View Full Version : The Naked Ramblers
There was a programme on BBC1 last night on the Naked Rambler which I caught the tail end of (:)).
It told the story of a man who believes that nudity should not be an issue for anyone and feels he has the right to walk the UK from top to bottom (;)) completly in the buff. He doesn't just keep to uninhabited areas but will happily walk in to shops and other public areas.
It's one thing to be a naturist and be nude in clubs and even beaches. But is it OK to practice this in full view of everyone and anyone? Does this overstep the mark or are we too prude.
Adam and Eve were naked initially so you could say that it is how we are "supposed" to be etc etc. We are all born nude......etc.
What do you feel?
(Nugget ........resist!)
In this weather, you probably wouldn't feel a lot ;) (sorry, I just couldn't help myself :D )
Seriously though, it wouldn't particularly bother me - although he'd probably come up against (:erm: ) the long arm of the law at some point.
If he (or anyone) wants to walk around naked, then fair enough (although I'd not be too happy if I was presented with some hairy-@rsed bloke wandering down the high street while I was eating a hot dog :disturbd: )
Naturism certainly is not natural - if we were meant to walk around with no clothes on then we'd have been born that way.
Naturism certainly is not natural - if we were meant to walk around with no clothes on then we'd have been born that way.
That explains a lot - we all know that there's nothing natural about you :PP:
orangebird
30-11-2005, 10:35
Naturism certainly is not natural - if we were meant to walk around with no clothes on then we'd have been born that way.
:erm: We were all born naked....
I don't really have a problem with it. No different to a woman getting her boob out to breastfeed her child imo. :shrug:
:erm: We were all born naked....
There's no stopping you this morning is there?
:D ;)
I watched that programme and it was thoroughly entertaining. The guy had a point in that when he was arrested (several times) he asked 'Why is the human body indecent?'. Can't argue with that. However, he was, frankly, a total ******, which kind of undermined his protest. And he actively sought confrontation whilst his girlfriend was somewhat more considered in her approach.
The funniest bit though, was a bloke called Graham (surely not?!!) who was an uber-naturist and berated the others for wearing clothes when putting up their tents and to sleep in. He was more naturist than thou.
orangebird
30-11-2005, 10:36
There's no stopping you this morning is there?
:D ;)
I'm in rather a good humoured mood today - check out the employee forum ;)
Unless you believe God gave us clothes in the beginning to enforce and support a moral standard then there is no logical reason to oppose this guy.
Unless you believe God gave us clothes in the beginning to enforce and support a moral standard then there is no logical reason to oppose this guy.
I don't think anyone should oppose him - what they should do is keep a really close eye if he offers to shake your hand :disturbd:
I don't think anyone should oppose him - what they should do is keep a really close eye if he offers to shake your hand :disturbd:
You can't do it can you? Yield Yield Yield......;)
---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 ----------
Repeat after me.
"My name is Nugget and I'm a pun-oholic..."
Did anyone see the bit where the cameraman was attacked and chased by a lunatic woman? It was hilarious. He ran half a mile pleading with her "But I'm wearing clothes" whilst the nudists pointedly failed to come to his assistance. He actually took some quite nasty cuts, so maybe I shouldn't giggle, but sod it, it was funny. Bizarrely this incident did not happen in an urban area but on a coastal path.
Interesting to see reactions though. If that film is in any way accurate, it would seem most people were not in the slightest people offended, least not the funeral party who said their deceased mother would have found it all very amusing!
---------- Post added at 11:14 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------
Unless you believe God gave us clothes in the beginning to enforce and support a moral standard then there is no logical reason to oppose this guy.
As an atheist I would simply proffer that nudity is natural and shouldn't offend. There is also, of course, the hypocrisy of displaying nudity in a non-sexual way in a society where we are constantly bombarded by sexual imagery.
It's a bit parky out there for me to show my support today.
There is also, of course, the hypocrisy of displaying nudity in a non-sexual way in a society where we are constantly bombarded by sexual imagery.
Very true, IMO that highlights the lack of a consistent moral framework, everyone gets things the way they want without any boundaries until it becomes a problem for someone else.
Most people only care about hypocrisy once it affects them directly.
You can't do it can you? Yield Yield Yield......;)
---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 ----------
Repeat after me.
"My name is Nugget and I'm a pun-oholic..."
It's an illness, you know :disturbd:
djstevie
30-11-2005, 11:53
I watched it as well..The bit where the looney woman chased the cameraman was well funny :D
They almost made the complete journey as well...Something like 200miles from the end (They were going from Lands End to John O Groats)
From what i was led to believe the guy is still in prison.
