?" thing at
the end means).

Post by Craig M
Exactly - I didn't imply anything. I merely said that I was unaware of
any significant demand for additional opportunities for naked
recreation. I am aware of significant demand for environmentally-
friendly fuel and for ethical trading goods, because the evidence is
perfectly plain to see - but for more facilities for naked recreation,
absolutely not.

I agree that the evidence is not "plain to see". Just as the evidence for
any significant interest in naked recreation is not plain to see; yet you
seem perfectly prepared to believe in the existence of that. Maybe the lack
of apparent demand for more facilities is because there simply aren't many
people, other than those who adopt the label "naturist", who indulge in nude
recreation. Maybe there are plenty of such people but because they never
talk about their interest to anyone else they all think they are the only
ones. Maybe they just don't think there is any chance whatsoever of getting
anything so there's no point in wasting time and effort demanding it.

Post by Craig M
There was I remember a petition to the Prime Minister seeking his
support for more 'Clothing Optional Places' which after 5 months has
managed to attract a grand total of 471 signatures - hardly
overwhelming (compare the 68,521 who signed the petition on
restrictions on photography or the 67,882 signatures in favour of
changes to student loans).

Who has heard of it? I wouldn't have done so if I didn't read this NG.

It comes back to the origins of this thread. How do we engage with those who
enjoy naked recreation yet are not part of any club, organisation or social
network?

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser
What Craig actually said, of course, was that he was "unaware" of any demand
for additional opportunities. There seems to be an awful lot of things that
Craig is "unaware" of. I guess if you keep your eyes and ears shut you can
remain as "unaware" as you like!

I freely admit that I'm unaware that this demand exists - and my
purpose in saying so was to discover whether anyone had information
which indicated there was such a demand.

Making a dogmatic statement seems a curious way of trying to discover
anything. If you really *did* want to discover whether anyone had any
information why didn't you simply ask? It would have seemed a lot easier.

Post by Craig M
If you consider that I'm wilfully closing my eyes and ears to this
evidence, then I would appreciate it if you could explain where I can
find it.

Try asking people. Of the people I know the majority have no interest in
naked recreation. Of those who do 100% would appreciate more opportunities
in terms of places or times.

David.

[Reg Barlow]

On Jul 19, 4:45 pm, "David Looser" <***@btinternet.com>
wrote:

There is no suitable place for me to do this so I hope you don't mind
David if I don't actually quote you directly. This has been a really
enjoyable stream to read with lots of interesting points being made
despite the odd digression (nature of the beast I suppose) and
intrusion (thank you Bertie), and thanks to Peter Checksfield for
trying to keep you all in order! Of course BN's role within a
community of people labeled as naturists or CO lifestylers or whatever
you want to be called, if anything is important but as was seen that
easily leads us astray onto an entirely different question. But I
still think we are skirting around the problem so let me rephrase the
question: How do we find common ground with everyone enjoying a
clothes-optional lifestyle?

If I'm boring you then I apologise, but I've been away for a week and
I just need to refocus. To sum up what has been said so far: those who
enjoy COL may not want to be spoken to because they don't or won't see
themselves as naturists and besides which, the methods used are not
necessarily applicable to most of them anyway, as they are not keyed
into anything to do with naturism/COL such as URN, NUFF etc. They know
a beach where they feel safe, or walk the footpaths in remote (or
perhaps not so remote) countryside in the knowledge that few people
use it, or have a secluded garden and that is where they enjoy being
naked, socially or not.

If you remember, BN did a survey in 2000, which in my mind wasn't
really exploited to its fullest extent, that suggested that there are
roughly 1 million people in this country who enjoy a CO lifestyle, or
something close to it. It would have been useful if they did the
survey again in 2005 to see if there was any difference, but maybe
they are considering doing it for 2010? If they don't then obviously
IMO they've wasted the members' money. Anyway, to get back to my
reason for mentioning the survey. One million people is a significant
section of the population, but still a minority and surely if interest
groups like RSPB, CAMRA, Ramblers' Association can attract similar
numbers, then they must have something to recommend them to their
members? A sense of community perhaps? Or as Simon said right at the
beginning; a tribe! In none of these organizations am I aware that the
members must be organised in some way other than what is necessary for
governance purposes.

I've read more than once that the word naturism has 'lots of
baggage' (I paraphrase) but I'm not sure what anyone means by this?
Yes, there is a dark past to naturism (its support for eugenics in the
1930s for instance) but that has largely been forgotten, just as that
many of the pioneers of naturism were also vegetarians. Answers on a
postcard please to...

I think there is a definite communication problem that needs
addressing and a change of image would be just one part to solving it.
If no body has guessed I quite like the term clothes optional
lifestyle (COL), but as I said, it isn't as catchy or succinct as
naturist or nudist. It does allow however for a wider audience to be
included. Would it make it "cool" though. Not sure. We certainly need
to do something along those lines though to bring in the younger
generations or those who are just younger in heart. Peter's idea, for
instance, of a MySpace area for individual campaigns like our one for
Botany Bay is a good one. A short vid perhaps with a female and/or
male presenter(s) explaining the attractions of the beach! Has anyone
seen ClothesFree.com? The BBC it isn't, but then it doesn't pretend to
be. California based, it does carry a fair bit of foreign (to them)
news of interest to a naturist, largely from the UK but from other
European countries too. Are there any serving or ex BBC/ITV producers/
directors out there who would care to comment?

Another answer to the question possibly lies in the question: what are
the limits of naturism/COL? Do we include swingers? (I can guess what
most of the answers would be here, but feel free to either confirm or
deny my suspicions.) Do we include Wiccans, who would fall into the
second category according to the OED and assuming that ceremonies
created in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are true to the
faith? Is there any category of community of people that naturism
should say "you're not naturists"?

