A Compromise?

In seeking acceptance for nude recreation on public lands, nudists are not necessarily seeking a compromise, they are seeking just a sliver of the vast real estate of America on which to be naked and free. One can only compromise when both parties come at an issue from a position of strength, and common sense dictates that meeting somewhere in the middle is a sensible outcome for all.

Nudists have the negotiating power of a gnat.

In Ashland, Oregon, public nudity has not been illegal, but recent events including a man who walked naked near a school created community alarm, and a new law was passed to ban the exposure of body parts within the city limits.

In a situation like this, there is no room for compromise. It's basically one man versus an entire city.

But Joe Hudgins, a retired instructor and resident of Ashland, believes that the nudity ban could not only be unconstitutional, but expensive as well.

A political/social/artistic event is scheduled for Ashland later this year. It is to be called "Buns Not Bombs" and will include public nudity. It is expected to violate Ashland's public nudity law. The police have said they will have no choice other than to enforce the law and arrest anyone who violates it.That's when it starts costing money. Hundreds of personnel hours will be diverted from normal duties and expended arresting, booking, incarcerating, trying and convicting or acquitting everyone who is arrested. Fines collected from those who are convicted will not cover all the costs incurred. The shortfall will be made up by the taxpayers, Ashland residents, and that's not all.

The ACLU has been watching this situation very carefully and is preparing to file a lawsuit against Ashland if it determines that anyone's First Amendment rights were violated. Such a lawsuit could take years to resolve and will cost Ashland residents hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.

Hudgins goes on to suggest that all that is needed is come "courage, some patience and a lot of tolerance" instead of this unnecessary and costly law. He logically outlines a scenario for keeping nudity under control, such as public notices when nude protests are scheduled to take place, and to prohibit people from being naked near busy roads and public buildings so that traffic accidents and other dangerous distractions can be avoided.

All well and good, and it makes a lot of sense, but the problem with nudity in American society is that people who oppose any and all forms of unclothed humanity are not rational. They are filled with religious beliefs, deep-seated fears, and a sense of righteousness which trumps all common sense and willingness to compromise.

To these people, the sight of female breasts, or a male penis, is a sign that we are on the road to Sodom and Gomorrah, and God's wrath will surely smite us all.

I applaud Mr. Hudgins and his fair-mindedness. Surely we need more people like him. But the idea of the government actually working to aid and abet people who wish to be nude in public is radical.

In cases like the World Naked Bike Ride and the Spencer Tunick installations, the sheer numbers of participants makes it difficult for local authorities to do anything except watch and keep the peace. In some communities, like Boulder, Colorado, bans are being enacted to specifically prohibit nudity at public events, so the WNBR and Tunick would likely create an ugly confrontation with police if they were to go there.

If anything, local governments are getting tougher in the wake of the proliferation of nudity at public events.

The only way I can see for public nudity to become "legal" is if the ACLU manages to prove that banning clothes-free protests is unconstitutional. I believe they have a fair shot at making that case, as long as groups get a permit, and the public is warned in advance that nudity will be part of the event, so anyone potentially offended could simply avoid the area or look away.

It will be much harder for the ACLU to prove that nudity is a civil liberty, although many nudists and naturists believe that it most certainly is. But that's really not what nudists want from society - what we are seeking, as I stated before, is just a tiny piece of public land here and there in order to be nude and free.

Unfortunately, the very, very few who wish to wander about nude near schools are just creating hysteria and forcing the hands of government officials who always err on the side of caution in enacting new legislation. It's better politics to side with the churches and schools than with the naked people.

The Same Old Tired Arguments

Nudists and naturists are not stupid, we all know that nudity is illegal in most areas of the United States, and is being threatened in the very few jurisdictions which still have no laws on the books specifically requiring the wearing of clothes.

One such place is Oregon, which does not prohibit nudity, but due to a couple of people pushing the envelope, the city of Ashland has recently voted to ban nudity within the city limits.

Ashland resident Ralph Temple, a member of the ACLU, said Ashland hasn't experienced a rash of public nudity, and therefore shouldn't sacrifice people's personal freedoms.

"Civil liberties are fragile," he said, adding that they are the first things to be discarded when difficulties arise.

Such laws are passed out of irrational fear. No substantive argument is ever made as to why nudity is dangerous, harmful, of even offensive to people of all ages, because it simply is not. We all have human bodies, we all see them when we change clothes or bathe. If the sight of genitals or other body parts was harmful, we would all be dead.

But somehow over the centuries, due to religious and cultural influences, we have, as a society, deemed the human body to be something that is unacceptable to be seen in public. The idea that we even put on clothing to swim is so contrary to natural instinct as to be utterly ridiculous.