The main guy was a bit of a tos**r though. Fair play though he did manage to have two birds on the go at one point and even suggested they all "cuddle up" together:D
From what i was led to believe the guy is still in prison.
I think he escaped to El Salvador (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4483926.stm) !! :D
Actually I though the bloke was a mean miserly character who cheated on his gf. The gf was quite cute.
Naturism certainly is not natural - if we were meant to walk around with no clothes on then we'd have been born that way.
<Rimshot> :D
He would clearly suffer from hypothermia if he went anywher ein the UK this time of year naked.
I think if people want to go around in the nude its best they do it where they won't be seen by everyone else.
<Rimshot> :D
:Yikes:
I sincerely hope not, for his sake!
:disturbd:
Fair enough if he wants to walk around naked (we're all naked under our clothes). But I dont want my young innocent sons and daughters exposed to these sights.
I dont want my young innocent sons and daughters exposed to these sights.
Yes, absolutely children should be protected from the sight of naked people because that might make them turn into raving sex maniacs or traumatise them for life or, even worse, make them think that its (urgh!) *normal*...! :rolleyes:
Not quite....although I'd rather have some degree of control over when my daughter learns the physical differences between men and women.
The sooner we remove that embarassed coyness about the naked body, the better. Remember we're talking just of nudity, not of erotica. The nude body is in itself not sexual.
The sooner we remove that embarassed coyness about the naked body, the better.
If we replace this coyness with a 'caution' then perhaps we'd all be closer to agreeing.
The nude body is in itself not sexual.
I hear you. A nude Myleene Klass wouldn't be sexual at all, would it.... :spin:
The sooner we remove that embarassed coyness about the naked body, the better.
If we replace this coyness with a 'caution' then perhaps we'd all be closer to agreeing.
I agree, the sooner we remove that exaggerated caution about the naked body (which, of course, is obviously linked to the possibilty of molestation! :rolleyes: ) the better.
budwieser
03-12-2005, 13:26
If we replace this coyness with a 'caution' then perhaps we'd all be closer to agreeing.
"I hear you. A nude Myleene Klass wouldn't be sexual at all, would it.... :spin:"
Not at all!:disturbd: :disturbd: :disturbd: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:
Yes, absolutely children should be protected from the sight of naked people because that might make them turn into raving sex maniacs or traumatise them for life or, even worse, make them think that its (urgh!) *normal*...! :rolleyes:
Okay, so i took my 5 year-old daughter to see some naked men in the showers at my local gym. He pointed to one man's groin and said "Whats that? It looks like a willy only smaller".
Happy now?
I agree, the sooner we remove that exaggerated caution about the naked body (which, of course, is obviously linked to the possibilty of molestation! :rolleyes: ) the better.
There's nothing wrong with a measure of caution, I'm sure you'll agree?
Okay, so i took my 5 year-old daughter to see some naked men in the showers at my local gym. He pointed to one man's groin and said "Whats that? It looks like a willy only smaller".
Happy now?
Yep! :D :angel: (Sorry, but that was just too good to miss :) )
---------- Post added at 02:08 ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 ----------
I agree, the sooner we remove that exaggerated caution about the naked body (which, of course, is obviously linked to the possibilty of molestation! :rolleyes: ) the better.
There's nothing wrong with a measure of caution, I'm sure you'll agree?
Of course, but there's a difference between this bloke and, for example, a flasher leaping out of the bushes and going "Hey kid, get a load of THIS!"
I don't think that's in any dispute - my point is I'd rather have more control over when my daughter is introduced to the biological differences between men and women. I'm all for things in the right time and place, hence I would not take her to a nudist beach for instance for the forseeable future.
I hear you. A nude Myleene Klass wouldn't be sexual at all, would it.... :spin: Her nudity does not necessarily exude sexuality. Your perception and fantasies are another matter altogether! :)
---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 ----------
I don't think that's in any dispute - my point is I'd rather have more control over when my daughter is introduced to the biological differences between men and women. I'm all for things in the right time and place, hence I would not take her to a nudist beach for instance for the forseeable future.
A nudist beach would in fact, IMO, be an excellent place to explain the naked body and biological differences because it's not going to be a tee-hee- look-at-the-titties kind of place, because nudityy is the norm and is shown to be perfectly natural.
BTW, if The Observer is reporting correctly today, it might be that some of that tee-hee culture is removed (and teenage preganancy rates apparently reduced). Sex education from 5 years upwards.
Her nudity does not necessarily exude sexuality.
Until either of us are in a position to be first-hand witnesses, neither of us can be sure of that ;)
A nudist beach would in fact, IMPO, be an excellent place to explain the naked body and biological differences because it's not going to be a tee-hee- look-at-the-titties kind of place, because nudityy is the norm and is shown to be perfectly natural.