A long post. I'm sorry (again) but we've seemed to have reached a rich
seam of thought about how to make naturism inclusive rather than
exclusive. Please note, little reference to BN although obviously as
the main (only!) naturist organisation in the UK it would obviously be
the lead in anything that comes out of this (fingers crossed).

Reg

[David Looser]

Excellent post sniped for brevity.<

The real problem with this group, ISTM, is that we know next to nothing
about them. It's reasonable to assume that they are a very disparate group
so any attempt to generalise is going to be doomed to failure.

I can only speak about those people of my acquaintance who might be thought
of as fitting this description. The main difference between them and myself
is that they are less bothered about having to cover up. In a situation
where nudity is the norm or at least fully acceptable they are perfectly
happy to be nude, but if there is any doubt about the acceptability of
nudity they'll cover-up rather than risk offending someone. To me comfort is
one of the main reasons for being nude, for my friends practicality ( no wet
cozzie to bother with) seems to be a more important motive.

And there is no way they are going to join anything, write letters, or make
a fuss. Unlike Craig they don't have any sort of negative image of what a
"naturist" is, they don't claim the label because they simply don't care
enough about it.

David.

[Tim Forcer]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:02, Reg Barlow wrote:

[lots of good stuff cut]

Post by Reg Barlow
If you remember, BN did a survey in 2000,

I remember it very well, for many reasons. And that memory tells me
the poll was done in 2001.

</pedant>

Mind you, Andrew Welch, CCBN's Commercial Manager, also seems to think
the poll was done in 2000, so perhaps Reg is getting into the mood for
serving on the CCBN EC by picking up the official party line on
matters of detail?

Post by Reg Barlow
which in my mind wasn't really exploited to its fullest
extent,

I'd be interested to hear Reg's views on things not done which should
have been done (as, I'm sure, would at least some CCBN Officers).

Post by Reg Barlow
that suggested that there are roughly 1 million people
in this country who enjoy a CO lifestyle, or
something close to it.

No. It didn't suggest that. The number who said they had enjoyed
aspects of a CO lifestyle by enjoying at least some activities free
from clothing was far greater than that - getting on for 10 million.
Reg's figure is for those who described themselves as naturists.

Reg is clearly thoughtful and takes a considered interest in naturism,
CO activities and promotion thereof, attitudes to social nudity, etc,
etc. Yet if he is able to misrepresent the poll findings this
significantly, perhaps he is illustrating his own point rather well,
namely that more should have been done with the poll results?

Incidentally, for anyone interested, NUFF carries a range of info on
the CCBN poll and other relevant surveys. Navigate:

NUFF -> Research -> How Popular is Naturism

Or go direct to:
<http://nuff.org.uk/factfile/content/category/9/61/66/>

Post by Reg Barlow
It would have been useful if they did the survey again in 2005
to see if there was any difference,

I agree, wholeheartedly.

Post by Reg Barlow
but maybe they are considering doing it for 2010?

Nope. They aren't.

Post by Reg Barlow
If they don't then obviously IMO they've wasted the members'
money.

Err, why?

Please read ALL of the "Executive Council Report" in the latest _BN_
magazine (pp 70:71). The very last couple of sentences say:

Quote+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The time might be ripe for another NOP poll. Perhaps April/May would
be the right time of year for its launch.

---------------------------------Unquote

I was really pleased to read this, and hope the plan comes to
fruition.

[Craig M]

Post by Tim Forcer

Post by Reg Barlow
If you remember, BN did a survey in 2000,
that suggested that there are roughly 1 million people
in this country who enjoy a CO lifestyle, or
something close to it.

No. It didn't suggest that. The number who said they had enjoyed
aspects of a CO lifestyle by enjoying at least some activities free
from clothing was far greater than that - getting on for 10 million.
Reg's figure is for those who described themselves as naturists.

That was my recollection too - that those people who chose to describe
themselves as naturists formed a small minority of those who on
occasion take part in naked recreational activity.

Which was why I am slightly doubtful about the idea of finding a way
in which to engage this entire amorphous mass as supporters or
advocates of naturism (or of BN). That would be the tail wagging the
dog - surely a more appropriate response would be how those non-
naturists who enjoy nude recreation (and I am one) can convince
naturists to drop their meaningless label and just get on with more
important matters. Or failing that to distance themselves from those
who cling to their naturist credentials as a basis for asserting all
manner of half-baked and offensive ideas, from human rights violations
to stating that everyone apart from naturists suffer from body shame.

[David Looser]

Post by Craig M
That was my recollection too - that those people who chose to describe
themselves as naturists formed a small minority of those who on
occasion take part in naked recreational activity.
Which was why I am slightly doubtful about the idea of finding a way
in which to engage this entire amorphous mass as supporters or
advocates of naturism (or of BN).

I entirely agree, We know next to nothing about this group, presumably it
includes those who's sole experience of "naked recreation" is one,
alcohol-induced, midnight skinny-dip from a Spanish beach. How many of that
10 million engage on a regular basis in social, non-sexual, naked
recreation?, we simply don't know. It's also worth noting that the 1 million
who describe themselves as "naturists" vastly outnumbers all sun club and BN
members combined.

That would be the tail wagging the

Post by Craig M
dog - surely a more appropriate response would be how those non-
naturists who enjoy nude recreation (and I am one) can convince
naturists to drop their meaningless label and just get on with more
important matters.

What "more important matters" are those?, and how does the label interfere
with getting on with them? Perhaps more to the point what possible interest
could the "non-naturists" have in whether other people use the label or not?