What is it that we hate so much about the human body? After all, our museums are full of what we consider to be masterpieces depicting nudity in painting and sculpture. Michelangelo's nudes are considered to be the epitome of human creativity. Books, magazines, advertising, movies and all other mass media use the human figure in virtually everything. We spend billions of dollars adorning our bodies with clothing, jewelry, and makeup. Anyone studying out culture would come to the conclusion that we absolutely worship the human body.

And in many ways we do, just not when it comes to nudity. Being nude in public and social situations is still very much a taboo.

Trying to come up for a reason for this is very difficult. Laurie Baden, writing in the Ashland Daily Tidings, manages to make all the old familiar arguments against public nudity, without once coming up with one solid reason for what she refers to as "indecent exposure".

Let's talk about rights. What gives an adult, a complete stranger to a child, the right to scare or upset him or her and disrupt a child's environment by exposing their naked body? Isn't this an infringement on a child's right to know that he or she can expect people to appear appropriately — i.e., clothed — in public? Isn't this a violation of my right to not see someone naked if I don't choose to?

And what is to say that, if we have this "right to be nude in public" law, that it won't be a cover for pedophiles to have more access to the most vulnerable members of our community, our children? Where could the line be drawn by police when an adult is being inappropriate with a child in public?

It's stunning to me how people can talk about free expression and "rights", and then deny similar rights to others. There's no such things as "my rights" or "your rights", there can only be "our rights". This is the essence of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Laurie also writes that she is "all for free expression", but adds nudity as something she simply cannot tolerate. It's like saying she's all for equal rights for minorities, but those African-Americans can stay out of her neighborhood.

Fine, there are plenty of anti-nudity laws, but they have nothing to do with free expression or equal rights - they are the products of societal and cultural traditions. There is no "right" to not see nude people, only the laws created by public consensus. All this talk about pedophiles and potential harm to children is all hysterical nonsense with no basis in reality. Some of the worst abuse of children recently happened under the "eyes of God" by men wearing long robes and white collars.

Yes, civil liberties are very fragile these days, and people like Laurie Baden are making the situation worse by advocating the denial of liberties to people she simply does not agree with. Unfortunately, many laws in this country are passed out of irrational fears and not from intelligent decisions based on facts.

We need numbers, people, to stop this rapid erosion of our natural human rights.

All It Takes is One Nut Job

Mayor John Stromberg of Ashland, Oregon, has changed his mind about officially banning nudity around schools, even though he recently was opposed to such an ordinance.

When he cast the tie-breaking vote in September, Stromberg said he thought the issue would be better handled through a citizens' initiative process, in which residents get the issue on the ballot themselves if they can gather enough signatures.

He said the city had only had one case of a man being nude near a school, and that man had agreed to stay away from schools.

Earlier this summer, Tony Cooper, who was from California, upset some residents for his nude strolls through Ashland, especially when he appeared naked near Walker Elementary School as children were walking home.

"I'm changing my position because this latest case involves someone who says he came to Ashland from Minnesota in order to be naked near our schools," Stromberg stated in his Wednesday e-mail to city and school staff and the Daily Tidings. "I think we want to avoid becoming an attraction for exhibitionists using our school children."

Although the man from Minnesota is causing alarm, there is no evidence that he is a sex offender, or that there's any legal reason that he cannot be around children. But that hasn't stopped people from getting very angry, including one man who threatened to "kick his ass", even though the man is legally within his rights. Oregon has no law banning nudity, only public indecency, which would involve sexual arousal.

I want to be clear that I personally don't support this nude man, would never suggest that anyone confront the public with nudity to cause alarm, and that nudists and naturists should condemn his disturbing behavior in no uncertain terms.

But the issue here is not really nudity, yet the mayor and city councilors are now set to ban nudity. The real issue is this lone nut job, who is hanging around schools scaring children, and is behaving contrary to what is acceptable in public. Does anyone really think this man would be any less creepy with pants on? Is anyone really going to feel safer around this man simply because he's being forced to wear clothes? In days gone by, the citizens would simply "run him out of town on a rail", which actually seems like a pretty good idea in this case.

Oregon has gotten along just fine all these years without banning nudity. There is no reason to write laws which restrict all citizens simply because of the behavior or a loner. If this man is upsetting children and parents with his behavior, he should be able to be controlled with current laws which prohibit creating a disturbance.

Even though an anti-nudity ordinance will not solve the problem, it will make many people "feel" better, and politicians will have the opportunity to put on a show for the voters.

Ashland Police Chief Terry Holderness weighed in:

"If someone is not violating the law, we are very limited in what we can do, even if the community is concerned about the activity in question. In situations like this, the most we can legally and ethically do is determine whether or not a law is being broken and attempt to keep the peace."

That sounds like a pretty good policy. Ashland should stick with it.

"Please don't let him walk around naked"

I am not an advocate of random solo nudity by people in public because it's too hostile and aggressive in a society so deeply invested in its own clothing. Walking around nude near schools or shopping malls is tantamount to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre - you will only create a tempest, and attract the attention of police.