It's not the kind of place where I'd be comfortable in pointing such things out to her. When she does leanr about that sort of thing, there will be an element of looking and 'staring' and bringing things to her attention. That sort of behaviour is generally frowned up on on nudist beaches.
I don't think that's in any dispute - my point is I'd rather have more control over when my daughter is introduced to the biological differences between men and women.
Why? What is it about "the biological differences between men and women" that is so (disturbing? Worrying? Scary? Distasteful? Other? You tell me) to you that you feel it has to be "controlled" in this way or that it can somehow (harm? Upset? Disturb? Other? As above) your child?
I'm all for things in the right time and place, hence I would not take her to a nudist beach for instance for the forseeable future.
Why on earth not?
It's not as if there is any sexual context to going to a nudist beach, so you wouldn't be risking "corrupting" your child.
Or is it (and this is not an "attack question") that *you*, for whatever reason, have difficulties with "the biological differences between men and women" and don't know how to deal with them, let alone explain them to a child?
walking naked should be compulsary for those under 35 years old and under 15 stone, espically for females, men optional.:disturbd: :LOL: :Peaceman:
Why? What is it about "the biological differences between men and women" that is so (disturbing? Worrying? Scary? Distasteful? Other? You tell me)
Oh Graham, where on earth to you give up....
to you that you feel it has to be "controlled" in this way or that it can somehow (harm? Upset? Disturb? Other? As above) your child?
On top form today or what?
Have you thought of the possibility that maybe it's quite a big thing for children to learn about so I want to have as big a say in it as possible? Or is it more comfortable to imagine me as the sort of person who thinks that this idea of nudity would "harm, upset or disturb" my daughter?
Why on earth not?
If you can't be bothered to read my post properly then I can't be bothered to repeat myself.
Or is it (and this is not an "attack question") that *you*, for whatever reason, have difficulties with "the biological differences between men and women" and don't know how to deal with them, let alone explain them to a child?
Yes, Graham, that's exactly the reason... :rolleyes:
Until either of us are in a position to be first-hand witnesses, neither of us can be sure of that ;)
Er no, she might decide to use her nudity to titillate, you might find her nudity titillating, but her nudity in itself is not necessarily sexual. We may be nude and sexual, we may be nude and be just, well, nude.
It's not the kind of place where I'd be comfortable in pointing such things out to her. When she does leanr about that sort of thing, there will be an element of looking and 'staring' and bringing things to her attention. That sort of behaviour is generally frowned up on on nudist beaches. If she's brought up with nudity, such reactions are far less likely to happen. Naturists would I'm sure be upset at staring etc from adults, but not from small children who are by nature curious. They are learning about life at a rate of knots.
Er no, she might decide to use her nudity to titillate, you might find her nudity titillating, but her nudity in itself is not necessarily sexual.
You and I could not possibly disagree more....
If she's brought up with nudity, such reactions are far less likely to happen.
I don't mind her being brought up with it - it's the introduction that I want to have control over.
Have you thought of the possibility that maybe it's quite a big thing for children to learn about so I want to have as big a say in it as possible?
Actually, no I haven't, but since you mention it and I've had a chance to think about it, no, I don't think it's a "big thing for children to learn about" and I'm puzzled as to why you should think that it is unless, perhaps, for you, when you were a child, it was a "big thing"?
I've been naturist swimming with my sister and brother in law and my two god-sons. There people of all ages, from children of three (my youngest god-son) to a couple who must have been in their 70's.
Somehow it didn't seem to be a "big thing" to anyone there that these children were learning about the differences between men and women.
None of those children appeared to be shocked or traumatised by the experience, none of them were going "look at him/ her", and, frankly I think most, if not all, of the parents, had they been asked would have said "what's the big deal?"
The only way I think this *could* be a big deal is if those children had been *denied* that knowledge or possibly taught that it is "wrong" to see people without clothes on (or even that it's "sinful"!) and thus they then have the "big thing" of trying to reconcile the contradictions between what they have been taught before and what they are learning now.
Or is it more comfortable to imagine me as the sort of person who thinks that this idea of nudity would "harm, upset or disturb" my daughter?
I can only base my opinions on what you have written. Oh and where you say...
Why on earth not?
If you can't be bothered to read my post properly then I can't be bothered to repeat myself.
I am aware that you said "I'm all for things in the right time and place" which is fair enough, however you *continued* by saying "hence I would not take her to a nudist beach for instance for the forseeable future.".