Or failing that to distance themselves from those

Post by Craig M
who cling to their naturist credentials as a basis for asserting all
manner of half-baked and offensive ideas,

Speaking for myself I have no "naturist credentials" to cling to. My views
on such matters as body-shame are informed by my credentials as a massage
therapist and life-model, neither of which have anything to do with
"naturism".

from human rights violations

Post by Craig M
to stating that everyone apart from naturists suffer from body shame.

AFAICS the "half-baked" ideas about human-rights violations come at least as
strongly from "non-naturists" such as SG and VB as they do from any
"naturists", the label is irrelevant. And the idea that everyone apart from
naturists suffer from body shame has only ever been espoused by Andy C. So
it's not a "naturist" notion, it's Andy C's notion.

David.

[AndyC]

Post by David Looser
AFAICS the "half-baked" ideas about human-rights violations come at least
as strongly from "non-naturists" such as SG and VB as they do from any
"naturists", the label is irrelevant. And the idea that everyone apart
from naturists suffer from body shame has only ever been espoused by Andy
C. So it's not a "naturist" notion, it's Andy C's notion.

Even amongst those who call themselves naturists, many of them seem to
exhibit the type of behaviour (and make the kind of comments) to suggest
that they too suffer a certain degree of shame over exposing their naked
bodies. While it seems quite obvious to me that those who are totally and
utterly obsessed with keeping their bodies covered up only do so because
they are ashamed of them, those who get their kit off from time to time also
suffer a certain degree of shame too.

That will give Craig something to bite on :-)

[David Looser]

Post by AndyC

Post by David Looser
AFAICS the "half-baked" ideas about human-rights violations come at least
as strongly from "non-naturists" such as SG and VB as they do from any
"naturists", the label is irrelevant. And the idea that everyone apart
from naturists suffer from body shame has only ever been espoused by Andy
C. So it's not a "naturist" notion, it's Andy C's notion.

Even amongst those who call themselves naturists, many of them seem to
exhibit the type of behaviour (and make the kind of comments) to suggest
that they too suffer a certain degree of shame over exposing their naked
bodies. While it seems quite obvious to me that those who are totally and
utterly obsessed with keeping their bodies covered up only do so because
they are ashamed of them,

As has been said before there are two very distinct forms of "body shame".
There is the shame of "exposing oneself" in a culture where many still
regard that as a sign of moral failure ("shameless!"). And there is the
shame of having a body that doesn't measure-up to current standards of
aesthetics. People obsessed with keeping themselves covered at all times may
suffer from either, or both, of those. But there may also be other reasons
(though I can't think of one off the top of my head) so I'm not prepared to
say "only do so because they are ashamed of them".

Of course there will be many other very good reasons for not engaging in
naked recreation. It is, after all, very restrictive in terms of where and
when it can be practiced. Since the overwhelming majority of swimming pools,
spas, etc. require covering up (at least here in the UK) it's clearly a lot
easier to go with the flow. Even beach nudity requires one to be very
careful about places, those who are prepared to put up with swimwear have
vastly more options. And with the poor reputation that British CO beaches
have for sexual "goings-on" I can well imagine that many people prefer not
to visit them.

Post by AndyC
Someone those who get their kit off from time to time also suffer a
certain degree of shame too.

Again as has been said before body shame (particularly the aesthetic kind)
is not an either/or thing. Rather it is graded from mild to severe. I'd be
surprised if there were many people who were so totally happy with their
body that they didn't have any reservations about it at all.

Post by AndyC
That will give Craig something to bite on :-)

Sure will :-)

David.

[AndyC]

Post by David Looser
Again as has been said before body shame (particularly the aesthetic kind)
is not an either/or thing. Rather it is graded from mild to severe. I'd be
surprised if there were many people who were so totally happy with their
body that they didn't have any reservations about it at all.

Indeed, and my point previously made (sometime ago) was that those who
suffer the degree of body shame that prohibits them from allowing others to
see them without clothes can be clearly defined as "non-naturists". That
does not however mean that those who claim to be naturists do not suffer
body shame to some degree as well. Like you say, it is a sliding scale and
the level of shame that one feels can change depending on the time, the
place, the circumstance etc.

Even in clubs there seems to be a certain level of furtiveness over removing
clothes and some unnecessary dressing goes on.

[Susan Hassett]

"AndyC" <web-***@andycrawford.net> wrote in message news:f8k0uf$mil$***@aioe.org...

<snip>

Post by AndyC
Even in clubs there seems to be a certain level of furtiveness over
removing clothes

<snip>

That's the only part that I feel uncomfortable with (not just in clubs)
and I've heard other women mention it as well. Clothed - fine. Naked -
fine. But the transitory bit - not so good.

Susan

[David Looser]

Post by Susan Hassett
<snip>

Post by AndyC
Even in clubs there seems to be a certain level of furtiveness over
removing clothes

<snip>
That's the only part that I feel uncomfortable with (not just in clubs)
and I've heard other women mention it as well. Clothed - fine. Naked -
fine. But the transitory bit - not so good.

Maybe that's a woman thing. I was going to say that that might explain the
standard life-class etiquette whereby the model changes into a bath-rode in
private and then only discards the robe when in position, but actually just
undressing in private and walking, naked, to the posing area (as I do) would
answer that concern just as well.. OTOH I've got female massage clients who
are quite happy to undress and hold a face-to-face conversation with me at
the same time.

David.

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Susan Hassett
<snip>

Post by AndyC
Even in clubs there seems to be a certain level of furtiveness over
removing clothes

<snip>
That's the only part that I feel uncomfortable with (not just in clubs)
and I've heard other women mention it as well. Clothed - fine. Naked -
fine. But the transitory bit - not so good.
Susan

Why?