Nudists are not exhibitionists, as this article suggests, nor are they looking for trouble. All nudists and naturists really want is some public land set aside for nude recreation, a few stretches of beaches, or some parkland. Put up signs to warn people to expect nudity, and let people enjoy their natural freedom.

So when someone pushes the textile envelope, like the 66 year-old man who walked nude near an Oregon school, it sends the wrong message, and only serves to perpetuate the myth that nudists are weirdos, or even perverts.

And worst of all, this sort of "in-your-face" public nudity brings out emotional, passionate arguments, which always manage to sway public opinion, and push public officials to seek new legislation prohibiting people from wearing no clothes.

One woman recounted how her granddaughter was frightened by the naked, 66-year-old man walking near her elementary school in June. Ashland School District employee Lori Davis, who helped calm the girl, said the officer who arrived at the scene told them nothing could be done unless the man was visibly aroused.

The grandmother, who asked that her name not be used to protect her granddaughter's privacy, read a letter to the council from the girl. The child wrote that seeing the man made her feel gross inside.

"Will you please don't let him walk around naked because I wouldn't want him to scare my little sisters," the girl wrote.

For the record, the man who strolled nude through this town did not misbehave, or perform any lewd acts. Instead of reassuring this little girl that the sight of a nude human being is not something that should scar her for life, the grandmother has actually encouraged her to be afraid, to be grossed out, and to reject nudity as a societal evil, without even knowing why.

Children should never be used by parents or politicians to further legislative agendas. It's fine to kiss babies on the campaign trail, but it's not acceptable to use the words and emotions of children in making policy.

We can only hope that the members of the Ashland City Council will use common sense and not try and expand its partial ban on public nudity. The fact that they have instructed the city attorney to reseach the legality of the current ordinance shows that perhaps they are looking for a way out of dealing with the issue. Passing a potentially unconstitutional ordinance based on the harmless nudity of one man, and the words of a child, is simply foolish, and a waste of the public's time and money.

Going Nude in Public? Don't Do It Alone

Tony Cooper, the 66 year-old man who took a naked stroll through Ashland, Oregon, last month, did not break any laws, but his wandering into a school zone wearing only tennis shoes has people calling for a ban on public nudity.

Cooper said he didn't realize he was near a school and didn't intend for the kids there to see him. "That was my mistake," he said. "I messed up completely."..."People in Ashland seem to be very paranoid about kids," he said. "I think they should all send their kids to a nudist resort or have naked day in Ashland where everyone is naked. Then all of those hang-ups would disappear."

In a society so heavily-invested in clothing and body shame, it's not a good idea for one individual to push the envelope on public nudity. Even though Cooper might actually be a sincere nudist and body advocate, his unilateral actions will be perceived by most as kooky, or even perverted.

It's far better to organize groups of people for nude events, such as the World Naked Bike Ride, AANR's skinny-dipping event, or Spencer Tunick's nude photography installations.

When Tunick was taking photos of only a handful of nude people on city streets, he was being arrested. Now that he has thousands of participants, he receives police protection, and is welcomed wherever he goes.

While some cities such as Boulder are still resisting full nudity in the WNBR, the protest event seems to be picking up steam around the world with more and more people participating. This year in London around 1200 riders bared all to being awareness about oil dependency.

And the city of Fremont seems to really love the naked bike riders who kick off the annual Solstice Parade.

After an attempt to exclude nudity from the annual Bay to Breakers run in San Francisco, the numbers of people protesting were so great that organizers backed down and there were more naked people than ever strolling through Golden Gate Park.

Women's topfreedom in Columbus has become a true tradition at the annual Comfest event at a downtown park, and this year I observed more topfree women than ever before. The silly argument that the sight of nude female breasts is somehow harmful to children is debunked in Ohio every year as tons of children frolic in Goodale Park completely oblivious to the women not wearing shirts.

It's going to take more and more mass demonstrations of body freedom before society truly adapts to the idea that exposure of skin is neither shameful nor perverted. It makes me wonder if all the well-intentioned work of the Naturist Action Committee in pursuing legal actions for hot spots such as Huntington Beach and San Onofre Beach in California wouldn't be better directed to organizing protest events to work on public perceptions.

It's logical to assume that a society willing to accept public nudity in downtown parks would embrace nakedness in it's most obvious and natural setting - a beach. What is needed is an army of a thousand people, all nude with body paint and protest signs, marching on San Onofre beach with members of the press in tow. What is needed is a thousand women, all bare breasted, descending unannounced onto a public beach to mingle with the suited multitudes until they blend in.

But going it alone isn't the way to win the hearts and minds of a public which has been ingrained with the notion that nudity is sexual, shameful, forbidden, dangerous, and illegal.