Given that, as far as I am aware from previous posts by you, your daughter is just over two years old, I would be interested in how long this "foreseeable future" is in which you would not take your daughter to a nudist beach on the grounds that I would have thought that this would be an *ideal* time for her to do so ie *before* she gets told by anyone that the biological difference between men and women is a "big deal".
There again, I also remember you saying in post #3, with what I *presumed* to be humorous irony: "Naturism certainly is not natural - if we were meant to walk around with no clothes on then we'd have been born that way."
Did I misread this?
Or is it (and this is not an "attack question") that *you*, for whatever reason, have difficulties with "the biological differences between men and women" and don't know how to deal with them, let alone explain them to a child?
Yes, Graham, that's exactly the reason... :rolleyes:
Sorry, did you not read the bit where I said 'this is not an "attack question"'?
It was a genuine enquiry, hence why I included that statement, and I find it regrettable that you felt it necessary to respond in this way.
---------- Post added at 21:00 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------
It's not the kind of place where I'd be comfortable in pointing such things out to her. When she does leanr about that sort of thing, there will be an element of looking and 'staring' and bringing things to her attention. That sort of behaviour is generally frowned up on on nudist beaches.
That sort of behaviour is frowned upon *from adults*.
Children are naturally curious, it's built into them, but they would not be staring at someone, especially not in a "sexual way" as an adult might and I doubt any adult on a naturist beach would be in the slightest bit offended by it.
If your daughter did start asking questions, why not just say "daddy will explain this later"?
The nude body is in itself not sexual.
I hear you. A nude Myleene Klass wouldn't be sexual at all, would it.... :spin:
Depends how she posed, and what she was doing at the time.
If she was standing there doing the housework, I probably wouldn't think much of it..
Actually, no I haven't, but since you mention it and I've had a chance to think about it, no, I don't think it's a "big thing for children to learn about" and I'm puzzled as to why you should think that it is unless, perhaps, for you, when you were a child, it was a "big thing"?
Graham why do you seem so intent on putting this down to my own apparent (as well as non-existent) 'issues'?
My daughter (at almost 2 and a half) has not seen full adult (or any age group) male nudity. In her own world, she believes everyone has the same 'equipment' as her (please don't starting bleating on about wanting 'proof' of this or it's just my "opinion" etc) so when she starts to find out that things aren't how they seem to her, i want to be there to guide and help her.
I've been naturist swimming with my sister and brother in law and my two god-sons.
Yes, I used to go too, about 9 years ago.
I am aware that you said "I'm all for things in the right time and place" which is fair enough, however you *continued* by saying "hence I would not take her to a nudist beach for instance for the forseeable future.".
I'd rather her be gently introduced to the biological differences than be surrounded* by 'peni' (I know no such word exists but what is the correct plural?).
There again, I also remember you saying in post #3, with what I *presumed* to be humorous irony: "Naturism certainly is not natural - if we were meant to walk around with no clothes on then we'd have been born that way."
Did I misread this?
Graham......PLEASE....please tell me you did not think I was serious with that comment. You mentioned you pressumed it was irony....do yourself a favour and stick to that way of thinking....!
Sorry, did you not read the bit where I said 'this is not an "attack question"'?
Yes - but a few times in this thread you seem to want to base my opinion on my own supposed hang ups/issues/whatever with nudity - all of which is incorrect conjecture on your part - and now that I've put that one to rest, please don't try to put it down to that again.
It was a genuine enquiry, hence why I included that statement, and I find it regrettable that you felt it necessary to respond in this way.
That sort of behaviour is frowned upon *from adults*.
Children are naturally curious, it's built into them, but they would not be staring at someone, especially not in a "sexual way" as an adult might and I doubt any adult on a naturist beach would be in the slightest bit offended by it.
I know - which is why I earlier said I have nothing against her being on such a beach, it's the introduction to this which I want control over.
If your daughter did start asking questions, why not just say "daddy will explain this later"?
Cheers Graham, when I want advice on parenting, I'll know who to ask...
*not literally surrounded - you know what I mean.
I'd rather her be gently introduced to the biological differences than be surrounded* by 'peni' (I know no such word exists but what is the correct plural?).
According to dictionary.com. the plural is penises.
Ahh right thanks. It's just one of those words what doesn't sound right :disturbd:
Actually, no I haven't, but since you mention it and I've had a chance to think about it, no, I don't think it's a "big thing for children to learn about" and I'm puzzled as to why you should think that it is unless, perhaps, for you, when you were a child, it was a "big thing"?
Graham why do you seem so intent on putting this down to my own apparent (as well as non-existent) 'issues'?
Russ, for someone who has already complained in this thread about my "not bothering to read your post properly", perhaps you could do me the same courtesy.