[Susan Hassett]

Post by Susan Hassett
That's the only part that I feel uncomfortable with (not just in
clubs) and I've heard other women mention it as well. Clothed -
fine. Naked - fine. But the transitory bit - not so good.
Susan

Why?

Ummm.....grotty underwear.....feel like a stripper.....ageing body
having to be adjusted around aforementioned grotty underwear...that's
just for starters. I know I didn't have these feelings as a child so
it's obviously come on with age.

S'pose I could do something about the grotty underwear.

Susan

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Susan Hassett
That's the only part that I feel uncomfortable with (not just in clubs)
and I've heard other women mention it as well. Clothed - fine. Naked -
fine. But the transitory bit - not so good.
Susan

Why?

Ummm.....grotty underwear.....feel like a stripper.....ageing body having
to be adjusted around aforementioned grotty underwear...that's just for
starters. I know I didn't have these feelings as a child so it's
obviously come on with age.
S'pose I could do something about the grotty underwear.
Susan

Go on, treat yourself!! It could change your life!

[Craig M]

Post by David Looser
I agree that the evidence is not "plain to see". Just as the evidence for
any significant interest in naked recreation is not plain to see; yet you
seem perfectly prepared to believe in the existence of that. Maybe the lack
of apparent demand for more facilities is because there simply aren't many
people, other than those who adopt the label "naturist", who indulge in nude
recreation. Maybe there are plenty of such people but because they never
talk about their interest to anyone else they all think they are the only
ones. Maybe they just don't think there is any chance whatsoever of getting
anything so there's no point in wasting time and effort demanding it.

And maybe the relative paucity of a supply of opportunities reflects
an actual lack of demand. After all, that's true of everything else in
a capitalist economy. Why should naturism be any different?

Post by David Looser

Post by Craig M
There was I remember a petition to the Prime Minister seeking his
support for more 'Clothing Optional Places' which after 5 months has
managed to attract a grand total of 471 signatures - hardly
overwhelming (compare the 68,521 who signed the petition on
restrictions on photography or the 67,882 signatures in favour of
changes to student loans).

Who has heard of it? I wouldn't have done so if I didn't read this NG.

Well, by the same token, the petition about photography is pretty
obscure, but that didn't stop more than 68,000 people finding out
about it and signing it. So either naturists are a very unobservant
bunch of people, or they don't see any need for greater opportunities.
Which is it?

Post by David Looser

Post by Craig M
If you consider that I'm wilfully closing my eyes and ears to this
evidence, then I would appreciate it if you could explain where I can
find it.

Try asking people. Of the people I know the majority have no interest in
naked recreation. Of those who do 100% would appreciate more opportunities
in terms of places or times.

You seem to have this idea that I never speak to people, when I do so
as much as you or anyone else. And, I repeat, I am not aware of any
significant demand for greater naturist opportunities. It looks to me
that this is another case of you asserting something in the absence of
any sound data or information - rather like your belief in body shame
which as you (eventually) acknowledged, has no basis in fact.

[David Looser]

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser
I agree that the evidence is not "plain to see". Just as the evidence for
any significant interest in naked recreation is not plain to see; yet you
seem perfectly prepared to believe in the existence of that. Maybe the lack
of apparent demand for more facilities is because there simply aren't many
people, other than those who adopt the label "naturist", who indulge in nude
recreation. Maybe there are plenty of such people but because they never
talk about their interest to anyone else they all think they are the only
ones. Maybe they just don't think there is any chance whatsoever of getting
anything so there's no point in wasting time and effort demanding it.

And maybe the relative paucity of a supply of opportunities reflects
an actual lack of demand. After all, that's true of everything else in
a capitalist economy. Why should naturism be any different?

Maybe? who knows. There could be any one of a number of reasons. Bearing in
mind that this group consists of large numbers of people with, as far as we
can tell, nothing in common with each other beyond the fact they have,
possibly only once and in any one of any number of circumstances, done
something that might loosely be described as "naked recreation", it's almost
certain that they don't have a common view on this either.

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser
Try asking people. Of the people I know the majority have no interest in
naked recreation. Of those who do 100% would appreciate more
opportunities
in terms of places or times.

You seem to have this idea that I never speak to people, when I do so
as much as you or anyone else.

Do you? You never talk about it. Who do you talk to?, what do you talk
about?

Post by Craig M
And, I repeat, I am not aware of any
significant demand for greater naturist opportunities.

So, how many people have you discussed this particular point with? what did
they say?

It looks to me

Post by Craig M
that this is another case of you asserting something in the absence of
any sound data or information - rather like your belief in body shame
which as you (eventually) acknowledged, has no basis in fact.

Does LYING come that easily to you? You know damn well that I have
acknowledged no such thing. Just because you wish to pretend that body shame
doesn't exist (when everybody else knows it does) doesn't mean anything.

David.

[Craig M]

Post by David Looser

Post by Craig M
And maybe the relative paucity of a supply of opportunities reflects
an actual lack of demand. After all, that's true of everything else in
a capitalist economy. Why should naturism be any different?

Maybe? who knows. There could be any one of a number of reasons. Bearing in
mind that this group consists of large numbers of people with, as far as we
can tell, nothing in common with each other beyond the fact they have,
possibly only once and in any one of any number of circumstances, done
something that might loosely be described as "naked recreation", it's almost
certain that they don't have a common view on this either.

Agreed. Which points to the conclusion that there is no significant
demand for greater oppurtunities for naked recreation - because for
the demand to be significant, there needs surely to be a degree of
unanimity of purpose.

Post by David Looser

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser
Try asking people. Of the people I know the majority have no interest in
naked recreation. Of those who do 100% would appreciate more opportunities
in terms of places or times.

It looks to me

Post by Craig M
that this is another case of you asserting something in the absence of
any sound data or information - rather like your belief in body shame
which as you (eventually) acknowledged, has no basis in fact.

Does LYING come that easily to you? You know damn well that I have
acknowledged no such thing. Just because you wish to pretend that body shame
doesn't exist (when everybody else knows it does) doesn't mean anything.

I resent you calling me a liar (or indeed a LIAR) , simply because I
reminded you of a previous ocasion where you made an assertion without
recourse to any supporting facts. I seem to remember that the earlier
exchange ended with you saying that something along the lines that I
was demanding proof which you acknowledged you were unable to provide.
(The truth is I was only asking for a simgle piece of concrete
evidence and you could do no better than an obscure TV programme
screened about 10 years ago.)

If you think I've got this wrong - please provide a single piece of
evidence to substantiate your claim.

In any case, what makes you think I'm 'pretending' that body shame
doesn't exist? What possible motive would I have for doing so?
Particularly when, according to you, I am the one person in the entire
universe to whom this isn't obvious.

[David Looser]

Post by Craig M
Agreed. Which points to the conclusion that there is no significant
demand for greater oppurtunities for naked recreation - because for
the demand to be significant, there needs surely to be a degree of
unanimity of purpose.

You did not originally talk of "significant" demand, you simply said you
were unaware of *any* demand. And what does "significant" mean in this
context anyway? Far more interesting, IMO, is what the range of interest is.
What do people in this group want?. Are they all entirely content with what
little facilities there are? Accepting that they are different what
proportion want what? Simply saying there isn't "significant" demand of
itself means nothing of any value.

Post by Craig M
I resent you calling me a liar (or indeed a LIAR) ,

Resent it all you like, I shall not withdraw it. For you to claim that I
"acknowledged" that body shame has "no basis in fact" is simply untrue. So
either you don't read what I write or you are telling a deliberate untruth.
Which is the definition of a lie.

Post by Craig M
simply because I
reminded you of a previous ocasion where you made an assertion without
recourse to any supporting facts. I seem to remember that the earlier
exchange ended with you saying that something along the lines that I
was demanding proof which you acknowledged you were unable to provide.

I acknowledge that I am unable to provide objective, documentary evidence of
the high standard that you demand. But since you have set yourself up as
judge and jury in your own case that means nothing.

Post by Craig M
(The truth is I was only asking for a simgle piece of concrete
evidence and you could do no better than an obscure TV programme
screened about 10 years ago.)

Bollocks!. Another lie Craig.

Post by Craig M
If you think I've got this wrong - please provide a single piece of
evidence to substantiate your claim.

It's all been gone over time after time. I'm not going to re-post it all
just because you apparently have a memory like a sieve.

Post by Craig M
In any case, what makes you think I'm 'pretending' that body shame
doesn't exist? What possible motive would I have for doing so?

I've no idea. It's a mystery to me. But since you work on the principle that
you never explain anything I'm used to that. Have you found *anybody* who
agrees with you on this?

I don't give a stuff whether you believe in body shame or not. it's no skin
off my nose. Keep your head in the sand all you want. But I'm not going to
change my mind about something I KNOW to exist just because you keep on
re-introducing the subject here.

David.

[Craig M]

Post by David Looser
You did not originally talk of "significant" demand, you simply said you
were unaware of *any* demand. And what does "significant" mean in this
context anyway? Far more interesting, IMO, is what the range of interest is.
What do people in this group want?. Are they all entirely content with what
little facilities there are? Accepting that they are different what
proportion want what? Simply saying there isn't "significant" demand of
itself means nothing of any value.

And saying there is significant demand when there's no evidence to
suggest there is totally meaningless.

I acknowledge that there is some demand - I assume you want greater
opportunities for instance. And there is a public petition which a
further 400 people have signed. But these are not significant figures
by any stretch of the imagination.

And as for everyone else - they must be content with the facilities
currently available. I certainly am and see no need whatsoever for
anything further.

Post by David Looser

Post by Craig M
I resent you calling me a liar (or indeed a LIAR) ,

Resent it all you like, I shall not withdraw it. For you to claim that I
"acknowledged" that body shame has "no basis in fact" is simply untrue. So
either you don't read what I write or you are telling a deliberate untruth.
Which is the definition of a lie.

Well if I don't read what you write, then I can't by definition be
lying.

But setting that aside, you concluded your last argument with the
injunction that I would have to take the existence of body shame on
trust. In other words, you acknowledged that the evidence wasn't there
to demonstrate it as a fact. And the paucity of the evidence which you
produced (the thoughts of Joan Bakewell, an obscure article in a
magazine) certainly pointed to the fact that real evidence simply
wasn't there for you to produce. This to me amounts to a clear
acknowledgement that your belief had no basis in fact. You really do
have an odd attitude to what constitutes lying.

Post by David Looser

Post by Craig M
If you think I've got this wrong - please provide a single piece of
evidence to substantiate your claim.

It's all been gone over time after time. I'm not going to re-post it all
just because you apparently have a memory like a sieve.

Again you decline to produce any evidence.

But we seem to have moved ground again. This time I have read what you
wrote, but I've forgotten it. And if that is the case, I can't be
lying. I really think you might invest in a dictionary.

Post by David Looser
I don't give a stuff whether you believe in body shame or not. it's no skin
off my nose. Keep your head in the sand all you want. But I'm not going to
change my mind about something I KNOW to exist just because you keep on
re-introducing the subject here.