Starting by noticing that there is a *question mark* at the end of the paragraph and that it is thus an *enquiry*, not a *statement* would be a good thing (also see later).
My daughter (at almost 2 and a half) has not seen full adult (or any age group) male nudity. In her own world, she believes everyone has the same 'equipment' as her (please don't starting bleating on about wanting 'proof' of this or it's just my "opinion" etc)
"Bleating on"...? A nice constructive term, Russ.
Still, it's nice to know that you're capable of reading the mind of a two year old and knowing exactly what she thinks "in her own world"!
so when she starts to find out that things aren't how they seem to her, i want to be there to guide and help her.
That's all well and good, but how exactly do you plan to manage this?
I've been naturist swimming with my sister and brother in law and my two god-sons.
Yes, I used to go too, about 9 years ago.
So why do you feel you are unable to take your daughter there?
I am having great difficulty understanding your reasoning.
I am aware that you said "I'm all for things in the right time and place" which is fair enough, however you *continued* by saying "hence I would not take her to a nudist beach for instance for the forseeable future.".
Again, how do you plan to manage this "gentle introduction"? Even if you only take her to a regular swimming pool, if you take her on your own she's going to have to go with you into the men's changing rooms and the chances are that, at some point, she's going to see a grown man naked.
And I still don't understand *why* you are so concerned about this.
Nobody is talking about her being "surrounded" (your word, including the qualification you added) by penises (or penes, either is valid according to Collins).
[QUOTE=Graham]There again, I also remember you saying in post #3, with what I *presumed* to be humorous irony: "Naturism certainly is not natural - if we were meant to walk around with no clothes on then we'd have been born that way."
Did I misread this?
Graham......PLEASE....please tell me you did not think I was serious with that comment. You mentioned you pressumed it was irony....do yourself a favour and stick to that way of thinking....!
Russ, please do me the favour of reading that in the context of the paragraph before it and then check *your* irony detector is switched on...
Sorry, did you not read the bit where I said 'this is not an "attack question"'?
Yes - but a few times in this thread you seem to want to base my opinion on my own supposed hang ups/issues/whatever with nudity - all of which is incorrect conjecture on your part - and now that I've put that one to rest, please don't try to put it down to that again.
See my comment about the question mark at the top of this post and then try taking that chip off your shoulder as regards this and the comments below which I have removed as not being helpful or constructive in this discussion.
Starting by noticing that there is a *question mark* at the end of the paragraph and that it is thus an *enquiry*, not a *statement* would be a good thing (also see later).
Statement or not, you've brought it up more than once.
"Bleating on"...? A nice constructive term, Russ.
Whatever. You still understood.
Still, it's nice to know that you're capable of reading the mind of a two year old and knowing exactly what she thinks "in her own world"!
Try reading it IN context - I was referring to the fact she has not seen full fontal male nudity in her life.
That's all well and good, but how exactly do you plan to manage this?
How I do that is my own business but it won't involve taking her to a nudist beach.
So why do you feel you are unable to take your daughter there?
a) It closed 5 years ago.
b) There aren't any others close enough around here.
c) It's not the kind of way of life I wish to lead.
Take your pick really.
I am having great difficulty understanding your reasoning.
Probably because you and I have very different views on this sort of thing.
Again, how do you plan to manage this "gentle introduction"? Even if you only take her to a regular swimming pool, if you take her on your own she's going to have to go with you into the men's changing rooms and the chances are that, at some point, she's going to see a grown man naked.
In which case, I'd be in control of the situation.
And I still don't understand *why* you are so concerned about this.
As I said, you and I see things differently.
Nobody is talking about her being "surrounded" (your word, including the qualification you added) by penises (or penes, either is valid according to Collins).
There's a pretty good chance of it being like that at a nudist beach.
Russ, please do me the favour of reading that in the context of the paragraph before it and then check *your* irony detector is switched on...
Well don't make such irrelevant statements then.
See my comment about the question mark at the top of this post and then try taking that chip off your shoulder as regards this and the comments below which I have removed as not being helpful or constructive in this discussion.
Just because my views are different from yours does NOT mean I have a chip on my shoulder.
And you missed out the words "in my opinion" to that last statement.
Russ, there is absolutely nothing in that last post that's relevant enough to the discussion to bother replying to.
:walk:
My kids have seen both of us naked ever since they were born. I'm perplexed as to why nudity should perplex or whatever a 2 1/2 year old. Of course when she's 10 or whatever it might be a deal because she's not seen it before. It is of course your decision as her dad though.
greencreeper
06-12-2005, 23:18
Suppose it's an opportunity to put those odd socks to good use :erm:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.