It's always interesting when you get into your hysterical mode. The
fact that you can't sustain a logical argument and turn instead to
personal abuse to maintain your position speaks more eloquently than
anything else of the weakness of your case.

The really sad thing is that I think you genuinely believe that you
really have presented real and compelling evidence to support your
position. But your hysterical reaction whenever someone with a
contrary view questions the basis of your views demonstrates nothing
more than the bankrupt intellect of someone who knows how to rant, but
not how to reason.

[David Looser]

Post by Craig M

Post by David Looser
You did not originally talk of "significant" demand, you simply said you
were unaware of *any* demand. And what does "significant" mean in this
context anyway? Far more interesting, IMO, is what the range of interest is.
What do people in this group want?. Are they all entirely content with what
little facilities there are? Accepting that they are different what
proportion want what? Simply saying there isn't "significant" demand of
itself means nothing of any value.

And saying there is significant demand when there's no evidence to
suggest there is totally meaningless.

Who, other than you, ever said anything about "significant" demand?

Post by Craig M
I acknowledge that there is some demand -

Good, glad to see you have moved your position.

Post by Craig M
I certainly am and see no need whatsoever for
anything further.

Well fine. So Craig has all the opportunities he wants. Therefore that must
apply to most other people.

Post by Craig M
You really do
have an odd attitude to what constitutes lying.

Not at all. Quite regardless of whether I am justified in saying what I am
saying or not, the fact is that that is what I *am* saying, So for you to
claim that I am saying something different is either a lie, or suggests that
you have utterly failed to understand me. Since I wrote in plain English and
repeated myself often the former seems the most likely.

It appears to be you who has the odd attitude to what constitutes "lying".

Post by Craig M
But we seem to have moved ground again. This time I have read what you
wrote, but I've forgotten it. And if that is the case, I can't be
lying. I really think you might invest in a dictionary.

From the beginning you have consistently mis-represented my arguments.
Either you have a very poor memory (which seems unlikely) or you are doing
it deliberately, which is dishonesty. For someone who's work is involved
with the law to have such a cavalier attitude to honesty as you is worrying
to say the least.

Post by Craig M
It's always interesting when you get into your hysterical mode. The
fact that you can't sustain a logical argument and turn instead to
personal abuse to maintain your position speaks more eloquently than
anything else of the weakness of your case.

It's pretty rich for you to talk of "personal abuse". You use personal abuse
all the time. You have accused me of "hysteria", you have accused me of
being "self-deceiving", and you rarely miss an opportunity to make silly
childish jibes about "naturists". And yet you accuse *me* of personal
abuse - sheeesh!

Post by Craig M
The really sad thing is that I think you genuinely believe that you
really have presented real and compelling evidence to support your
position.

Again you mis-represent what I have said. I don't think that I have
presented "compelling" evidence, nor have I ever claimed that I have. There
is no real reason why there should be "compelling" evidence to use (bearing
in mind that I can only use evidence if it has been prepared and packaged by
somebody else and put in a place where I can find it and use it), unless
someone, somewhere, thought the matter important enough to spend money on.
Presumably nobody has thought the matter that important. This is, after all,
something that mainly affects women, is not life threatening and has no
obvious commercial implications.

But your hysterical reaction whenever someone with a

Post by Craig M
contrary view

There you go again with your personal abuse. My reaction is no more
"hysterical" than yours.

questions the basis of your views demonstrates nothing

Post by Craig M
more than the bankrupt intellect of someone who knows how to rant, but
not how to reason.

Sorry Craig but that is absurd, what about your "anti-naturist" rants? just
how bankrupt does your intellect need to be before you can produce those?

I simply don't understand why you are making such a meal out of this. It's
clearly a subject area about which you know nothing, so why are you so
determined to argue about it from your postion of total ignorance?, it makes
no sense to me.

I notice that you continue to ignore my questions. So I'll ask again; have
you found anyone, anywhere, that thinks the way you do on this issue? just
one?

David.

[Duncan Heenan]

snip <
And maybe the relative paucity of a supply of opportunities reflects
an actual lack of demand. After all, that's true of everything else in
a capitalist economy. Why should naturism be any different?

Your understanding of economics appears to lag behind that of the law.
Demand does not create its own supply, unless it is free to do so. In this
case the significant barrier to entry (in non-club style naturism at least)
is the over-regulation of 'free naturism' by the Authorities who will not
allow it to flourish freely. This barrier to entry needs to be relaxed, and
you may begin to see some growth in the supply of opportunities. That's why
we need proper campaigning.

[Craig M]

On Jul 24, 11:00 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

snip <
And maybe the relative paucity of a supply of opportunities reflects
an actual lack of demand. After all, that's true of everything else in
a capitalist economy. Why should naturism be any different?

Your understanding of economics appears to lag behind that of the law.
Demand does not create its own supply, unless it is free to do so. In this
case the significant barrier to entry (in non-club style naturism at least)
is the over-regulation of 'free naturism' by the Authorities who will not
allow it to flourish freely. This barrier to entry needs to be relaxed, and
you may begin to see some growth in the supply of opportunities. That's why
we need proper campaigning.

It was just a throwaway remark - and you're right that I'm no
economist. But the underlying point is whether there is a real demand
for further opportunities, or whether the current situation is merely
the consequence of the (over) regulation which you mention. And in the
absence of evidence either way (perhaps it's a point to address should
BN ever repeat their national survey), one can only speculate.

[Craig M]

On Jul 17, 1:46 pm, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan
You base all your arguments on the premise that the Courts are infallible,
just and right. I believe that this is not always the case. You also seem to
assume that The Law and justice are the same thing, which I believe not to
be the case.

Of course I'm not suggesting that the courts are infallible. I was
responding to your suggestion that the police in Scotland were 'to
blame' for the arrests (and contrasting it to the events in England),
as if their action was at fault in some way.

And my point was that, far from any suggestion that they had behaved
inappropriately, the courts supported what they had done, which would
indicate that the police behaved correctly. You could say that the
court was also at fault, but that would be a different point entirely
- ie: that the entire judicial system was 'to blame' for the arrests -
and one which again I see no reason to accept. (I think I'm correct in
saying that there have been attempts to appeal against the court's
decisions have all proved unsuccessful.)

You've also not responded to my point about your comment that SG's
aeroplane stunt was a 'step too far' - which is a far more interesting
point. Presumably you mean that in this instance the police were
correct in arresting and charging him, unlike in the other instances
where they were incorrect. What's the difference?

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M
On Jul 17, 1:46 pm, "Duncan Heenan"
You've also not responded to my point about your comment that SG's
aeroplane stunt was a 'step too far' - which is a far more interesting
point. Presumably you mean that in this instance the police were
correct in arresting and charging him, unlike in the other instances
where they were incorrect. What's the difference?

Behaviour on aeroplanes, and the obligation to accept direction from crews
is subject to specific laws, for good safety reasons.

[Craig M]

On Jul 21, 1:53 pm, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan

Post by Craig M
You've also not responded to my point about your comment that SG's
aeroplane stunt was a 'step too far' - which is a far more interesting
point. Presumably you mean that in this instance the police were
correct in arresting and charging him, unlike in the other instances
where they were incorrect. What's the difference?

Behaviour on aeroplanes, and the obligation to accept direction from crews
is subject to specific laws, for good safety reasons.

So you do accept the legitimacy of the police's action where such
action is proportionate - for example where public safety is
involved.

But it may well be that the police took a similar view in cases where
SG was walking naked around Scotland (he might for instance have been
walking besides a busy road, causing drivers to slow down, thereby
creating the risk of a traffic accident). And in the absence of
knowing the full details of each arrest, you can't say whether or not
his actions were a potential public safety risk, so therefore you
can't conclude that the police's action was innappropriate (or to use
your phrase 'to blame' for arresting him at all).

It strikes me that you want to defend someone behaving in a
deliberately provocative way, simply because the nature of that
behaviour is their nakedness.

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M
On Jul 21, 1:53 pm, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Craig M
1:46 pm, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Craig M
You've also not responded to my point about your comment that SG's
aeroplane stunt was a 'step too far' - which is a far more interesting
point. Presumably you mean that in this instance the police were
correct in arresting and charging him, unlike in the other instances
where they were incorrect. What's the difference?

Behaviour on aeroplanes, and the obligation to accept direction from crews
is subject to specific laws, for good safety reasons.

So you do accept the legitimacy of the police's action where such
action is proportionate - for example where public safety is
involved.
But it may well be that the police took a similar view in cases where
SG was walking naked around Scotland (he might for instance have been
walking besides a busy road, causing drivers to slow down, thereby
creating the risk of a traffic accident). And in the absence of
knowing the full details of each arrest, you can't say whether or not
his actions were a potential public safety risk, so therefore you
can't conclude that the police's action was innappropriate (or to use
your phrase 'to blame' for arresting him at all).
It strikes me that you want to defend someone behaving in a
deliberately provocative way, simply because the nature of that
behaviour is their nakedness.

Are Scottish drivers so different from English ones? He walked right through
England and through half of Scotland before arrest, without causing a single
accident. So why would the Scottish police suddenly be justified in
expecting him to cause an accident? Why do they not stop all hikers on
roads?
Of course, now, the original matter has been largely forgotten, and he is
now being punished for defying authority.

[Craig M]

On Jul 23, 10:36 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan
Are Scottish drivers so different from English ones? He walked right through
England and through half of Scotland before arrest, without causing a single
accident. So why would the Scottish police suddenly be justified in
expecting him to cause an accident? Why do they not stop all hikers on
roads?

I was really speaking theoretically - that you agree in principal that
there are some circumstances in which nakedness is inappropriate and
where police intervention would be justified. This is an important
point which it seems some people don't or won't accept, and I was
reassured that you were not one of them.

We can of course argue about whether their action in specific
circumstances was correct, but since we don't know (or at least I
don't) what those circumstances were, it would be a rather pointless
discussion.

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M
On Jul 23, 10:36 am, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan
Are Scottish drivers so different from English ones? He walked right through
England and through half of Scotland before arrest, without causing a single
accident. So why would the Scottish police suddenly be justified in
expecting him to cause an accident? Why do they not stop all hikers on
roads?

I was really speaking theoretically - that you agree in principal that
there are some circumstances in which nakedness is inappropriate and
where police intervention would be justified. This is an important
point which it seems some people don't or won't accept, and I was
reassured that you were not one of them.
We can of course argue about whether their action in specific
circumstances was correct, but since we don't know (or at least I
don't) what those circumstances were, it would be a rather pointless
discussion.

I can agree that one can think up some circumstances in which all forms of
dress or behaviour would be inappropriate, but that is rather stating the
obvious. The fact is that in the circumstances in which the Scottish Police
arrested Steve Gough for simple hiking - because he was naked - his
nakedness was not inappropriate in my view nor apparently in that of the
English Police.

[Simon]

Post by Pete Knight
The term 'Clothing Optional Lifestyle' is widely favoured in the US,
it would encompass nudists, naturists and clothes free holiday(ists),
but the 'Central Council for Clothing Optional Lifestyle or CCCOL
might be too burdensome.

But Clothing Optional Lifestyle (COL) would state clearly what the
organisation was about.

I agree that baggage tends to be passed on down and the problem of the
club-of-clubs is not easily solved in the short term.

As I have said before, waiting for BN to die a natural death and then
starting a new organisation is a liklihood.

BNChange notwithstanding
Simon.

[Pete Knight]

Post by Simon

Post by Pete Knight
The term 'Clothing Optional Lifestyle' is widely favoured in the US,
it would encompass nudists, naturists and clothes free holiday(ists),
but the 'Central Council for Clothing Optional Lifestyle or CCCOL
might be too burdensome.

But Clothing Optional Lifestyle (COL) would state clearly what the
organisation was about.

It seems to encompass more ideals, but will it attract those that Reg
referred to in his original post.

Post by Simon
I agree that baggage tends to be passed on down and the problem of the
club-of-clubs is not easily solved in the short term.

The unwillingness to accept that there is anything other than 'social
club' naturism is BN's shortcoming, there are hundreds, if not
thousands of freehikers, beach goers who feel that BN has nothing to
offer them, so why waste the subscription, it is up to those managing
BN on our behalf to make the organisation appealing to a wider
audience.

Post by Simon
As I have said before, waiting for BN to die a natural death and then
starting a new organisation is a liklihood.

So what happens in the vacuum left behind BN's demise without a
credible organisation ready to pick up where BN leaves off, it could
take month's, even years for an acceptable replacement.


Pete Knight

[Simon]

I think this branch of this thread has gone back to the old topic!! If
we want to thrash this a bit more, then we had better split and rename
the thread.


Pete Knight wrote:
[SCA]

Post by Pete Knight

Post by Simon
As I have said before, waiting for BN to die a natural death and then
starting a new organisation is a liklihood.

So what happens in the vacuum left behind BN's demise without a
credible organisation ready to pick up where BN leaves off, it could
take month's, even years for an acceptable replacement.

My guess is that, the folks standing around watching it die will be in
like Flint! (Hhmm, probably showing my age there!)

If BN goes bust, there will be a fire sale of the assets and that will
take a few weeks (months?) to organise and more than enough time for
interested parties to band together.

I am not saying that I WANT this to happen but I am saying that it seems
likly. There are three roads:

1) BN can continue wobbling along as it is until all of us in URN are dead.
2) BN will wobble for a bit and then hit a financial bump in the road
that will force it to the scrapyard.
3) BN will change direction and improve it's financial stability and
move onto a smooth highway.

Note that the ONLY factor deciding BNs future is money. Nothing else
will keep it on the road or force it off. What it does whilst it exists,
will determine how much money it has.

Simon.

[Duncan Heenan]

Post by Craig M

Post by Reg Barlow
Peter Checksfield wrote today (13/07/07): "She is a friend [and] when
she read The Thanet Times article about the beach (which has been
'naturist' ever since she can remember), [she] got in touch with me
with her idea [to hold a nude protest]. She & her friends don't even
consider themselves naturists (no more than I think of myself as a
musician when I occasionally strum a guitar!), they just like the idea
that they can sit around or swim without clothes if they wish to."
I'm just wondering if the idea that we must call ourselves something,
be it nudist or naturist, ends up repelling people like Peter's
friends who enjoy nude recreation but don't consider themselves as
either. We've already noted elsewhere that over 1 million bird
watchers have joined the RSPB, when all they need is a good ear, a
pair of binoculars and an identification notebook. It's a hobby they
can participate in whenever they want to and there is no obvious
reason to join a national organisation like the RSPB. So how can an
organisation like British Naturism reach out to people like them; the
'bird watchers' of the naturist world, and don't want to be
'organised'?

In answer to the question, I would have thought that those who take
part in naked recreational activity but reject the label naturist (or
at least do not see any reason for applying it to themselves) won't
want to be 'spoken to' by those who do so describe themselves. That
is, if they don't see themselves as naturists, then I suspect they
will have no interest in BN and all the other baggage that comes with
naturism. I speak as someone firmly in the non-naturist category and
am encouraged by the realisation that there are a significant number
of people with similar views.
This of course creates an issue of how BN should engage with such
people, possibly by rebranding themselves as something else. But the
problem here is that the n-word is effectively BN's only real asset.
And the more that people choose nude recreation without the need to
adopt the label, the less valuable that asset becomes and therefore
undermines the entire raison d'etre of BN.

I think BN's role here needs to be an enabling one. As the 'non-naturist'
lovers of nudity want to do their own thing (good on them I say), then BN
could benefit them and their own members by campaigning to allow greater
freedom to be naked when and where individuals want to rather than in the
few ghettos where they currently feel safe. It might even show some of these
folk that BN can be relevant to them, so they might support it and even
join!

[p***@googlemail.com]

On 16 Jul, 13:35, "Duncan Heenan"

Post by Duncan Heenan
I think BN's role here needs to be an enabling one. As the 'non-naturist'
lovers of nudity want to do their own thing (good on them I say), then BN
could benefit them and their own members by campaigning to allow greater
freedom to be naked when and where individuals want to rather than in the
few ghettos where they currently feel safe. It might even show some of these
folk that BN can be relevant to them, so they might support it and even
join!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Excellent point!

[Danny Colyer]

Post by Duncan Heenan
I think BN's role here needs to be an enabling one. As the 'non-naturist'
lovers of nudity want to do their own thing (good on them I say), then BN
could benefit them and their own members by campaigning to allow greater
freedom to be naked when and where individuals want to rather than in the
few ghettos where they currently feel safe. It might even show some of these
folk that BN can be relevant to them, so they might support it and even
join!

BN seems totally irrelevant to me. A campaigning organisation, OTOH,
could be worth supporting.